Pacifists, I have a question.

[Xanthious]

Eh not an issue for me. I have a concealed carry permit and live in a stand your ground state so if anyone comes up and randomly attacks me I'm not going to fuck around trying to run or talking about their feelings I'm going to shoot them until I'm good and damn sure they are no longer a threat.

Out of curiosity, could you actually shoot someone who wasn't carrying a weapon themselves?

In a red hot second. I mind my own business. I promise, I'm not walking around looking for people to shoot. However, if someone wants to attack me or break into my home or some other such thing I'm not waiting around to find out if they have a weapon. Whether they are armed or not isn't going to even enter into my mind. I'm going to assume the worst and protect myself accordingly. If criminals don't want to be shot during while committing crimes they shouldn't commit crimes.

I didn't mean by some arbitrary moral code or something. I mean legally would you be allowed to shoot someone if they didn't have a weapon themselves? Just seems hard to comprehend coming from a country that doesn't even let you defend yourself when an entire gang sets itself upon you. Even if they come into your house you're not allowed to do anything unless they're up-fucking-stairs.

Legally? Absolutely. In a stand your ground state like the one I live in you aren't required to try and retreat or any other nonsense. If you are being attacked it doesn't matter if the attacker is using a weapon or not you are legally allowed to defend yourself. The law it's self reads:

A person is justified in using deadly force; and does not have a duty to retreat;if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.

 

[peruvianskys]

I'm a strict Theravada Buddhist so self-defense is technically forbidden. I think there's a big difference between what I would do and what I wish I would do. I do stand by the adage of "Better to be killed than to kill." I would rather die than kill another person for a lot of reasons. But I don't know if my restraint would be developed enough any time soon to just lay down my life like that. It's hard to know what I would do in reality.

I would definitely, however, attempt to use violence to stop someone from harming another innocent person, although obviously I would try my best to make sure no one was permanently injured. My reasons for avoiding self-preservation are mostly religious and spiritual, and I wouldn't transfer that personal belief onto another person because they might have my same philosophy.

 

[Rastien]

Eh not an issue for me. I have a concealed carry permit and live in a stand your ground state so if anyone comes up and randomly attacks me I'm not going to fuck around trying to run or talking about their feelings I'm going to shoot them until I'm good and damn sure they are no longer a threat.

Out of curiosity, could you actually shoot someone who wasn't carrying a weapon themselves?

In a red hot second. I mind my own business. I promise, I'm not walking around looking for people to shoot. However, if someone wants to attack me or break into my home or some other such thing I'm not waiting around to find out if they have a weapon. Whether they are armed or not isn't going to even enter into my mind. I'm going to assume the worst and protect myself accordingly. If criminals don't want to be shot during while committing crimes they shouldn't commit crimes.

What happens if you accidentally kill them? like shot in the head by accident? UK dude here and its abit of a grey area sometimes you get off fine but other times you can go to prison for man slaughter

Accidentally kill them !?!? Lets not mince words here if I'm shooting at someone it's to kill them. If I'm attacked on the street or in my home I'm within my full legal rights to shoot and kill the attacker. Again, I'm not out there looking for a reason to shoot someone. However, if someone wants to attack me or break into my home they've made their choice and I will protect myself to the fullest extent of the law. Again, if criminals don't want to be killed while committing crimes then maybe they shouldn't commit crimes.

Ah fair, i wasn't mincing words from the people around here who have shot someone in self defense in their homes tends to be in the legs its close range so easy enough to do. So legally where your from your allowed to kill a guy for breaking into your home? just to clarify.

Personally for me i would have real issues myself for killing a dude for breaking into my home, unless someones trying to kill me i would try and avoid it (that and i don't own a gun or any real weapon besides kitchen knives hehe) i think my conscience would get the better of me as everyone has family and friends even the lowest of the low.

 

[Chairman Miaow]

To all the people saying you can just block them, you have clearly never had somebody attacking you. You could disable or restrain them, if you are very, very good, but if you aren't, you are just going to get beaten down, because you are holding yourself back, and they aren't.

I like how you clearly know everything about everybody. I was the first one who said blocking is an option. And I'd say, when I was attacked by ten people it worked quite well.

I know it's the internet and you can just go "Meh, it's BS" but let me add that those people were total morons.

Besides, if somebody doesn't know how to block properly, why do you think they'd be able to attack properly?

If by block you meant, "ran like hell", then sure, I believe you. If not, of course I'm going to think it's BS. Can you blame me? And if somebody really wants to hurt you, it's not as simple as just blocking. They can grab you, they will throw in their knees and elbows, they'll try and throw you down, they could grab something and use it as a weapon. You can't block everything. Nobody could.

I walked off, actually. And they tried to follow and attack from behind. I only sort of shoved them aside as they flailed around. One tried to jump kick me. See, batting him aside was really effective, as he fell on his knee.

As I said, I'm a fairly big guy - I was 15 at the time and was 1.85m/90kg. Against a bunch of hyperactive idiots weighting 60kg each or so.

But that time I just didn't want to get in trouble as I was on school ground (and it wasn't even my school), so I tried to calmly walk off towards the exit. That's why I chose not to hit them. Even though they were known to be imbeciles, I didn't want to take my chances with the school. They didn't follow me outside, though.

But I don't think hitting ends a fight. Making people incapable of hitting ends it. Hence why restraining the opponent is a better option. Blocking can only give them a chance to stop now, it's like a warning shot. That's how I use it.

Then what I was saying doesn't apply to you. I was just saying that a fight isn't going to end just because you are blocking them, in general, they are going to keep attacking you.

 

[rutger5000]

That entirely depends on why the person is hitting me. When discussing males of my hight and strength I considere violence a valid methode of communication, including settleling an argument. So if we're just having fun or both me and the agressor are trying to bring a reasonable point across, then I'll hit back.
However if I can't understand why the agressor is hitting me, or I can't respect his reasons, then I won't retaliate. That is until I feel my life is in danger, and it's impossible to run away. That is more out of disrespect of the person and senseless violence, then out of humanitarian reasons.

 

[Xanthious]

Eh not an issue for me. I have a concealed carry permit and live in a stand your ground state so if anyone comes up and randomly attacks me I'm not going to fuck around trying to run or talking about their feelings I'm going to shoot them until I'm good and damn sure they are no longer a threat.

Out of curiosity, could you actually shoot someone who wasn't carrying a weapon themselves?

In a red hot second. I mind my own business. I promise, I'm not walking around looking for people to shoot. However, if someone wants to attack me or break into my home or some other such thing I'm not waiting around to find out if they have a weapon. Whether they are armed or not isn't going to even enter into my mind. I'm going to assume the worst and protect myself accordingly. If criminals don't want to be shot during while committing crimes they shouldn't commit crimes.

What happens if you accidentally kill them? like shot in the head by accident? UK dude here and its abit of a grey area sometimes you get off fine but other times you can go to prison for man slaughter

Accidentally kill them !?!? Lets not mince words here if I'm shooting at someone it's to kill them. If I'm attacked on the street or in my home I'm within my full legal rights to shoot and kill the attacker. Again, I'm not out there looking for a reason to shoot someone. However, if someone wants to attack me or break into my home they've made their choice and I will protect myself to the fullest extent of the law. Again, if criminals don't want to be killed while committing crimes then maybe they shouldn't commit crimes.

Ah fair, i wasn't mincing words from the people around here who have shot someone in self defense in their homes tends to be in the legs its close range so easy enough to do. So legally where your from your allowed to kill a guy for breaking into your home just to clarify.

Personally for me i would have real issues with myself for killing a dude for breaking into my home, unless someones trying to kill me i would try and avoid it i think my conscience would get the better of me as everyone has family and friends even the lowest of the low.

Indeed, if someone breaks into my home I am within my full legal rights to shoot and kill him. It doesn't matter whether he is armed/unarmed or any other mitigating factors. If he unlawfully enters my home his life is essentially forfeit and I can't imagine I'd lose much sleep over it.

 

[Use_Imagination_here]

I don't consider myself a pacifist because violence (talking about martial arts here), as a sport is a shitload of fun. However I believe violence (as in not martial arts) should be avoided as much as humanly possible. Not a long time ago I cracked a bad joke and some guy I'm fairly sure was drunk got offended. After trying to push me against a wall he asked if I thought I was tough. I told him no, because thats the correct answer in this situation. I apologized and asked him politely to calm down. It worked.

However I believe that if it hadn't worked the right answer would be to punch him in the balls and run. Not because I couldn't beat a 170 cm drunk guy, but because I believe violence is okay only when your doing it to avoid violence. If I were a pacifist I'd skip the punch and just run away.

edit: I checked wikipedia and apparently I am a pacifist. Yaaaaay.

 

[RubyT]

If a single person, of the same height and build as you, were to hit you, and continue to hit you repeatedly, would you hit them back?

Your question is based on the false assumption that Pacifism must necessarily mean total non-violence.

I could easily formulate an equally polemic question for you:

If you don't believe in Pacifism, do you think it's okay to beat somebody up to steal their lunch money?

 

[Use_Imagination_here]

No, I don't believe in violence... but then again I don't consider taking a life as violence, I see it as making someone a favor.

i know you're not serious but there are some fucked up people on this site so I have to ask.

 

[chiggerwood]

Well as much as I consider myself a pacifist, I don't consider myself stupid. If someone is having a go at me (which they have) then I'm going to do my best to knock them on their ass (which I have). Yes I abhor violence, but I know that there are some times when it's necessary; I wish it wasn't but as the saying goes: "Wish in one hand and shit in the other, see which one gets filled first."

 

[II2]

Wait...really? They teach that to people? What if they're in like Texas where some people wear t-shirts in the dead of winter sometimes?
That diagram is literally just pulling someone's arm by the sleeve and hoping they don't stop or overpower you before you get them into a lock on the ground.
WTF?

Don't be thick, it's a martial diagram for a joint lock from the old US marine combatatives handbook. Pictured are soldiers in full uniform, sans any equipment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Combatives_School

It's actually one of the 'gentler' moves, relatively speaking, since the handbook focuses on full contact techniques designed to disable and kill.

 

[GonzoGamer]

I'd like to think of myself as a pacifist but I would most certainly hit the person back if I was being attacked.
However with martial arts training you learn to use restraint and I'm confident I wouldn't use unnecessary force. All I've ever had to use of my practical martial arts training is snapping into fighting stance when being attacked. That's usually all you need to do.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

Here's something for you pacifists to remember the next time you want to say violence solves nothing: violence has solved more problems throughout history than any other method.

Erm. Nope. This isnt just wrong. Its demonstrably wrong.

How many times a die do you fix a problem between you and someone else with violence?

How often do you do it with talking?

Count the number of major wars in recent history. Now get me a list of every single peace treaty and trade agreement and charity case that solved a problem and we shall see. This statement is so obviously wrong its not even funny.

 

[CrazyJew]

I am psychologically restrained. I just can't cause harm unless some red buttons are pushed.

 

[lacktheknack]

Here's something for you pacifists to remember the next time you want to say violence solves nothing: violence has solved more problems throughout history than any other method.

...Except diplomacy. Fighting starts and sustains wars, diplomacy ends them.

OT: I hate fighting, and go to hilarious lengths to avoid it. So in this bizarre scenario where I'm being attacked (which simply would not feasibly happen), I'd give him a shove and leg it. Why fight when there's evasion?