TexasCHLforum.com

ClarkLZeuss wrote:One of my friends pointed out the same thing recently: whenever someone says it's preferable to call the cops than carry a gun, they have actually - albeit unknowingly - stated that guns are the solution. But if you point this out to them, they will usually respond with something like, "Well, the police are professionally trained in handling firearms."

Ah yes - the old "police are professionally trained" thing. I would argue truthfully that so are many who take their responsibilities seriously. Many of us are current/former military and LEOs as well as having taken other types of training (NRA classes, force-on-force, etc). The REAL argument is that they are for state-sponsored force, not citizen-initiated force. Personally, I prefer to know that should such a time arrive, I am prepared to defend my own life and those of my loved ones, ratehr than hoping police can respond in time (since they usually cannot, and have no responsibility to do so - which may be a point you could use in that discussion, btw).

I'm reminded of the police officer that had her gun rust into her holster. I bet she'd be really useful if things went sideways...

seamusTX wrote:

Mithras61 wrote:I suspect that the root of the problem is a commitment to non-violence at the core of her beliefs.

There are very few true pacifists who will not lift a hand even when they are directly attacked, like the Amish.

Most people like the woman in question here simply wish that violence would not happen. They may think that violence is caused by social ills such as poverty, and could be eliminated through education and understanding. This is, of course, magical thinking.

When they are attacked, they want the police to use force on their behalf. They may complain afterward that the police used too much force; but in their moment of terror, they want to police to come down like the wrath of God.

I'm neither a psychologist nor a mind-reader, but I suspect many of them have failed to deal with repressed violent impulses of their own.

This kind of illogical emotion cannot be fixed through intellectual debate or lecturing, as I said earlier.

- Jim

I suppose you may be right, but then again, I'm not talking about true pacifism, more a personal commitment to not do violence to anyone/thing else, but still more than willing to coerce someone else to do violence on their behalf. As you say, quite willing to have police come down like the wrath of God on the perps. Probably also the "why doesn't someone DO something!" type. My point is that they are being hypocritical in their position. The Amish are true pacifists in that they will resist allowing others to do violence on their behalf.

I'm suggesting that bringing out the point that their thinking is flawed, that they are willing to see violence done (just don;'t want the responsibility of handling their own problems), and that they thenselves are actually responsible for their own safety may be a way through the morass.

Of course, they may be one of those "I just feel that it's wrong, and no argument that you can offer will change that." types, in which case your best bet is to keep clear.

An interesting and valid question. I suspect that the root of the problem is a commitment to non-violence at the core of her beliefs.

I'm going to suggest a good fantasy fiction book here that touches on this very subject. It's called Naked Empire by Terry Goodkind, and deals with a non-violent society that has been invaded by a very violent and oppressive one. It's actually one of a series by Mr. Goodkind referred to as "The Sword of Truth" series. You may have encountered a TV series that is based in the first couple of books in that series.

Anyway, the lead character questions this belief set and instills in this society the will to fight back by engaging in a series of discussions with people from this society in which he points out that the non-violent have given moral equivalence to all actions (that is, all actions are equally valid), and that they are claiming through inaction (failure to resist) that rape, murder, assault and theft are as equally valid reactions as preservation of life, charity, and so on. They have, in fact, equated preservation of life and murder as equally valid in the scale of human reaction.

I think that's the real crux of the issue. People have somehow come to believe that if they just are compassionate enough, non-judgemental enough or understanding enough, the bad guys will cease their rapine, pillaging, plundering and so on. Reality dictates otherwise. Reality says that these people, if they are not forcibly stopped, will continue on in their ways. What makes them stop is being forced to do so, either with direct force or threat of force. In the story you related, the threat of force (prosecution & jailing) is essentially a non-issue to the gang members. Police have indicated that they essentially have no leads and can't do anything to stop future assaults.

A moral and reasonable reaction is to bring the threat of force closer. Most people on this board agree that this is a reasonable reaction, and the method we generally prefer is firearms. Firearms remove the need for strength from the equation (I don't have to be strong enough to fight them off), equalize the disparate threat (it doesn't matter nearly so much if there are three or four of them attacking) and allow for graduated threat levels (I don't have to start off killing, I can threaten the use of deadly force).

This progression from non-violence to willingness to protect ourselves is not something that typically happens overnight or in the course of a single discussion. I would encourage you to read Naked Empire for its value in the arguments that are used, as well as any other resource you can find that discusses the topic of self-defense and the morality of such, and use the arguments you find to persuade this person. Also, don't give up because the person gets excited or angry. Back off from the topic and re-approach it another time. As they say, Rome wasn't built in a day.