Crime Experts Say Peaceful Dialogue Is Best Defense

 Crime Satire

In light of the high-profile shootings in recent years, crime experts have released a new tool for the average citizen to defend themselves against attack by muggers and armed burglars: peaceful dialogue. The best thing a citizen can do to resist crime, is not resist, according to experts.

Frank Jones, spokesman of the Chicago chapter of Society for Understanding Criminal Killers and Eschewing Reality (SUCKER), stated that his staff has distributed a leaflet entitled “Your Attacker and You: How to Engage a Violent Criminal in Peaceful Dialogue” to people in high crime areas. The literature includes offering your burglar a cold beer on a hot sunny afternoon, or the chance for a carjacker to test the quality of one’s new BMW before he steals it. When asked how successful he believes the leaflet has worked, Jones replied that it is working very well. He went on to elaborate that his organization does not typically feel a need to operate in “gun free zones,” as no shootings or any kind of violence occur in such places.

When asked whether people should be allowed to maintain a weapon for self-defense against a violent criminal, Jones responded with a resounding “No.” He stated that private citizens have no need for a gun, pepper spray, or any other weapon. He indicates that such a person is only a danger to themselves, or worse, the poor misunderstood soul approaching them with a weapon. “If people simply read the new leaflet we produced, they would see that a pleasant conversation is the best defense against injury.” When asked if people should still be allowed to install burglar alarms in their homes, he answered that it is still acceptable, for now, but that the noise might disturb the home invader, and make it impossible to hear the homeowner offer assistance with loading a heavy stereo into his getaway truck, so more research is being done on how to avoid that problem.

Rounding out the press conference, one reporter for the Associated Press asked if SUCKER and other experts had any further plans for their latest strategy. Jones answered positively, stating that he expects arrests in his city to drop by 80 percent by the end of 2014. When asked how such a remarkable drop in crime could occur so quickly, he explained that when confronting a violent criminal, a police officer should no longer make an arrest. Instead, the new policy would be to utilize the “Peaceful Dialogue” method. Jones explains, “Imagine the following scenario: we have an incident where an officer interrupted a break-in at a warehouse. The officer discusses with the thief why this is wrong, and that it’s best if he does not do that. The crook is very appreciative, and they shake hands. Our officer makes sure to lock the warehouse door, after the thief had loaded everything in his van and left.” He went on to say that it is private citizens defending themselves against aggression that should be against the law.

Other cities have announced plans to start SUCKER chapters. Detroit announced that since distributing its own literature, arrests should drop 16 percent by the end of the first quarter. Mike Stewart, who hopes to be the first president of the Detroit chapter, stated at a press conference that “This is definitely a way for the city of Detroit to encourage co-existence between criminals and the average citizen.”

Experts say only a fool would have outdated delusions of resisting violent crime by means of personal security. A truly progressive, civilized person will use the latest defense strategy. A dialogue, and maintaining an air of peaceful acquiescence are the best defense against attack. “Just look at how safe Detroit and Chicago are right now,” said Stewart, “the criminally violent need love too.”

Satire by Ian Erickson

23 Responses to "Crime Experts Say Peaceful Dialogue Is Best Defense"

  1. Ian Erickson   March 8, 2014 at 6:08 am

    Anyone see the racist ad by Moms Demand Action?

    Reply
  2. Steve   March 3, 2014 at 6:58 pm

    Panthia Shut up. You do not have a right to speak. You are the poster child of abortion. Back to the Kitchen woman.

    Reply
  3. PaperTargetDestroyer   March 3, 2014 at 6:54 pm

    Panthia Walsh, you didn’t happen to post anti-gun screeds on the Liberal Gun Club forums about a year or so ago, did you?

    Reply
    • Panthia Walsh   March 5, 2014 at 7:03 am

      A few months after Sandy Hook I signed up to educate the Liberal Gun Club members on the evils of guns since a person cannot reasonably be both progressive and anti child. I wanted to see if they would be willing to listen to a commonsense approach to gun control such as what Moms Demand Action was proposing. Unfortunately in the end many chose their love of guns over children, though I did get a lot of support privately from their members.

      I have since grasped that a big part of their member base is actually Moms Demand Action supporters heroically trying to defeat this cancer on our children before the sickening idea of progressives owning guns goes anywhere. They are the ones mainly from California and the northeast who come across as sensible while the rest sound like NRA members from the south and heartland.

      All that said, there is a lot of talk there about unforgivable things like indoctrinating children into the terroristic violence of gun culture with things like junior leagues for shooting and children’s range events. This has to be stopped, and I posted about the evils of the “Liberal” Gun Club on Moms Demand Action’s Facebook recently. I did this because Moms Demand Action needs to counter the hatred that comes from online communities promoting the culture of gun violence by standing up for children and getting those websites shut down. The pressure we use on companies to get them to make their stores safe for our children also needs to be applied against sites that promote violence through owning guns “legally” and their hosting services. Our children do not need to be reading on the web that playing with guns is fun. They need to fear guns as instruments of murder in order to be kept safe.

      Reply
  4. thmsmgnm   March 3, 2014 at 6:34 pm

    The criminal class think this is great advice and that you should all take it.

    Reply
  5. Ian Erickson   March 3, 2014 at 12:05 pm

    Isaac is absolutely right Panthia. No one is advocating lethal violence as an initial response to any confrontation. But as he says, bad people do exist, and they are not guided by social etiquette.

    As someone who appears liberal (if you are not, let me know) I have to ask, do you believe a gay person has the right to resist homophobic assault physically if need be? How about a black man in circa 1960 Mississippi being confronted by a bunch of white trash in white sheets?

    No one has the right to “look for a fight” especially when employing a weapon such as a gun, or even a baseball bat. However, no one has the obligation to be a crime statistic, just so the mourners at their funeral will say how “civilized” he was.

    In spite of disagreeing with you, I appreciate your taking the time to respond. Have a nice day.

    Reply
    • Panthia Walsh   March 3, 2014 at 2:16 pm

      If gun owners turned in all their weapons we would not have the lethal violence situations of which you speak. Even bad people can be reasoned with. Are you suggesting gay people and African Americans should arm themselves to protect themselves against average white gun owning NRA members? Then we will have more guns, and that is not a solution. More children would be killed, and as an MDA member I find that unacceptable. The “bad people” you mentioned ARE the gun owners, so taking their guns would be a win for everyone.

      People with weapons are more likely to look for a fight. Just ask George Zimmerman. I disagree with your opinion that being unarmed leads to a person becoming a crime statistic. Also, in a civilized society we should not be murdering each other. Nothing is worth becoming barbaric no matter what the NRA says.

      Repealing the second amendment would bring peace to this country. How much gun violence could we have if the government took the guns away from all these people who think they have a legal right to own them at the expense of children’s lives?

      Reply
      • Jordy Jones   March 3, 2014 at 6:33 pm

        Head in the sand much? Are NRA members assaulting gays and blacks?

        The “bad guys” are generally unlawful gun owners, meaning they all already forbidden to own guns but do anyway – because criminals ignore laws!!!

        So you just want all law abiding citizens to be unarmed against the criminals, right? Sorry, but guns are not just going to magically disappear from the planet – no matter what the unicorns tell you. Just because you for something like no bad people in the world, doesn’t make it so – there will always be evil to deal with.

        You might want to start banning knives in China, I hear there are people doing mass knife attacks over there 😉

        Reply
        • Panthia Walsh   March 5, 2014 at 5:49 am

          Sorry but the NRA is at least indirectly responsible for the deaths of children murdered by guns. Did you hear their comments after Sandy Hook? Without the guns or the NRA we would not have those murders. You cannot pin NRA backed gun murders on a few people you think are bad just because they got their guns illegally from legal gun owners at gun shows.

          More guns are not the answer. Disarming so-called “law abiding” gun owners is a logical first step in ending gun violence. “Law abiding” people do not need to be hunting down the less fortunate and people in the middle of bettering themselves, like Trayvon Martin, just to kill them.

          Reply
      • Buzz   March 3, 2014 at 8:46 pm

        Tell that to those 10 Chinese dudes who just slaughtered 24 people with knives, and cut up over 100 others at a train station. The sad part about your ignorance is that it will forever keep you from being self aware. It’s sad and pathetic.

        Reply
      • Buzz   March 3, 2014 at 8:54 pm

        Seriously, I want you to sit at your little computer in your home, reach into your Liberal mind and tell me — be 100% honest — tell me that if you were at that train station in China the other evening, you would have stood there and had a dialogue with those knife wielding maniacs. PLEASE sit there and tell me you would have tried to strike up a conversation with them, and that was the ONLY way to stop them….not the police who finally showed up after 130 had already been killed or injured, and killed 5 of them before arresting the rest. PLEASE tell me your dialogue would have stopped them and nothing else was needed. PLEASE go ahead and try that lie. We all already know the answer. Notice how hard you’re trying to convince everyone to believe in your distorted mind. Nobody else is here with you believing in this wild dream of yours. ——— I’m seriously waiting for you to respond with what you would have done in China at that train station.

        Reply
        • Panthia Walsh   March 5, 2014 at 5:39 am

          Maybe someone who spoke Mandarin could have talked him down.

          Anyway, I am talking about gun violence in America and American gun culture, not China.

          Reply
  6. Isaac Newton   March 3, 2014 at 9:01 am

    No one has any right to speak about gun free zones, really? We lost that right because children died? What planet do you live on? You are more close minded than anybody I know if you are unwilling to even hear the other side. And you can keep your “peaceful acquiescence”, I’d rather make sure that myself or my loved ones don’t end up dead.

    Reply
    • Panthia Walsh   March 3, 2014 at 10:35 am

      This is not 1776. You do not need to defend your family in a civil society. Try talking to people for a change rather than just using any confrontation as an excuse to shoot someone. You are more likely to shoot yourself or your children than anyone else with your guns.

      Reply
      • Isaac Newton   March 3, 2014 at 11:45 am

        Obviously you live in a dream world where nothing bad ever happens. I don’t seek out confrontation but sometimes if you’re unlucky it finds you. And I for one think that some, not all mind you, will not react the way you believe everybody will just by asking politely “please don’t hurt me”. Because yes, we are a civil society, but last I checked crime still happens. Tell a criminal they aren’t supposed to harm another person, see how that works for you. And I am more likely to shoot myself? No. That is why I train regularly with safe gun handling practices. Go ahead and live your life like an ostrich with its head in the sand. It might work for you but I grew up a boy scout. Always prepared. Doesn’t mean I’ll ever use half of what I am prepared for, but I guarantee I’m better off than you.

        Reply
        • Panthia Walsh   March 3, 2014 at 12:08 pm

          You can reason with people instead of just shooting them. No matter how much gun training you get, your children are still in more danger from your guns than any threat you might imagine. Worse, you are indoctrinating them into gun culture, so they will grow up to be violent and terroristic. My children know never to touch a gun or even to look at one. They are better than that.

          Reply
          • Jordy Jones   March 3, 2014 at 6:37 pm

            You sound like you’ve lived your whole life in a lily white cocoon, insulated from the realities that many of us have lived through.

            Life ain’t all Beverly Hills 90210 in most of the US.

          • Panthia Walsh   March 5, 2014 at 5:36 am

            The reality is that gun violence is an epidemic in America. Watch the news and you will see reports of gun violence are at an unprecedented level. It touches all of us who care about our children. I choose children over guns. If we can save just one child’s life by taking all the guns from angry white males who cling to them so ferociously it will be worth it.

          • Buzz   March 3, 2014 at 8:48 pm

            That makes absolutely no sense. Why would someone else’s children not know not to touch guns? Why do only your children know this? Because you’re a hoplophobe?

  7. Panthia Walsh   March 3, 2014 at 5:55 am

    I do not appreciate your satire and think it is highly inappropriate in light of Sandy Hook. The fact is peaceful dialog is more effective than self defense at defending yourself. Antoinette Tuff is proof of this. http://www.npr.org/2013/08/22/214576953/911-call-captures-school-employee-talking-down-gunman. You think you are funny, but you got this part right:
    “Experts say only a fool would have outdated delusions of resisting violent crime by means of personal security. A truly progressive, civilized person will use the latest defense strategy. A dialogue, and maintaining an air of peaceful acquiescence are the best defense against attack.”

    Since Newtown, no one has any right to speak about “gun free zones” or guns. You lost that right when those children died because you want to have guns. Oh please. Aren’t we past barbarian rule?

    Reply
    • Buck Ofama   March 3, 2014 at 7:37 pm

      Let us know how “talking to” a rapist works out for you if that (rape) ever happens to you. (LOL).

      Reply
      • Panthia Walsh   March 5, 2014 at 5:25 am

        That is an inappropriate comment.

        Reply
        • Ian Erickson   September 10, 2014 at 12:29 pm

          Panthia,

          You said a person can’t be progressive and anti-child; could you explain why so many so-called progressives are pro-abortion? More children die at the end of an abortionist’s tool than at the end of a gun.

          Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.