Thin line between paranoid and prepared

[Mike P. Wagner]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

How can anyone say someone is wrong for how the believe about something that is basically an opinion? We can disagree with their belief, perhaps vehemently, but I don't think we can say with total assurance that they are wrong.

That's more or less where I am. There is a class of beliefs in this world that I think are fundamentally wrong - genocide, pedophilia, etc.

But pacifism doesn't fit in that class for me. I would love to live in world where there was no violence, nor war and universal justice. My people are still waiting for the Messiah to bring that age into being. But I don't live in that world today, and I am not willing to die for pacifism, or to let my children die for that belief.

Mike

[JohnKSa]

There are folks who believe that no human has the right to take a life. They would not say that someone else's ending of a life is "OK", but that you may resist in a number of ways. But (for them), you are not allowed to end a life to save a life.

We're still skirting the reality that self-defense is not about ending life but about preserving it. It's not really accurate to continue talking about deadly force self-defense as if it's exactly equivalent to killing. The fact is that the vast majority of the time a gun is used in self-defense, it's not even fired. When it IS fired, it's not uncommon to miss and even when the attacker is hit with a handgun bullet he has roughly an 80% chance of surviving. These facts make it easy to see that even when a gun is involved, self-defense is a far cry from being equivalent to killing the attacker.

In other words, one has an excellent chance of preserving life and only a very small chance of having the attacker die. Logically then, even deadly force self-defense is highly consistent with the principle of preserving life which makes equating it with killing quite contradictory. In the balance, far more people's lives are preserved than are lost/taken. Of course religion is not about logic nor about benefits analyses, it's about absolutes.

Which gets us to the reason that your arguments are so difficult for some to refute. You're attempting to use logic and religion simultaneously in your arguments. Logic allows for shades of meaning, for conclusions based on the preponderance of the evidence, for extending ideas and drawing conclusions. Religion is based on absolutes which are declared and accepted by believers to be fact but which don't always string together in a precisely logical fashion.

You really need to pick one or the other unless your goal is to obfuscate the issue.

Finally, this thread is dangerously close to turning into an advertisement for the Quakers and other pacifist religious groups. I think we all realize that such groups exist and have a rough idea of their beliefs--I'm not sure how deeply we need to explore the intricacies of those beliefs nor what value there is to doing so.

[Avalanche]

Well Ground hog... Just to tease: (you’ll need some ice cubes in that shower!) let me describe our newest baby: SuperGun (we had to name the gorgeous thing – couldn’t have it just sitting there on top of the armoire without a name). Picture a DPMS Panther converted to .243 Winchester, with a Tragicon 2.5-to-10x scope. However since the darned thing weighs 17+ pounds, *I* can’t manage it... So we’re buying ME a left-handed AR-15 from StagArms. (YIPPEE!!)

Originally Posted by Groundhog

... He worked on weapons that would kill large numbers of people if ever used. I found that difficult to fathom. I also thought he must not respect himself very much if he was not willing to defend himself.

I find that uncomfortably hypocritical – but there’s an old saying; “kill one and you’re a murderer, kill thousands and you’re a war hero.”

I suppose part of my... hackles being up... is I am still astonished and infuriated by both my sisters: the one who said that she and her husband would ‘take a bullet for their beliefs” – and speaking of her then 6-yr-old son, they’d let HIM take one too, for their beliefs! And the other who said she would, if someone threatened her (then 4-yr-old son) throw herself at him tooth and nail – regardless of any danger to herself; but flat-out and a bit rabidly said she would NEVER learn about guns or self-defense (in order that she could protect him effectively, you know?]!

A community – any community – relies on its members to protect it from outside harm. If some members of that community discard their responsibility, then it does affect the community. I guess, in a way, it’s good that those particular genes don’t survive, if it comes down to it – but I suppose that’s awfully harsh to write too. Have y’all been watching that new series on Discover channel, Planet Earth? They delicately don’t show the blood and gore – they do show the fox trying to scarf up five goslings, but she couldn’t them all into her mouth (she has seven pups to feed)? And the poor polar bear, so hungry he tries to take on an elephant seal – and is badly gored and lies down to die... We humans “pretend” that no longer applies to us -- that we are oh-so-civilized; but it’s just not true! Eat or be eaten.... Be prepared to kill or be prepared to BE killed. Is that not, at the fundamental level, true for every human on earth? Everything above that level is luck.

Originally Posted by Groundhog

I don't mean things which fall outside of acceptable norms that a society would allow. If a pacifist believes strongly, that to take a life, or even resist force is the way to go, I could at least respect their convictions. I would hope, that if they thought it through thoroughly, they also would pair up with someone of the same beliefs. Be a bummer to find out your significant other won't resist your attacker when the poo hits. Now, if you know in advance? You can lay down and die peacefully knowing you have lived your convictions. I would be afraid for kids of people like that since they don't have much choice in the matter.

And for kids in the neighborhood, if ‘we’ expect the pacifist to help protect the kids. As a parent, would you dare let your kids play at the pacifist’s house, knowing that if there is a home invasion, the pacifist will allow not just his kids but YOURS to be harmed? Would you let the pacifist babysit your kids in the park?

Originally Posted by Mike

I concur that if one is a serious pacifist, one might have to be prepared to die for that belief.

That wouldn’t be such a problem, if that choice didn’t lead, also, to the death of others (children esp.).

Originally Posted by Mike

I can respect a position with which I do not agree. I am a Navy brat - I grew up in the standard San Diego/Guam/Bethesda environs. I respect people who made a choice the exact opposite to that of my professor. Some of the people that I knew growing up were what I would call "honorable warriors".

I’m not a Navy brat, I’m an ex-Navy officer. I can respect a position with which I don’t agree, so long as it is coherent, and the ramifications match the conviction. The ramifications of choosing pacifism include more destruction and death than NOT choosing pacifism, and so I cannot respect that choice. (Okay, you’re right, I CHOOSE not to respect that choice...)

Originally Posted by Mike

I can respect both pacifists and warriors - I know that makes me a bit of an eccentric.

I can’t respect pacifists, I know that makes me a bit of a hard a$$...

Originally Posted by piste

Those who bring children into this world have a responsibility to ... them ... until that time you also MUST PROTECT them irrespective of what you believe.

AMEN! Concur concur concur!

[piste]

If you truly believe it is wrong to take a life than how can you sit idly by while your innocent toddler's life is taken? If you truly believed it was wrong you would take all measures to stop it...including taking the life of the person trying to do it. It's a catch 22...infinite loop.

I consider hypocrisy to be taking one action while advocating another (usually in public). If someone's action match their beliefs, they are not hypocritical - however much you may disagree with them.

That's one form. It is also possible to be hypocritical by one's INACTIONS as well as their actions. To belief all life is sacred and then sit idly by while one is taken is hypocritical.

To all:
BTW...I believe we've all finally agreed that there is no thin line between paranoid and prepared, right? The "prepared" deal with what's possible...the paranoid constantly think that what is in reality highly impropable will happen at any minute. It's mostly that those who understand and adequately assess a risk and take risk mitigation measures that are consistent with their risk tolerance are often called "paranoid" by those who are either ignorant/unaware of the risk or choose a more risk tolerant path for whatever reason...but that reason is IMO usually inability to grasp the reality of the risk....until of course when it is too late. (See "Katrina"). So to the OP...tell your "friends" they should not call you paranoid just because they are unwilling or unable to adequately prepare in advance for an event. Sadly they will squeal like Sheeple when it does!!

[Groundhog]

Yep, I think you're right. We DID pretty much cover the "prepared vs. paranoid" question, LOL!

Now where did I set down my tin foil hat...

[piste]

Yep, I think you're right. We DID pretty much cover the "prepared vs. paranoid" question, LOL!

Super.....then can we move the balance of the discussion to TheTheologiansLine.com?? or at least start another thread on it in respect of the OP??

[Dreadnought]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

There is no way a person who told his followers: "if you don't have a sword, go buy one" could be advocating that people "renounce all violence".

I hate to get into this niggling, but I've seen that paraphrase of Scripture too many times. Last Sunday's liturgy at my home church included the recount of the Passion according to the Gospel according to Luke. I decided to go and reread the whole Chapter instead of taking the one line out of context. The context of Luke 22 is advice to his disciples since they would meet opposition to their preachings, and is meant in a metaphorical sense. Later in the chapter, one of the Apostles slashes the ear of the high priest's servant, which Jesus rebukes him for doing and tells his men not to resist and heals the man's ear. His Eternal Message was "Love thy neighbor."

[JohnKSa]

The context of Luke 22 is advice to his disciples since they would meet opposition to their preachings, and is meant in a metaphorical sense.

Not plausible. The very next sentence has them showing him two swords! "They said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.” And He said to them, “It is enough.” His response wasn't: "Oh, I meant that metaphorically, you don't need REAL swords." it was : "It is enough."

Clearly he wasn't talking about metaphorical swords, he was indicating that they were now going to have to be responsible for their own safety. In the same sentence he tells them to "“...whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag...".

Metaphorical money belts and bags?

Hardly. The point is that while they were divinely provided for and protected in the past, it was now their responsibility to deal with those things. If anything this is a warning that self-defense, self-provision, etc. will be required and that they should be prepared.

There are some accurate treatments of this topic on the web for those who are interested, I'm not going to plow through the rest of the passage when others have already done so.

[Para Bellum]

I feel sorry for the folk who feel it necessary to carry 24/7/365. It's a sad world we live in when it has come down to this. It's also hard for me to imagine having to have that mindset.

You are lucky that there's nobody out there who already tried to kill you but missed, stabbed your businesspartner in the head several times and was released from the mental institution for being "healed" after two years. That (additional to a high-risk job) would make you carry 24/7/357, wouldn't it?

[Mike P. Wagner]

Originally Posted by piste

To belief all life is sacred and then sit idly by while one is taken is hypocritical.

No Quaker I know advocates "sitting idly by". They would resist evil by any non-violent means.

If you believe that all life is sacred, wouldn't it be more hypocritical to take a life than to not take a life?

You keep re-iterating your beliefs, but you haven't yet demonstrated any hypocrisy.

Originally Posted by piste

Super.....then can we move the balance of the discussion to TheTheologiansLine.com?? or at least start another thread on it in respect of the OP??

I generally just dont' read threads I am not interested in.

Mike

[Mike P. Wagner]

Originally Posted by Avalanche

The ramifications of choosing pacifism include more destruction and death than NOT choosing pacifism, and so I cannot respect that choice.

The pacifist would argue that choosing violence begets more violence - there is plenty of history to back that up. Mankind has fought a lot of wars, and yet they keep coming.

But notice also that hard core pacifists are willing to suffer a destruction and death in the hope of building a better world without destruction or (violent) death. The eventual goal of pacifism is a world without destruction or violent death (oddly enough, that is also the goal of many of the "honorable warriors" I knew in the Navy).

Pacifists claim is that we won't get to a world without violence by continually chosing violence - that we will only get there buy choosing non-violence. They would claim that as long as we continually choose violence (even because we think it will end death and destruction), we will live in a world filled with destruction and death!

Originally Posted by Avalanche

... that we are oh-so-civilized; but it’s just not true! Eat or be eaten ...

I think that religious pacifists (and many religious non-pacifists, and non-religous pacifists) would argue that human beins are fundamentally different from animals.

Mike

[Mike P. Wagner]

Originally Posted by JohnSKa

These facts make it easy to see that even when a gun is involved, self-defense is a far cry from being equivalent to killing the attacker.

They don't call it "lethal" force for nothing. The intent is of a self-defense use of a handgun, of course, to stop the attack. But I'm not sure that you should be shooting anyone that you aren't prepared to kill. I may not be remembering correctly, but I think that one of the points made by Mas Ayoob's In Gravest Extreme.

Originally Posted by JohnSKa

You're attempting to use logic and religion simultaneously in your arguments.

I think that the dicussion of values inherently becomes alogical/spiritual/religious/"in my heart". I don't think that logcal helps you chose those values. Logic can be used in some sense to discover values that you already believe - from my actions I can derive my values. But I don't think that logic a useful tool in chosing values. An old book Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance said something along of the lines of "logic and technology help you build the locomotive and lay the tracks - values help you decide where you want to go."

So it seems to me perfectly valid to start from a spiritual belief about the nature of man, and derive logically from that belief a prohibition of a set of actions.

Not that logic does not guarantee correctness!

Originally Posted by JohnSKa

Finally, this thread is dangerously close to turning into an advertisement for the Quakers and other pacifist religious groups. I think we all realize that such groups exist and have a rough idea of their beliefs--I'm not sure how deeply we need to explore the intricacies of those beliefs nor what value there is to doing so.

It is ironic to be accused of proselytizing (or advertising) a religion and point of view that I make very clear I have rejected. Haven't I repatedly called pacifism "wrong" or "misguided"?

To be very clear - I walked away from Quakerism several years ago, and I am not a pacifist. I am a Jew (and had to have a very uncomfortable operation to become a Jew , so you know that I was serious about conversion ). One of the reasons that I left Quakerism was that I was becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the Quaker absolute rejection of violence.

I had absolutely no intention of proselytizing for Quakerism or persuading any of you to become pacifists with this thread, as I am neither.

However, I will agree that this thread has pretty much run its course. I suspect at this point, anyone who had read this with any kind of open mind (and maybe even some who read it with a less than open mind) can see that pacifism is not fundamentally illogical. You may reject pacifism (as I do), but I think any reasonable person will grant its coherence with a set of (maybe incorrect) spiritual principles.

It's sort of what we learned about geometry in high school - if you start with a set of axioms, you can derive a set of theorems. If you start with a different set of axioms, you get a different set of theorems.

At this point, I am getting the feeling that anyone who doesn't see that won't or can't see that.

So I think that I am done (for more than 13 minutes this time ).

Mike

[JohnKSa]

Mike,

I'm not accusing anyone of proselytizing. The choice of words was perhaps less than optimal, my point was that the value of delving deeply into the Quaker belief system on this forum is questionable at best.

So it seems to me perfectly valid to start from a spiritual belief about the nature of man, and derive logically from that belief a prohibition of a set of actions.

The problem is, as I've pointed out, that if the true concern is about preserving life, self-defense (even deadly force self-defense) can be shown to be a logically consistent progression from that belief. In fact, it's not hard to show logically that NOT using any means necessary to preserve life is inconsistent with the principle that human life is sacred. The problem is that the original absolute doesn't leave room for logical progressions or conclusions because of the way it is interpreted. I'm just saying that if you have a religious absolute that using it as a springboard for a logical discussion is not particularly productive.

But I'm not sure that you should be shooting anyone that you aren't prepared to kill.

I'll go you one further and say that you should absolutely not even point a gun at someone if you're not prepared to kill them. I'm certainly not debating the fact that deadly force self-defense can be lethal, that would be ludicrous. My point is that it is not the same thing as killing, any more than modern medical surgery is the same thing as killing simply because it carries with it the finite risk of death.

Both self-defense and surgery are implemented to SAVE lives. Unfortunately both of them carry some risk of death. The difference in self-defense is that the attacker has brought that risk of death upon himself. In other words, his death should be considered FAR MORE acceptable than the death of an innocent on the operating table. For what it's worth, there are also religious groups that decry the use of modern medicine in much the same way and for some of the same basic reasons that the groups already mentioned decry the use of deadly-force self-defense.

[junglebob]

Dreadnought, The Matthew 26:51 account has Jesus saying "put your sword back in it's place" Jesus reminded the disciple that he could have asked for 12 legions of angels, he didn't need or want the disciples intervention as he came to earth to die on the cross. I imagine most pacifists would oppose using a whip to defend themselves, but in John 2:15 account of Jesus driving the money changers from the temple it says "He had made a whip of cords, He drove them all out of the temple" One might ask if Jesus was oposed to self defense why didn't he instruct the disciples not to carry swords?"

[MPanova]

Wow this thread as sure takin off

[piste]

I generally just dont' read threads I am not interested in.

Yeah, Mike..and I don't spend time on boards I'm not interested in like those discussing religious or philosophical topics. This is a firearms forum.....and I got a minor in philosophy too but whoop de doo...I'm coming to this forum and this thread for a discussion related to the original post which is an interesting topic. You my friend seem determined to hijack it for all your religious philosophical B.S. with total disrespect for the O.P. I carry 24/7/365...am I paranoid or prepared? What's your approach to carry? That's the thread. Take your B.S. discussion about Quaker Oats or whatever it is you are talking about that has no bearing on reality or the O.P. and that pretty much no one cares about elsewhere and I truly promise I won't ever open your thread. You wanna debate angels on the head of a pin? Start your own thread. Any questions?

And John....may I kindly and respectfully ask you not to feed the vermin?

Edit to add: Ahhh...just figured why you don't start your own thread....no one will read it.

[Avalanche]

I, on the other hand, found Mike's discussion of Quakerism interesting -- I disagree (as, it seems, does he) with the pacifism and it's effects, but it's an interesting discussion (else I'd not have joined the forum to participate!) to consider the depths of some non-gunnie's attachment to it. If we are dedicated -- and I'm assuming we are? -- to awakening the vast majority of anti-gun sheep..then understanding their views, and honing our arguments amongst ourselves is a good thing.

(But I'm not so comfortable with the "Jesus says" and "the Bible means" stuff -- THAT is for a theology list, I agree...)

Originally Posted by piste

...philosophical topics. This is a firearms forum

And where better to discuss the philosophy of choosing arms vs. no arms? (If you so dislike the thread and discussion -- YOU could start another thread, maybe discussing how to carry in church?!... )

Av

[cheygriz]

I consider pacifists hypocrites. To me, they are people who are in denial, and refuse to open their eyes and live in the real world.

If my car stalls on a railroad track, and a train is coming, I can close my eyes and refuse to believe that the train is coming, but refusing to believe it doesn't make it so. And if I sit there and refuse to try to get my children out of the car before the train hits it, I am guilty of homicide.

If I see a rattlesnake about to bite a person, and I have the ability to intervene, but refuse to do so, I am guilty of criminal negligence.

If I see a person about to kill another person (including myself) and I have the means to intervene, but refuse to do so, then I am as guilty of homicide as the killer. The sin of omission is no different than the sin of commission.

[Groundhog]

piste said:

Yeah, Mike..and I don't spend time on boards I'm not interested in like those discussing religious or philosophical topics. This is a firearms forum.....and I got a minor in philosophy too but whoop de doo...I'm coming to this forum and this thread for a discussion related to the original post which is an interesting topic. You my friend seem determined to hijack it for all your religious philosophical B.S. with total disrespect for the O.P.

Umm, correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this the kind of personal attack that gets threads locked? If anyone could keep the O.P.'s topic going for 6 pages, I'd have been very surprised. Not trying to be harsh on you piste, but perhaps you could be less harsh in sharing your opinions with us?

[Scott Conklin]

11 posts and starting a fight. That's even worse than me when I got here... 7 years ago...?! Wow...

[MPanova]

[Edward429451]

If I see a person about to kill another person (including myself) and I have the means to intervene, but refuse to do so, then I am as guilty of homicide as the killer. The sin of omission is no different than the sin of commission.

If in reading this quote, you find yourself feeling just a wee bit of uncomfortable, it's because you see the truth in it. I did. The can o worms that this opens (law stacked against you for doing the right thing), is the direction this thread should have taken.

Who let the pacifists in? Better yet, who would argue vehemently for pacifism that isn't a pacifist? Preeety goofy.

[Niantician]

How about the guys who carry 2 guns everywhere they go but don't wear their seatbelts?

[Mike P. Wagner]

Originally Posted by JohnSKa

In fact, it's not hard to show logically that NOT using any means necessary to preserve life is inconsistent with the principle that human life is sacred.

Well, John, I managed to stay for more than 13 minutes. [Actually, to be honest, I wanted to some reloading last night for a range session on Thursday, so I did that instead of posting. I am still learning how to reload, and it's still a kick for me to fire "home made" ammunition.]

To respond, I think that for religious pacifists, "sacred" is not a synonym for highly valuable. It's means "under the provenance of G-d". If you believe life is "sacred" in that sense, then no man may take a life.

Originally Posted by piste

no one cares about elsewhere and I truly promise I won't ever open your thread

You're right - no one's interested in this topic. I agree 100%. There have been no posts since my last post.

Originally Posted by cheygriz

If my car stalls on a railroad track, and a train is coming, I can close my eyes and refuse to believe that the train is coming, but refusing to believe it doesn't make it so.

If people were trains, the analogy would make sense. From the view of the Quakers (and others), you are obligated to resist all injustice - but not to the point of taking a life. You are obligated (from the point of view of a Quaker) to speak to that of G-d in every man and every woman.

Originally Posted by chegriz

To me, they are people who are in denial, and refuse to open their eyes and live in the real world.

Are you arguing that Quakers and other pacifists who have died as witness to their beliefs are not living in the real world? Surely not.

Originally Posted by Edward429451

Who let the pacifists in? Better yet, who would argue vehemently for pacifism that isn't a pacifist? Preeety goofy.

Believe it or not, there was a time when the ability to clearly articulate an opponents position was considered part of the preparation for an intelligent debate. I know that "sound bites" have replaced all that.

I guess that it's a comment on the current state of politics in this country that demonstrating that an opponent's position is rational (though wrong) is considered a "vehement defense."

Originally Posted by Avalanche

If we are dedicated -- and I'm assuming we are? -- to awakening the vast majority of anti-gun sheep..then understanding their views, and honing our arguments amongst ourselves is a good thing.

Rant ON

I think that as gun owners, we need to be gearing up for these arguments.

The current administration has shredded the Fourth Amendment. In the Patriot Act, Dick Cheney and friends have give the anti-gunners the right to issue "Letters of National Security" to find out every gun-related purchase you ever made. I checked out "No Second Place Winners" from the public library last week. Dick Cheney's give Giuliani and Hilary the means to find that that I checked that book out, and every time I order Hornady swaged lead T/C wadcutters from Midway.

I expect there's a better than 50/50 chance that the next administration will want to shred the 2nd Amendment.

The time for capitalizing the "rat" in Democrat and thinking that's the height of political discourse is long gone! Calling names will not win these arguments, and if we lose these arguments, out children will lose rights they will never know existed.

Rant OFF

Mike

[dbgun]

I agree with you(As most of my older friends do). If I could safely
keep a gun in each of the rooms in the house, I would. But, we
have a 7 year old (daughter)in the house plus we have young
relatives coming over all the time. The best I can do is a small
(digital keypad) safe bolted in our bedroom closet, where we
keep a couple of loaded (.32 S&W long) pistols. We also,
live in a nice area of SE Houston, but we still see crime in our area.
If we didn't have a lot of youg ones around, I would also have more
than two areas in the house, where I could get to a gun.
That's my opinon, anyway.