(See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aikido, https://www.aikidofaq.com/introduction.html, and https://www.aikidofaq.com/.)
Posted on 07/31/2016 7:13:56 AM PDT by rktman
An excellent off-topic discussion started in this morning’s “Nevermind” post. It deserves more prominence than it’ll get in comments, so I’m moving it forward here.
LBS wrote:
DH is a pacifist and against all violent methods of self-defense – especially guns. He says I can defend myself, as long as the method couldn’t possibly kill the attacker (yeah, I know what you’re thinking). Do any of you have any ideas what a short, sixtyish, fat cancer survivor could have handy to better the odds? (BTW, murder or divorce are not options. I really love the guy. He’s mostly a great guy, just naive.)
The first several comments below appear under my personal login because I have no way of duplicating the logins of the original writers. But please note that these comments are by RustyGunner, LBS, LarryA, and Pat.
(Excerpt) Read more at backwoodshome.com ...
That's a really good point. So in my advice to my relatives I include bedroom doors in my discussion. Harden those doors - and the bedroom windows - as best you can. And alarm the house if you can afford it.
And keep a working phone and Fox pepper spray in each bedroom. (No I don't work for Fox, it's just that the pepper spray you see at grocery check-out lines is worthless.)
This is all far from a perfect solution, I know.
The guy is in a state of denial. Find yourself another fish.
A thick leather cleric collar might help.
RUSTYGUNNER WROTE:
@LBS — That’s a tough one. I’m not terribly sympathetic to DH’s position, both because it devalues your lives to place them on an equal footing with a predator who would harm or kill you, and because it hamstrings the ability of a loved one to fend off the attack. I have nothing against pacifists, mind you. Pacifists are great people, you meet them in some of the nicest mass graves in the world. I do object, however, to the mindset that can say, “I love you, but I love your attacker more, and if that attacker forces a choice between your life and his, I choose his.”
Sorry if that’s harsh, but that’s what he is saying, even if he doesn’t realize it.
Mocking,,,?
Perhaps, so what?
Culling the herd was the norm until
recent history.
Today you identify with what makes you Comfortable,blurring Reality.
Real men are in short supply.
First, learn to spit hard.
Second, learn to enjoy being raped, robbed or killed.
Because spitting hard doesn’t work very well.
This guy gets it correct. The pacifist is a moral coward. He won’t even take life to defend his family. If he wants to give his life up for nothing that is his prerogative but as a husband and father he has an obligation to defend his family and his physical condition dictates he can’t do in mano-mano.
Further he is perfectly willing to call on another man to take life if need be to maintain his self-righteous piety. This woman needs to find a man who really loves her, he doesn’t.
As Claire says: "The great thing about a gun is that merely the sight of a gun in the hands of a person who seems ready and able to use it ends most encounters."
I have a couple of friends who say they could not pull the trigger on another human being even if their life was in danger. To these people I have advised to get a non-functioning gun to carry. If it does not deter him, at least he will not leave with a viable weapon to kill others.
Pacifists are morally bankrupt.
(See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aikido, https://www.aikidofaq.com/introduction.html, and https://www.aikidofaq.com/.)
Lethal to the attacker is okay. You have the right to self defense.
Why would live with a man who would willingly see you die so a rapist or killer might live?
Get a large dog, preferably one from a shelter with a history of an abusive previous male owner, keep it by your side at all times...
If you are a pacifist, there is no legitimate defense.
Pacifist frequently equals "victim".
Remember Edmund Burke?
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
In a grid down, SHTF situation. Lady you can kiss Hubby’s azz buh bye. He’s not going to make it and he will take you with him.
All of us have fears but we can overcome them. I don’t carry my courage around on my chest for all to see but it’s never far from reach when someone is messing with my family. Some pacifists have no difficulty displaying their cowardice to others.
” ... this is not a post that should be mocked ... Pacifist does not equal coward. Pacifist does not equal sissy.
... A study done after WW II (by US General Sam Marshall) showed that many US soldiers were hesitant to fire on the enemy for moral reasons. These men were not cowards or sissies by any means. ...”
LR may be thinking of Samuel Lyman Atwood Marshall, journalist and wannabe US Army officer who saw brief action in the First World War as an enlisted man, then attended OCS, then earned a college degree. He became an official Army historian in WWII, buddied up to a number of senior commanders, pioneered techniques of oral history, and developed the theory that only 25 percent of foot troops fired their individual weapons in action.
Thanks to schmoozing, “SLAM” (he was said to love the acronym and took it for a nickname) became the darling of operations analysts and doctrine codifiers: those who lent quantitative credibility to the people who chose how the Army would fight, and with what. A domineering man and a very convincing author/lecturer, his work greatly influenced modern firepower theory (as practiced by the US Army) and was a key factor in the adoption of smaller, lighter individual arms like the M16.
SLAM rose to the elevated rank of one-star general, retiring in 1960. He continued his historical research, enjoying unprecedented access to troops during US involvement in Southeast Asia. He died in 1977, greatly respected in military intellectual circles across the officer corps.
Since then, doubt has been cast on the validity of his work: research in more depth, and cross-correlation with other sources, revealed many instances where he exaggerated his experiences, or may have lied outright, thus enhancing his reputation.
He claimed (with a great degree of seriousness) to have interviewed hundreds and hundreds of soldiers - entire units - immediately after battles, in what (after a little thought) were impossibly short spans of time. But many veterans did not remember him, nor any such activity. Strangely, many unit administrative records failed to note his presence, even as they tallied the number of tent pegs issued and the placement of camp latrines, down to the inch. Some troops, veterans of elite all-volunteer outfits such as airborne divisions, went public in the 1980s, implying that SLAM’s 25 percent figure was in the nature of an insult, as they never remembered seeing three out of four of their fellow soldiers behaving so passively as to fail to fire at the enemy.
“Coward” and “sissy” have nothing to do with it. We should be wary of inserting moralistic speculations into such real-world situations, be they condemnation or praise.
The simplest explanation offered to date for failure of troops (in whatever percentage) to fire in action is that US marksmanship training of the early 1940s emphasized firing only at targets that could be seen - a happenstance that proved rare and fleeting in actual action, in the engagements of WWII. Men (and women) revert to their training when frightened or stressed.
Whatever that case, the behavior of troops in action cannot shed much light on the moral dilemmas that confront LBS in dealing with the cement-headed attitude of her husband DH.
BEAR REPELLENT in a spray can. KEEP IT WAY OUT OF REACH OF
CHILDREN!! - Those little “pepper spray” cans are too wimpy
and have to be aimed too much. BEAR SPRAY cuts a wide swath
with little aiming.
HIGH-BEAM FLASHLIGHT!! REAL HIGH-BEAM!!!! Aim Directly in
intruder’s eyes! KEEP AWAY FROM KIDS!!
I’m a woman. I carry a small but sturdy knife in my purse.
IF I have to, I will make a dive at the legs of a shooter,
cut through his fatigues and cut his legs where it will
make him cry. He won’t be expecting Twinkie to do this; but
I will. I carry a bandolero strap handbag to keep my hands
free so fingers can aim straight through terrorist’s eye-
hole outfits and hurt them. I expect kids to leave my
pocketbook alone.
When all else fails, MY GREAT-GREAT GRANDFATHER’S OLD
SMITH & WESSON REVOLVER. I imagine it knows how to kill
outlaws already with little help from me.
When I was in my teens, we had a real problem with trespassers. I kept my double barrel shotgun with a shell with no shot (just noise) and the other with #8 shot. Since it had a single trigger, there was no problem making an accident. I had to shoot the "no shot" shell a couple of times, but never the #8 shot.
If they really want you, then they can probably figure out how to do it. But most will move to easier pickings.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.