Would you defend a 3rd party friend if they were a pacifist and did not want you to?

marshaul said:

First of all, the "sheepdog" mindset comes loaded with all sorts of elitist overtones, making it far more than just a simple means of explaining self-defense.

Plus, if your goal is truly just to explain the importance armed self-defense, you're trying to reinvent the wheel. Folks have already come up with an infinitely better metaphor, without all the elitist baggage:




This is, you'll note, the model that most OCers follow: condition yellow, never initiating force, and with armed deterrence clearly visible in advance.

You should be encouraging folks to become their own rattlesnake, not bragging about what a "sheepdog" you are.

Click to expand...

I stand corrected. It's amazing what you can forget in a short time. I guess I'll have to end my quest for a better analogous animal, since rattlesnakes (native to the Americas) work perfectly for illustrative purposes, as Marshaul pointed out.
And here I was getting ready to "walk the Earth" in search of the perfect animal.

OC for ME said:

SNIP...Every unarmed citizen is less likely to defend themselves until it is too late to successfully defend themselves. Pacifists seem to believe that unarmed/non-violent victims are more likely to be unharmed, physically, by violent criminals. Don't know the stats but cops usually tell us to give up the wallet and Timex, not worth losing your life. Well, is my house worth losing my life? I can always get another house. Car? Boat? Wife? I can always get another wife.

So, LE, in my view, is at fault for creating the "pacifists" of today.

If they, your pacifist "friend" gets POd just say you're sorry and tell them that you won't let it happen again.

Click to expand...

I don't know about the wife thing. Last I heard, spouses in general are pretty easy to come across, it's holding on to them that is the problem. :lol:
On topic, you're correct about LE telling pacifying the masses. It doesn't matter that Warren V. District of Columbia already stated they have no obligation to "protect and serve" (not to bash LE, but I agree with some on these forums that would argue the correct mantra is now "to punish and enslave" :lol.
As to leaving my friend at the mercy of the criminal, I'm a bit selfish, and don't want to lose said friend to any criminal. But I'll more than gladly leave antis to their fortune. Maybe this way, their herd can be thinned out while more reasonable people live to give birth to the next generation?

Rusty Young Man said:

I don't know about the wife thing. Last I heard, spouses in general are pretty easy to come across, it's holding on to them that is the problem. :lol:
On topic, you're correct about LE telling pacifying the masses. It doesn't matter that Warren V. District of Columbia already stated they have no obligation to "protect and serve" (not to bash LE, but I agree with some on these forums that would argue the correct mantra is now "to punish and enslave" :lol.
As to leaving my friend at the mercy of the criminal, I'm a bit selfish, and don't want to lose said friend to any criminal. But I'll more than gladly leave antis to their fortune. Maybe this way, their herd can be thinned out while more reasonable people live to give birth to the next generation?

Click to expand...

Plus, you get to shoot up stuff ! I understand....

Keep the faith !

OC for ME said:

If they, your pacifist "friend" gets POd just say you're sorry and tell them that you won't let it happen again.

Click to expand...

Hahahaha I found this hilarious.

All I will say is for some, sometimes understanding arrives after experience, helplessness and desperation.

stealthyeliminator said:

That raises an interesting question to me that I'd like to ask everyone here. How would YOU feel about defending a 3rd party, a friend, if you knew that they would not use lethal force to defend themselves, and would not want you to?I am asking as if it were a friend of yours.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm#9.33

Click to expand...

Simply put, no. I do not carry a gun for the benefit of "Friends". It appears, in your example, they have made their choice. So be it.

I have also thought about this and I would have a hard time putting forth the effort to defend someone who is not willing to defend themselves. I can't say for certain I would not help them, but I can say that it would go against my basic moral character. Someone who is not of a mind to defend themselves is not someone I would entertain as respectful, reliable, or worth me putting my life in jeopardy for their sake. Obviously they don't hold their own life in high esteem or worth very much so why should I?

But as I said, I cannot say for certain what I would do should I ever be faced with such a situation.

Even if they do not believe their life is worth saving. I do. I have to look at myself in the morning too. So if there was a situation where I was certain of the circumstances. and I thought I could save their life I would.

I am not a sheep dog though. My weapons are for me, mine, and those I am in the direct vicinity of. I am a mama bear. Generally harmless looking around for honey and berries occasionally a nice piece of venison. Threaten me and mine and the claws come out and I will fight with everything I've got.

SouthernBoy said:

I have also thought about this and I would have a hard time putting forth the effort to defend someone who is not willing to defend themselves. I can't say for certain I would not help them, but I can say that it would go against my basic moral character. Someone who is not of a mind to defend themselves is not someone I would entertain as respectful, reliable, or worth me putting my life in jeopardy for their sake. Obviously they don't hold their own life in high esteem or worth very much so why should I?

But as I said, I cannot say for certain what I would do should I ever be faced with such a situation.

Click to expand...

Well, that's not necessarily true across the board. The reasoning of the person I know is that they are saved and know what their future holds after death. As such, they would not want to end another person's opportunity for salvation. IMO that is noble and selfless, regardless of what else one may think of it.

Thanks everyone for the feedback. The more I thought about it after posting the more I felt as though it wasn't a very legitimate or fair question. But IMO you guys have produced some great feedback anyway.

Edit: please don't discuss religion here. I found that the above part of the story became relevant, so I shared it, but the thread need not shift in that direction

stealthyeliminator said:

Well, that's not necessarily true across the board. The reasoning of the person I know is that they are saved and know what their future holds after death. As such, they would not want to end another person's opportunity for salvation. IMO that is noble and selfless, regardless of what else one may think of it.

Thanks everyone for the feedback. The more I thought about it after posting the more I felt as though it wasn't a very legitimate or fair question. But IMO you guys have produced some great feedback anyway.

Edit: please don't discuss religion here. I found that the above part of the story became relevant, so I shared it, but the thread need not shift in that direction

Click to expand...

My point was essentially this. How can someone. who is not of a mind to use the necessary force and means to protect themselves, expect someone else to do this for them? By this I mean expecting police or an armed citizen to come to their aid when they are not willing to do what they must in their own behalf. I don't care whether or not they believe themselves to be saved as that is their own personal belief. What I do care about is their refusal to do something that could put others in danger.

I respect people who are self-reliant, individualistic, and of strong moral fiber who conduct themselves with dignity. Those who may chose not to use force in their defense do so at their own peril. While I also respect their decision in this matter, I believe it to be foolish and I do not like the idea that there may be an expectation that others step in and do what these folks should do on their own.

I don't know anyone like this and would not seek their friendship or company if I found out they had this belief system. We would just not jell. And the idea that if going out to dinner with someone like this and having an extreme encounter take place is scary. They might do something that could get a normal person injured or killed. However, I must once again stress that I frankly don't know what or how I would react should I ever get into a situation as described by the OP in his original post and title. I just don't know.

For an interesting read vaguely along these lines, check out "Nation of Cowards" by Jeffery Snyder.

http://jim.com/cowards.htm

I will say, in the gravest extreme of us huddling in the back of a convenience store while a BG starts to go around eliminating witnesses, I would not ask each remaining patron if they're a donkey or an elephant, Buddhist or Atheist, I'd have them all get behind the person with the game leveler. Again it's a 'no choice but to defend with extreme prejudice'.

Otherwise, I would not cross the tarmac to defend a stranger, but would, instead, record, call in, be a good witness.

FWIW

Maverick9 said:

I will say, in the gravest extreme of us huddling in the back of a convenience store while a BG starts to go around eliminating witnesses, I would not ask each remaining patron if they're a donkey or an elephant, Buddhist or Atheist, I'd have them all get behind the person with the game leveler. Again it's a 'no choice but to defend with extreme prejudice'.

Otherwise, I would not cross the tarmac to defend a stranger, but would, instead, record, call in, be a good witness.

FWIW

Click to expand...

The premise of the original statement is that you know long ahead of time (eg your gun hating neighbor or family member).

It's not about the leanings of the person it's about the degree of grave extremity.

If I was at a meeting of 'antis' and a guy came in and started shooting people, I'd stop that threat, though admittedly I'd be saving myself along with the antis.

I just think the original premise is atypical and not a real-life example one need to be concerned about. You don't run across the street to insert yourself in a potential shooting of a stranger because of or in spite of his political beliefs, you don't do it because that's not why you're armed.

OTOH, I might run over and save Charleton Heston (if he was still with us).

My feelings: I've got to live with myself. That basically means that there is no way in Hell that I could stand idly by and watch another human being victimized. I don't really care what their beliefs are or are not. Yeah, I know an Honest-to-God dyed-in-the-wool pacifist probably would take issue with someone with a firearm saving their bacon. That is their problem, not mine.

I don't know if any of you would consider that a "moral" argument or not. I know I don't think of it as a matter of morality or immorality.

SouthernBoy said:

... While I also respect their decision in this matter, I believe it to be foolish and I do not like the idea that there may be an expectation that others step in and do what these folks should do on their own.

...

Click to expand...

Oh, absolutely not... I agree. I don't think she had/has any such expectations about other people coming to her defense. In fact, in our conversation she was unable to decide whether or not she'd actually be opposed to me (or I guess anyone else) using lethal force in her defense. So, it was not a matter of relying on others for defense yet being unwilling to provide for your own defense. It was more a question of, if someone you cared about did not want another human being to die and lose any opportunity of salvation, how would you personally react to that... Even outside of any real danger or incident, how you feel about that dynamic being in a friendship or any other relationship? Thinking about what you've said, I can see where even this, without any expectation of protection, a friendship could be a liability.

Also note that I'm not talking about anti-firearm people, or anti-self-defense people, or anything like that. Just a person that has decided they would not want another person to have to die in order for their life to be spared.

All that being said, I again come to realize that this is really probably way too personal and situational of a question to be asked on a public forum. There's no way for anyone to really understand the premise unless they've actually experienced the situation, and in that case they may not want to share their thoughts on it.

stealthyeliminator said:

Oh, absolutely not... I agree. I don't think she had/has any such expectations about other people coming to her defense. In fact, in our conversation she was unable to decide whether or not she'd actually be opposed to me (or I guess anyone else) using lethal force in her defense. So, it was not a matter of relying on others for defense yet being unwilling to provide for your own defense. It was more a question of, if someone you cared about did not want another human being to die and lose any opportunity of salvation, how would you personally react to that... Even outside of any real danger or incident, how you feel about that dynamic being in a friendship or any other relationship? Thinking about what you've said, I can see where even this, without any expectation of protection, a friendship could be a liability.

Also note that I'm not talking about anti-firearm people, or anti-self-defense people, or anything like that. Just a person that has decided they would not want another person to have to die in order for their life to be spared.

All that being said, I again come to realize that this is really probably way too personal and situational of a question to be asked on a public forum. There's no way for anyone to really understand the premise unless they've actually experienced the situation, and in that case they may not want to share their thoughts on it.

Click to expand...

While I may question the prudence of some people, their decisions and their approach to life, in the end it is their decision to take and I do respect that. We all need to find a measure of peace with our own selves and how we perceive others and life in general.

As for broaching this topic, I see nothing wrong with it. I would bet others have wondered the same thing. No harm done here as far as I can see.

stealthyeliminator said:

Well, that's not necessarily true across the board. The reasoning of the person I know is that they are saved and know what their future holds after death. As such, they would not want to end another person's opportunity for salvation. IMO that is noble and selfless, regardless of what else one may think of it.

Thanks everyone for the feedback. The more I thought about it after posting the more I felt as though it wasn't a very legitimate or fair question. But IMO you guys have produced some great feedback anyway.

Edit: please don't discuss religion here. I found that the above part of the story became relevant, so I shared it, but the thread need not shift in that direction

Click to expand...

Had to reread this.

It is very arrogant of us to label every thing his will when we were given the gift of life and the will to keep living it. Sounds selfish to me, to you obviously not.