There's an AP news article up which discusses the sometimes ineffectual plans that some people have made should they be faced with a crisis like a terrorist attack. The main thrust of the argument is research that indicates that having a plan for a diaster- any plan at all- enables the person to function more effectively, to overcome their fear- even though they may never actually follow the plan they came up with in the first place. Simply having a plan seems to be enough to be able to cope with the fear that a crisis situation causes.
That's all well and good but I take exception to the opening paragraph-
"In Alaska, just about everyone has a plan for how - should the need arise - he would fight a bear. And while elements of these plans make sense, they don't alter the fact that in hand-to-hand combat, a grizzly would savage a human."
Which is surely why most people in Alaska plan on being armed in the event of such an encounter?
No comments:
Post a Comment