Not all people are the same. 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.
Better that we should actually try to answer the question the article posed. For relatives of mine who will not - or for physical reasons cannot - deal with a gun, I recommend strong doors and Fox pepper spray. I don't mock them.
Agreed. Maybe some super soaker type bear spray would be appropriate for this individual. For him to use that is, not on him. And yes, not everyone is made the same.
If you have Windows, the strength of your door makes very little difference, and I’ve known ideological pacifists who have actually opposed courses in unarmed self-defense. The ones I’ve known have respected positive change though, and do tend to become more accepting as a result.
Pacifist frequently equals "victim".
Remember Edmund Burke?
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
” ... 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.
It’s fine for him to be a pacifist. I have no problem with a person living by their personal set of values.
I have a problem with him inflicting his values onto another person, disarming her, and not allowing her to have the dignity of self-preservation and basic human rights.
I agree that she should respect his views and not force him to get a gun. But he should respect her, too.