I'm Surrounded by Antis - Help!

[lamazza]

Sometimes being a man means making difficult decisions as to what is the right thing to do to protect your family.

 

[neededausername]

I'm a life long self proclaimed pacifist as well. Never been in a fight in my life, even though growing up I was the slightly framed geek of the school. I just happened to be a geek with martial arts training who hung out with some really big guys. Did I practice martial arts because I wanted to hurt someone? Absolutely not, I did it because it was fun, it just happened to have the side benefit that if someone started things with me, I could finish them quickly.

Did I buy a gun so I can kill someone? No, I bought one because it's fun to shoot, and it opens a whole new world of great people to talk to. It just so happens it has the side benefit that if someone breaks into my house....

 

[Taurus 66]

Do I resign myself to CCW when I am alone and hope nothing bad ever happens when I am with my family?

What would be your advice to someone in your shoes?

How many spare lives do you have? The last time I checked, I had only one life and I searched everywhere for another... even checked in my shoebox.

 

[alexanderplatz]

If your brother is a judge he wields the power of violence every day. He may not dish it out directly, but all his decisions are backed up by police and bailiffs and prison guards who have to do so when necessary. It is the threat of violence that makes a convicted felon serve his sentence.

 

[antsi]

I knew going in that he was a self-proclaimed "pascifist". My first question for him was, "How can anyone be a pascifist in the real world?" He does live in the real world - he's a judge who sees all kinds of bad stuff every day. He replied with the old "Violence is NEVER the answer!" routine.

If he's really a pacifist, and he really believes that violent force or the threat of violent force is never justified, he must be a very interesting judge.

For instance, he must dismiss every case brought before him against a suspect who was arrested and detained by the police. I guess if people turn themselves in voluntarily, that would be acceptable. But if it takes forcible detention against the person's will, and the use or threat of force, to bring a suspect to trial, then that would certainly qualify as violence and would, in his view, be unjustified.

He would also be barred from calling the police if a violent assailant was threatening him. After all, if it is wrong to use force to stop a violent act, then it surely is equally wrong to call on others to use force on our behalf to stop a violent act.

See, that's the thing... I don't think he really is a pacifist. I think he would call the police if violent criminals entered his home. I think he does convict people who were arrested under the threat or use of violent force. In that case, he's not really a pacifist.

If someone is a real pacifist, and lives according to the principles of nonviolence, I can respect that. I think they're wrong, but I can respect the consistency and courage of their views.

What this guy is saying is that he believes it's okay for violence to be used under certain circumstances, but that job should be done by someone else. That would make him not a pacifist, but a coward.

 

[rainbowbob]

If your brother is a judge he wields the power of violence every day. He may not dish it out directly, but all his decisions are backed up by police and bailiffs and prison guards who have to do so when necessary. It is the threat of violence that makes a convicted felon serve his sentence.

That is a VERY interesting observation! I love my brother, and have deep respect for the incredibly difficult job he does. He performs his duties thoughtfully and compassionately. I really mean that. Keep in mind he is not making any demands of me regarding CCW other than declaring his own home a gun-free zone. I do not begrudge his right to set the rules in his castle. I can go there unarmed or not go there at all. It won't change our relationship. But it is clear that he is claiming the moral high ground of "pacifism" while wielding the full force and yes, violence, of the state against persons who have violated the law. This will make for an interesting conversation topic with him over a few beers.

What this guy is saying is that he believes it's okay for violence to be used under certain circumstances, but that job should be done by someone else. That would make him not a pacifist, but a coward.

That's kinda harsh...but it is well thought out - and hard to argue with.

 

[BullfrogKen]

Well, its his courtroom . . .

Ask him how the Deputies and Police Officers respond when he tells them they must remove those awful guns from his court . . .

 

[armoredman]

Pure violence has solved more problems than many other solutions, or did he think Hitler would have given up to clever dialog? Neville Chamberlain thought so, "Peace in our time!" Where is the White Paper now?
His rulings are the end product of violence, that force which was used to bring them in front of his bench, and legally, placing handcuffs on someone is a use of force.
And after that? Those sentenced will be subject to the use of force again, from our OC spray, up to and including deadly force, to prevent escape and further threats to the public at large. For someone who eschews violence, he certainly directs quite a bit of it!

 

[conw]

http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm

If that hasn't already been posted, it may be good advice.

I REALLY feel for you.

In a way, honesty is most important, but I think your wife has deluded your daughters. I think she is delusional. There is nothing wrong with saying "I don't want to carry a gun," but no one in their right mind wants to keep a law-abiding citizen from carrying a gun. Getting emotional about it is a real sign of some type of thought disturbance.

Here are a few strategies I might employ:

-Talk through their feelings about self-defense:
"You: What would you do if someone tried to harm our daughter in front of you?"
Your wife: I would attempt to prevent them. [Hopefully!]
You: How would you do that?
Your wife: I would scratch, claw, bite, do whatever I had to do.
You: What if that wasn't enough? Hypothetically speaking, would you be willing to learn a martial art if you knew this was going to happen?
Your wife: I would do whatever it takes to protect my daughter.
You: Would you use a hammer, or a knife if it was around at the time?
Your wife: Yes, of course, I'd do anything.
You: Well, I realize that you want to protect our daughter but do not want to carry a handgun. I think that my choice to carry a handgun is wise because it is the best form of protection that exists for people going about their daily business. I conceal, so no one ever has to know. If you'd prefer, we can avoid talking about it. But my choice to use a gun in defense is no different from learning a deadly martial art or using a tool of opportunity.

You don't want to play the "What if...someone tried..." game too much, because it is disturbing to "pacifists" to think that their bubble could be popped, but it is a useful option.

-Go into counseling. Choose a fair counselor, but one who isn't rabid anti-gun. Attempt to resolve this and prove you are open to suggestions. The more open, and less vocal, you are, the greater chances are your wife will follow suit.

-Realize that your choice to carry IS a personal choice. Do you ask your bro about his sexual habits, his diet, and other things you (or someone) might disapprove of and then judge him based on it? Chances are your choice to carry will never affect him at all, and if so only indirectly. The honesty issue with your wife is tougher, but ultimately I think you will be forced to conclude that she is delusional about that matter; brainwashed, if you prefer. You love her, but if she suddenly started demanding something else unreasonable, like that you stop wearing your seatbelt while driving, would you acquiesce? Doubtful. This safety choice is personal. A temporary fix could be to resolve it on a personal basis with this point of view, while promising yourself you will try your damnedest to resolve it with her through the above venues.

-Don't let anyone, especially not your bro or your wife, convince you that you are being unreasonable or that this is a "marginal" issue compared to your marriage as a whole. This kind of thing can really drive a wedge, but don't let that convince you you're wrong. Vehemence on the part of the dissident doesn't equal righteousness...

Good luck, please try to reply to my suggestions if you can. I'm interested to hear your thoughts.

 

[rainbowbob]

http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/ragi...elfdefense.htm
If that hasn't already been posted, it may be good advice.

That was posted and excerpted earlier, but it doesn't hurt to post it again. It's a very good article.

Getting emotional about it is a real sign of some type of thought disturbance.

Have you heard about menopause?

Your wife: I would do whatever it takes to protect my daughter.

You: Would you use a hammer, or a knife if it was around at the time?

Your wife: Yes, of course, I'd do anything.

That is a good angle.

Go into counseling. Choose a fair counselor, but one who isn't rabid anti-gun.

That is going to hard to find among the touchy-feely counselor types around here that I know of.

Vehemence on the part of the dissident doesn't equal righteousness...

Amen, Brother!



Today I tried an experiment: My wife asked me to drive her to a medical appointment. I've told her that if she trusts me to drive her anywhere, she should know I'll be probably be CCW.

Now I believe that the the odds of being assaulted some time, some place in my life-time are unacceptably high. but the odds of my being assaulted today, in this place, may be very low.

I figured at some point she might ask me if I'm carrying. So I didn't just to see what would happen.

On the way, I discovered I had forgot my wallet, and said so. She said, "I'll bet you didn't forget to bring your gun."

I said, "Why would I bring a gun when I know you don't want to be defended in an attack?"

That really messed up her OODA loop! She just laughed and said she just assumed if she asked me to drive I'd be carrying. Maybe next time she won't ask.

 

[conw]

I get you about the menopause, etc. I'm not saying your wife has a major pathology, more that one of the only ways for you to look at it is irrational and hence out of the realm of "honesty vs dishonesty."

You seem very honorable, and I admire that. But why bend to your brother's will like this? Perhaps you are right to leave the piece in the car rather than bring it in his house, if he wants, but other than that, I'd simply declare it off limits to talk about in your presence - much like he declares the gun off-limits in his house - and "connect" with him on other subjects.

"Gun" is an image or thought that, for some people, makes you into an "other." If you can distract them from this misconception, you may just trick them out of worrying about it.

Work from the assumption that everyone involved would be happier if you resolved things. Look for ways to resolve things and have everyone get what they want. Wife and brother THINK they want you unarmed, but what they really want is peace of mind. Get what I mean? They are misinformed.

They would probably be okay if you could just let the issue cool off for a while. Your efforts to resolve it might really be escalating things.

One thing that I'm sure of is that you're the best equipped person to decide what to do. Lots of the people here, while well-intentioned, are posting platitudes like "They should know that you will protect them from harm, not cause it"...

Take an unconventional approach. And consider the fact that counselors do want your business; perhaps consult with one before scheduling a group session?

"Counselor, I am concerned that many psychologists are heavily biased about a particular issue that my wife and I are dealing with, and I would like to briefly discuss the matter with you before scheduling an appointment."

Sounds like you're on the right track! Good luck.

PS, I am not an expert and don't pretend to be one, but hope that my suggestions may be a little helpful.

 

[rainbowbob]

But why bend to your brother's will like this?...I'd simply declare it off limits to talk about in your presence.

Actually I brought up the subject with my brother because we have always enjoyed healthy debates and discussions with each other. I don't have any problem respecting his house rules, ands he respects mine.

They would probably be okay if you could just let the issue cool off for a while. Your efforts to resolve it might really be escalating things.

Probably true.

 

[george29]

Now I remember (been a long time), but even when I was a cop my wife would get P.Oed if I carried off-duty, she thought it was chauvanistic and childish. No one in her family owns a gun although both her dad and her brother served in the armed forces of their country (my ex is a foreigner), even so, they are against personal ownership of guns. Personally, I could never go back into a relationship, any relationship where I had to give up any of my rights.

 

[rainbowbob]

What this guy is saying is that he believes it's okay for violence to be used under certain circumstances, but that job should be done by someone else.

I slept on it, but I still can't get this laser-sharp obeservation by Antsi (post #130) out of my mind.

A judge of course uses the FULL force of the state, including guns and violence, to insure that his orders are carried out. I believe that if used "judiciously" and within the strict confines of the law, that this is right and necessary to maintain order in our republic.

It dawned on me (I know, maybe I'm a little slow on the draw with this stuff) that if my brother truly believed that "violence is never the answer" while employing the threat and use of violence on a daily basis - his head would explode!

So that leaves me to think he believes that "violence is never the answer - for individuals". He must believe that ONLY the state should have the power to commit "sanctioned" violence. That gets pretty close to believing that a fascist police state is the best form of government. Hmmm...

 

[Eyesac]

So that leaves me to think he believes that "violence is never the answer - for individuals". He must believe that ONLY the state should have the power to commit "sanctioned" violence. That gets pretty close to believing that a fascist police state is the best form of government. Hmmm...

Yet another fine example of hypocrisy + totalitarianism from the gun grabbing left. He'll either explain it away, or just come right out and admit his totalitarian views... Either way it's a bummer.

 

[antsi]

I slept on it, but I still can't get this laser-sharp obeservation by Antsi (post #130) out of my mind.

Not really my original thought. The basic ideas there were put out by Jeff Snyder in a collection of essays on the ethics of self defense called Nation of Cowards.

So that leaves me to think he believes that "violence is never the answer - for individuals". He must believe that ONLY the state should have the power to commit "sanctioned" violence.

This is a pretty common belief among statists, anti-libertarians, and their ilk. I will bet if you raise this issue with him again, he will say something like, "If you think it's okay for people to take the law into their own hands, then what's to stop individual citizens from imprisoning or executing someone who breaks the law against them?"

This is really an equivocation of two very different issues. In a self-defense scenario, the self-defender is not engaged in the business of punishing a criminal for his unlawful actions. He is exercising his God-given right to defend himself from unjustified violence against his person. If it's a true life-threatening self defense situation, he has to act in the moment or be killed. In a law enforcement scenario, where there is no immediate threat to innocent parties, punishing crimes can properly be considered to be a function of the state that individuals are not allowed to undertake for themselves.

 

[rainbowbob]

...if you raise this issue with him again, he will say something like, "If you think it's okay for people to take the law into their own hands, then what's to stop individual citizens from imprisoning or executing someone who breaks the law against them?"

That's pretty easy. My answer would be that I don't think it's OK for people to take the law into their own hands. As you pointed out, defending yourself against a real and present unlawful attack is perfectly within the law. I'll leave it to the state to clean up and take names.

 

[akodo]

he's a judge who sees all kinds of bad stuff every day. He replied with the old "Violence is NEVER the answer!" routine.

This is really odd. You'd think a judge would see enough to have seen defenseless people murdered.

Or else, he at least realizes that sometimes the cops chase after a crook and tackle him...that is voilence. Or even his own baliff, why is that guy present? If violence is NEVER the answer, why not dismiss the baliff, or announce in front of court 'defendant, no matter what you do, no one will do any violence against you, by my order, or face 'contempt of court' chargers...this includes grabbing you, touching you, forcing you into handcuffs, taclking oyu if you try and run away. no mace, no gun, no nightstick. So please don't try and flee"

 

[Deanimator]

If violence is NEVER the answer, why not dismiss the baliff, or announce in front of court 'defendant, no matter what you do, no one will do any violence against you, by my order, or face 'contempt of court' chargers...

But then how would the contempt of court sanctions be enforced? The bailiff could beat every third person in the courtroom, and tell the judge to bite him if he didn't like it!

Messing with "pacifists" is fun!

 

[theken206]

rainbowbob, while you dont live in compton, or detroit, or the bronx.

seattle has its share of gangs and drugs and crime in gernerall just the same.

People get robbed/hurt/raped all the time out here and much of it goes unreported in my personal experiance.

check out some seattle stuff of the news section in the nwgangs.com forum for facts and stories to use.

 

[sig220mw]

to surrounded by anti's

I agree with big45. If you are carrying concealed how do they know?

Don't tell them, it is none of their business. If they ever have to be rescued and you are the one to do it they probably won't even thank you but they'll still be glad you did it.

And as far as the statement that they don't believe that they should ever have to be in the company of or in close proximity to someone who is armed
well, they just need to get real. There are after all, other ccw carriers in public other than you along with probably more criminals walking around them in public who are also carrying and I guarantee you none of those criminal types gives a hoot about the feelings of others when it comes to carrying.

Sounds to me as if they believe too much of what they see on tv. Criminals don't usually disarm citizens they mostly run. That's how so many of these great "professionals" stay alive.

 

[rainbowbob]

To get back on thread a little...This was about my wife and daughter having a mutual freak-out about my CCW while hanging out with my grandson.

For now...I keep it locked in the closet when he is here.

Everybody gets tired of the drama and things calm down. Or maybe more accurately, they move on to the next drama. I get out of the way and smoke a cigar and listen to the Mariners (a 1-1 tie at the end of 4)...upstairs...reading and writing on THR...going over my last targets (92/100 hits, 7-10 yards, off-hand, strong and weak side, slow and rapid fire)...and practicing my pocket draw (with an unloaded firearm, of course).

I'm anxious to back to the range and attempt to make it 100/100.

Life goes on...

 

[rainbowbob]

There are after all, other ccw carriers in public other than you along with probably more criminals walking around them in public who are also carrying and I guarantee you none of those criminal types gives a hoot about the feelings of others when it comes to carrying.

They are surrounded - and they don't want to talk about it.

I'll stop talking about it...and do my thing.

 

[TraderJack]

Rainbowbob, may I offer a little different take on your delima?

First let me say that you have a multitude of theories, reasons, and opinions about your issue and a possible solution.
I would place them all in my pocket for use as needed - when the proper time came.

But, my impression is that you have been presented with a life changing event, and your search for solutions has been focused on changing your family's point of view and getting them to understand yours.
You've been dealing with each personality and that personalities 'particular' reluctance to embrace your position.

Why not try a different tack?

It's pretty obvious that you're not having much success here, and you sure don't want to lose your family over this, so just own up to the fact that you're going to need to submit to your families wishes. But, you don't have to slink away in a dark corner and sulk!

Why not use the weapon you seem very competent with? Words!

Create a 'speach' or 'monologue, or what very you want to call it - write it all down, practice it, refine it - then assemble the entire family for a sit down.

Explain to them as a group that since you love them all so very much that you have chosen to abide by their wishes and will no longer carry a weapon. Explain to them that this is one of the most difficult decisions you have ever had to make and explain WHY!
(Why not use some of the suggestions offered in this thread in your speach?)

Lay it on them thick! Pour your heart into it and make sure that each of them is in tears when you're finished.

Let them know that you only had your family's security in your mind when you began this journey and that 'family' is still the most important thing in your life. And, it always will be!

Assure them that you have decided to surrender to their wishes because you love them so much and do not wish to cause any rift over this. And, while this 'carrying a gun thing'(use one of the phrases they used on you!) is of paramount importance to you and how you feel, you are willing to put your beliefs aside to maintain peace in the family. Tell them that your family's respect and love is more important than anything in your life!

Stand strong! Be forceful with your tone of voice! Let them know that they have broken your heart, but you will survive! Make them understand just how much you are willing to sacrifice for them!

You might end by saying how disappointed you are that your attempt to protect your family was met with so much disrespect and fear. Make them feel what you've been feeling!

Let them know that you love them very much and would do anything to protect them, even lay down your life for them.

Well. If I were in your shoes, that's what I would consider...

I wish you the best sir. You are in my prayers.

 

[mgregg85]

my girlfriend(now fiance) didn't like it when I started carrying, I told her that I was sorry she felt uncomfortable but otherwise, too bad. She rapidly got used to it and now she say she feels safe knowing that I am armed whenever legally allowed.

When unsure, I follow the adage of its better to beg forgiveness than to ask permission.(Around anti-gun nuts, not when it comes to the law.)