Preparation is not a Dirty Word

Bad things happen, right?

But bad things only happen to other people - or so others would have you believe, perhaps?

Ironically, the last part of that statement, could be perceived as a subtle form of "scaremongering".

From experience, I can attest to the age old adage of "truth is generally stranger than fiction". In the wee small hours of the morning or lamenting on my own career, working undercover, nursing a half empty bottle of single malt, I regularly think back, with a wry smile, and ask myself "...how the fuck did that happen? How did I get out of THAT?" In some cases, I saw it coming - in others, I didn't, and that is no different to normal citizens and individuals, as they go about their normal daily lives.

This scaremongering label is consistently being perpetuated here on LinkedIn and the reason for it, is causing me some concern - even though I'm unsure what the reason is, for it happening. However, it seems to emanate from other training providers.

So riddle me this...

How can preparing yourself for something, be deemed as scaremongering, when that "something" is not only a prevalent threat; it is also a threat that is on the rise?

As an example, let's look at carjackings in the USA. Even the term "carjacking" sounds ominous right? Scary even - because it conjures up images of masked and armed assailants, using violence (or the threat of violence) to rob you of you car.

It is something that most of us cannot claim to ever having experienced, and yet, carjackings are on the rise in the USA.

Stats from 2022

And yet, whenever it is suggested that people should perhaps prepare for this situation, it is met with screams of "...you're scaremongering...these things don't happen..." and I suppose my response to those people is, fuck the fuck off.

If you live in the UK or Europe, then perhaps carjackings aren't really something to be concerned about. However let's look at two other types of preparedness that most definitely ARE needed by just about everyone:

• Medical
• Self Defense

I believe I'm correct in saying that, had more "civilians" been medically trained during the 7/7 bombings in London, the Paris attacks and the Manchester Arena bombings, then perhaps more people may have survived? And yet, even now, I would imagine that medical training providers, in the UK, are probably not inundated with normal civilians signing up for a Stop The Bleed course.

Suggesting that they do, could be construed, by some as scaremongering and, probably more insanely, by using examples of mass casualty incidents, to highlight the need for medical training, is sometimes met with a furore of allegations of impropriety and exploitation (for business purposes) of a tragic event, by the overly righteous, who believe that unicorns exist and that love, tolerance and kindness, will solve the worlds problems.

Learning to defend yourself is no different - why should learning how to fight, be met with eye-rolling and derision? Is it a UK thing? Surely using case studies of assaults, stabbings and sexual assaults, cannot be labelled as scaremongering, when all of these crimes are on the rise? That doesn't even make sense to me.

A few months ago, I used the Howes & Woods incident (Northern Ireland 1988) to highlight the importance of Vehicle Defense (a course which we run). Within minutes, I was bombarded by overly-enthusiastic, emotional zealots, whose heads were exploding because I was somehow exploiting the deaths of the two soldiers involved and, that I was scaremongering our target audience into attending our course.

Since when did referencing a bad incident, in order to prevent it happening again, or for people to be better prepared to deal with such an incident, become such a trigger for people?

So, back to the USA...

We run a Concealed Carry+ course (formerly the vehicle defense course for civilians) which concentrates solely on carjacking, road rage incidents and crowds surrounding a car.

All three of these incidents, happen on a daily/nightly basis - and they happen more than people realize; in fact, in some States, they are on the rise. However, to advertise such a course, is met with "...you're scaremongering people..." .

Now, I don't know where these people live; maybe these things don't happen in Dicksville, USA - but to state that they don't happen enough, to justify the need for preparing for them, is like telling yourself you don't need to have house insurance, because the chances of being burgled, are minimal.

However, regardless of the minimal likelihood and probability of being carjacked or having your white goods nicked from your condo, it is the impact on a person, when it does happen to them, and they are not "prepared" or "insured" for it, that can be catastrophic.

I've yet to hear of anyone accusing insurance companies of scaremongering - everyone has insurance right? And yet, when training providers wish to provide "insurance" in a training context, we are met accusations of scaremongering, waving arms, exploding heads and bulging eyes - fuck OFF.

I recently read, and commented on an article, on here, where the author stated that he didn't believe in training for those "what-if" moments and opined that "what-if" moments were avoidable??? I couldn't disagree more.

Life is messy - we are not in control of other people's actions or intentions, and you can take as many avoidance procedures as you like, but we will never EVER, avoid those "what-if" situations, and, just because something doesn't happen very often, doesn't mean that it shouldn't be prepared for by attending training, which addresses that situation.

In my opinion, terms, such as, "soft-skills", are exacerbating the illusion that more robust preparedness is necessary, and are being waved around like a comfort blanket, as the go-to-fix-all solution, to all manner of conflict situations. Similarly, inter-personal skills is another mantra-like term, that is pushed as being the only skill one needs, to get out of whatever shitty situation one finds oneself in, which is outrageously naive.

We don't teach our kids to "use their words" when faced with a bully at school (at least I didn't). We teach our kids to stand up to the bully, to defend themselves and, if necessary, to kick the shit out the bully, regardless of the consequences. So why are we emphasizing, to adults, that using soft-skills/inter-personal skills, in threatening situations, is the first response?

It's almost as if we're trying to promote non-violence, when sometimes, violence is the ONLY way to de-escalate something. Surely, by going down this road, we are deliberately ignoring the fact that the criminal will have the intent, the mind set, the commitment and the propensity for violence, to achieve their aim - whilst we are all reading from a different script.

Violent incidents happen every day in the USA and I've yet to hear of one being brought to a conclusion using empathy, kindness and tolerance.

We seem to be leaning more and more towards "avoidance" as a means of preventing every violent situation and, while I can concur with that statement to a certain degree, there are too many self-appointed SME's out there, who seem reluctant to acknowledge that, because life is messy, some things just cannot be avoided - because there is only a certain amount of avoidance procedures that are possible for us to implement and, once we accept and acknowledge that we are not in control of other peoples actions or intentions, hopefully we might start preparing and training people for those horrible, unforeseen, violent incidents, in a more realistic, fit for purpose and functional manner, that will serve them better.

To be clear, I accept that there may be times when "turning the other cheek" might be an appropriate response option - but it is only that; an option. A person has to have more response options than that.

I constantly read posts and articles opining that if a situation requires the use of a firearm, then the firearm user has obviously messed up in some way, which is an outrageously naive and blinkered statement to make.

During a recent Concealed Carry+ course, in Florida, I was gobsmacked to learn that some course participants had, in the past, been shot and/or stabbed, during exactly the types of incidents we were discussing (road rage, carjacks) and, because they recognized that these types of incidents are on the rise (even in SW Florida - North Ft Myers specifically), they wanted to get better prepared, should they happen to them again. As a provider of training, I applaud anyone, who has the appetite to be better trained, better prepared and better educated, to threats that they believe they may encounter.

In summary, bad things happen to good people. Encouraging people to be prepared for them is not scaremongering - it's common fucking sense. Offering and providing training that educates and prepares people, in the event of bad things happening to them, is to be cognizant of prevalent threats that society faces.

But, if you believe that there is no requirement for preparedness training, then put your money where your mouth is, and cancel your house insurance for a year and see how that works out for you.

Neil Davis QCVS, is a former undercover soldier with a Special Duties Unit of British Intelligence, in Northern Ireland.