I also learned what value to place on the pseudo-pacificism (I have
too much respect for genuine pacifists to call this real) of those
who see no difference between aggression and self-defense. Driving
South I had been accompanied by another new civil rights worker bound
for another state. Proclaiming himself an ethical pacifist, he was
appalled that I carried guns for self-defense. When we met a few
months later, I still believed in self-defense. He now believed in
terrorism and assassination.
The philosophy of self-defense prepares one to evaluate realistically
a potentially violent world and respond with a minimum degree of
violence necessary to cope with it. His philosophy having not so
prepared him, he had perforce to abandon it. People who are unable
to discriminate between defensive violence and aggression are
unlikely, if they come to believe violence is necessary, to be very
discriminating about its use. A little-remembered fact is that all
the white members of the Symbionese Liberation Army started out not
as "macho gun nuts," but as pacifists of the flower-child variety.
The failure of their rosy dreams that all obstacles could be
surmounted, all prejudices and differences of viewpoint reconciled,
through "good vibes" and effusions of love, led them to equally
unrealistic dreams of salvation through blood and death.
--Don B. Kates Jr. on pages 186-187, Restricting Handguns: the Liberal
Skeptics Speak Out, Don B. Kates editor, North River Press, 1979