To Be a True Pacifist You Must Be Able To Destroy the Enemy

By David Cole

Bullets of Peace
To Be a True Pacifist You Must Be Able To Destroy the Enemy
Gun Rights Magazine
Gun Rights Magazine

-(Ammoland.com)- I've been engaged in a conversation with friends recently on the topic of pacifism, or perhaps more accurately, choosing to be non-violent.

Our discussion centered on the recent incident in Georgia in which Antoinette Tuff, an office worker in an elementary school, successfully de-escalated what could have been a tragedy.

First, a disclaimer:  What I am about to say is not intended to disparage or diminish Ms. Tuff, or what she did.  I give her full marks for courage and resourcefulness in the face of mortal danger.  Without a doubt, she saved many lives through her actions that day.  She performed bravely, she is a hero, and I very sincerely salute her.

But I have seen a tendency in the aftermath of this incident to hold her up as some sort of peaceful warrior, as if her actions that day were born of compassionate non-violence, rather than necessity.  This observation has been a catalyst for an examination of what it means to be a pacifist, or to be non-violent.

Said jujutsu master Yukiyoshi Takamura:

“A pacifist is not really a pacifist if he is unable to make a choice between violence and non-violence. A true pacifist is able to kill or maim in the blink of an eye, but at the moment of impending destruction of the enemy he chooses non-violence. He chooses peace. He must be able to make a choice. He must have the genuine ability to destroy his enemy and then choose not to.”

I submit that…as expressed in the quote above…if you do not have the ability or the tools to respond to violence with violence of your own, then your “choice” to respond non-violently to danger is in fact a non-choice.

It is an absence of options. If non-violence is the only tool in your tool belt, guess what you’re going to use?

As an aside, I do take issue with anyone who claims to be a pacifist as a life philosophy, unless they also forswear the option of calling police when violence comes a-knocking.  If you can’t or don’t want to provide for your own defense, that is your choice.  If you prefer to have the police come administer violence on your behalf, they will do that.  And that’s perfectly OK.  We hire others to do jobs for us all the time, either out of necessity or convenience.  But I don’t think you can call yourself a pacifist if you simply plan to farm out your violence to a third party.

But if you do wish to participate in your own personal safety, having more tools gives you more options, and more options is always better.  Like Antoinette Tuff, I have verbal de-escalation training.  But I also have defensive empty hands training.  I have pepper spray, and a high-powered flashlight.  I have a knife.  And I also carry a gun.  If danger finds me, I can choose the most appropriate tool.  I can de-escalate verbally when possible, and I can fight back when necessary with a range of force options.  I can choose between violence and non-violence.  Did Antoinette Tuff have the same choices available to her?  Do you?

While I agree wholeheartedly that it would indeed be a wonderful world if all conflict could be resolved with the proper verbal application of empathy and compassion, it just ain’t so.  If you walk out your door equipped with no more than verbal skills, then you are betting your life…and possibly the lives of others in your care…that you can talk the wolf out of eating you.

“Fortuitous outcomes reinforce poor tactics.” – Anonymous police instructor

  • 10
    Leave a Reply

    Please Login to comment
    10 Comment threads
    0 Thread replies
    0 Followers
     
    Most reacted comment
    Hottest comment thread
    9 Comment authors
    TEXGregAllen AdamsWesRob Morse Recent comment authors
      Subscribe  
    Notify of
    TEX
    Guest
    TEX

    @Greg,you bet I will !

    Greg
    Guest
    Greg

    Tex, I agree with you. I will stand by my oath to defend the Constitution. I ask this of others. Will you?

    Allen Adams
    Guest
    Allen Adams

    The role of a pacifist rarely comes through in a school shooting situation. 99 times out of 100 these shooters can or will not be talked to and will just shoot their machine at will. I applaud her, but I think that this was a rare instance.

    Wes
    Guest
    Wes

    In all the laws of nature, survival is the only immutable force. All forms of life employ it from plants to animals.I submit that all pacifists are genetic defect cowards and all cowards are genetic defects! Stay out of my way and don’t come around me! Not interested in your anti-American sniveling viewpoint about peace and love! Go get a lobotomy or one will be appointed for you!

    Rob Morse
    Guest

    Good point, Dave Cole. Pacifism does not fit all circumstances. Nor does a 357.

    A gun is only a tool. Like a good mechanic, a smart citizen should have a box full of options and the training to know which one to use.

    Drik
    Guest

    A pacificist chooses death as one of the possible outcomes for their philosphy. Not sure that it matters that they choose it right before it occurs instead of at the beginning of each day. What is not acknowleged is that they are making the same choice for others in their company whom they had the option to choose to defend.

    FrankInFL
    Guest

    It’s a fine philosophical point with which some may be intellectually unable to cope (as exhibited here, unfortunately).

    Few Xians would assert that Jesus could not have enforced the rule of Peace on Earth so many now wish to impose by force of arms, yet he didn’t, thus giving us the perfect example of what David Cole describes above.

    There’s also a joke about Jean-Paul Sartre that’s pretty funny if you’re a complete philosophy nerd but probably inappropriate for this forum 🙂

    Dale Hafner
    Guest

    Ms. Tuff was just fortunate that the scum at her school was less than hell bent on killing inocent people, eg. Nidal Hasan. In too many instances she would have been shot along with the others in his venomous sights. I would still have chosen “shoot first and ask questions later”, when it comes to the safety of my, and others’, children. That incident was too close for comfort.

    Hopalong
    Guest
    Hopalong

    Yes, but they have to have the will to destroy the enemy. The key here is “THE WILL “

    TEX
    Guest
    TEX

    That is a totally ridiculous description of pacifistism I’ve ever heard.I have always considered pacifists to be pantie wastes and still do.But real Americans who understand and believe in the Constitution do need to be committed to destroy the enemy “whoever,wherever they are” !