longbough

I agree there exists a noble virtue in a life conducted according to a personal principle (e.g. "nonviolence") - especially when it bears the risk of personal loss or harm. For example, to take the "high road" of principle may require that one to "turn the other cheek" in the face of harm or to never raise one's hands in aggression towards another human being. And that is a very difficult thing to do – I can respect someone who is strong enough to live that way.

However, for me, that philosophy falls entirely apart when you accept responsibility for the well-being of other people (e.g. as a father with family or as a leader of a town, city, state or nation). It is one thing to be willing to sacrifice your own health and life for principle … but should you sacrifice the lives of the people you govern (or love) to satisfy your personal principles?

Note: Leadership of a “movement” is a different matter, however. As an iconoclast for ideals, Ghandi’s influence in history and world consciousness is undeniable. I’ll leave it to the reader to research Mahatma Ghandi’s effectiveness as a responsible husband to his wife and father to his children.

In my opinion, self-proclaimed “non-violent” purists thrive in self-indulgence but suffer in positions of responsibility for the well-being of others.

I too have studied different types of martial arts since childhood. The practice and skill does grant one a sense of peace in that you have “nothing to prove” in a potential altercation. I believe that the cause of much aggression and violence is often simple fear of the unknown – and violence is frequently the reactive manifestation of simple ignorance. (or "cowardice" as you describe above).

… in that much I completely agree with you.

However, I don't believe that all acts of violence are a product this mechanism. It’s a convenient stereotype to make about all acts of violence … but that would be both naïve and wrong.
I can't speak for others - only myself. If I ever make the unfortunate choice to enact some violent means to resolve conflict it wouldn't be a matter of "justice" (as you describe) at all. It would be for the explicit purpose of saving the lives of people I care about. Justice is for the courts/philosophers/pseudo-intellectuals to decide - I'm just trying to protect my loved ones.

In your case that would be true. But for me I’m not concerned with the issue of “victory” because for me it’s a purely practical issue, not a purely philosophical one.
If I cause harm to another individual because they posed an otherwise unavoidable threat to my family then my decision to act represents a simple equation: his/her life vs. my loved one(s) life (lives).
The need to make such a decision is the consequence of his/her initiative - not mine.

Does it mean I have no qualms about doing it? Not at all. If I ever killed another person ("justifiably" or not) I will most certainly endure the psychological and emotional aftermath for many years ... probably for the rest of my life.
I don't look forward to facing that possibility, but currently I believe I may have to accept that burden some day if the lives of my family are at stake.

But FAILING to protect my family also bears an emotional and psychological burden - one that would be more unplesant to face. I couldn't forgive myself if I had to choose this path.

Perhaps in your “moral” sensibility I have “lost” because I resorted to violence. Fine. The value of my entire life doesn’t revolve around a singular philosophic principle.

---------------------

I don’t believe that life is constructed solely of moral dualities. Not all choices are clearly “right” or “wrong.” “Moral dilemmas” are, by definition, those cases where personal principles come into conflict – and where every option has a measure of “good” and “bad.”

I believe life isn’t simple. If I choose to steal bread to feed my family I have weighed the consequences and made a commitment. If I choose to let my family starve rather than steal I have chosen the path of a different principle. I believe life is full of ugly decisions in an imperfect world. The purest life can only be conducted in isolation beyond the complexities of people, community and political strife. Maybe that's why "holy men" often live as celebate hermits without possessions or responsibilities.

IMO If life was meant to be “pure” without conflict … then what’s the point of living? That’s what I believe.

Do I feel at peace understanding that I have the means of committing violence with a firearm? Of course not. But it is my choice.

If your choice is different - I can't venture to say you were "wrong" - only that your balance of principles is different.
I don’t have a gun just because society says I can justifiably kill people. That's not what responsible gun ownership is about.

Should I consider you a more dangerous person because you mentioned you are adept at martial arts? How would you feel if people said that your training just means you are a violent person? How would you feel if the laws determined that you, as a martial artist, has a greater potential for violence against your family and/or society because you have chosen to learn skills specifically designed to cause injury or death? How would you feel if, because of that, you had to register with the local sherrif every time you move to a different county?

As a fellow practitioner of martial arts I believe that the principle of knowledge (e.g. in martial arts) is a greater empowerment. Like you I believe I have become even less prone to violence when I became more proficient in learning martial arts. That’s because the study of martial arts gives knowledge and self-awareness especially in the face of adversity.

For myself, firearms training is very similar. When you are properly educated (e.g. at Gunsite, Thunder Ranch, LFI, Front Sight etc.) you are introduced to the legality, the emotional consequences and the responsibility of owning a firearm. In fact, many people seek the training but choose not to carry a gun in the car because of the consequence – often they return for training simply because it grants knowledge. Professional firearms instruction is every bit as much a mental, physical and philosophical discipline as the study of martial arts using hands, bo staff, bokken, katana, escrima, kama or kerambit.

Professional firearms instruction teaches breath control, stance, balance, awareness, concentration, logic, improvisation, physical conditioning and personal discipline.

Of course that’s simply your opinion.

But, as I have replied many times before, (i.e. every time you make this same statement) –“Passive security measures” and guns serve entirely different roles. A gun won’t provide a physical barrier between you and an intruder in the living room. And a security door won’t help you when you get pulled from your car in the middle of LA during a riot.

It’s only a contradiction if one considers himself or herself a non-violent purist. I don’t consider myself a non-violent purist.

Is it a “severe form of contradiction” that you, as a practiced martial artist, considers himself a non-violent person? Ghandi wasn’t a martial artist, as I recall.

Gun ownership IMO is only appropriate when an individual is willing to take the initiative to learn the discipline of responsible ownership – which isn’t easy at all. I agree that most people (including many existing gun-owners) are mentally and emotionally unprepared to own a gun.

I never questioned your decision to NOT have a gun. Like many others I only respond to opinions that challeng MY decision to have one. The gun ban affects gun owners it has nothing to do with people who choose NOT to own a gun.

I do understand and respect your philosophy. That is why I’m not one to tell you that you are conducting your life inappropriately. Like yourself, I offer my beliefs as they relate to MY vision of the world. I wouldn’t venture to assume my beliefs are universally acceptable.

Please don’t lose your temper. As far as I’m concerned this is a peaceful discussion. I wouldn’t be a part of it otherwise.