Who would you fight for? Who first?
 

This popped into my mind the other day when I was reading about legalizing concealed carry in our state. I do not intend this thread to become a debate about that. But the way some of it was worded made my wonder, not that I would necessarily carry a gun but that I would fight to defend myself. Who ELSE would I fight for...

1. My daughter
2. My husband (Once had the possibility stare me in the face and I suprised myself by stepping up)
3. Myself
4. My parents, inlaws, brother.
5. Neighbors.

Granted if I had to fight for all of them at once I know I'd be incapable of succeeding. This isn't excluding any others but these are the ones who'd likely be a priority for me. I do know that I would definately fight for my daughter a lot sooner than for myself. I'll put up with a lot of rudeness and worse when it's directed at myself but if you direct it at my daughter I'm like a mother bear.

Who would you fight for? and who would you fight for FIRST?

I wouldn't fight at all to defend myself. I might for someone else, depending on the situation. If I were in a situation that required violence, as an obvious last resprt, I'd simply attack the attacker. If there were two, I'd attack the closest. My goal would be to protect as many people as possible by disabling them/disabling him, probably by breaking a collar bone or a radius. I'd probably protect young children first, then women, then men. I'm not interested in choosing between my wife, daughter, family and friends. I'd work off instinct.

I won't use violence against another human being for any reason. I've been hurt too many times myself to ever want to do the same thing to another person.

The most lethal weapon that hub and I have is a baseball bat. I'm pretty sure that either one of us would use it defensively, if we could get to it in time. (Currently in the laundry room closet, at the opposite side of the house).

We are not immune to bad things living in rural America, but we don't need to go all Rambo about it either.

I'd defend reanna, gilda and elphaba!

No wonder I sleep so well. :icare:

I live with three men, all of whom would fight for the safety of our household, so I don't really worry about who I would have to fight for.

But I sure as heck would fight for my boyfriend, and my immediate family, and my best friends. And the children I care for. If it were called for.

pretty much anyone, in a case of actual danger.

well,

I've been in alot of fights..so .. I guess I'd just fight whenever it was necessary. I would definately do it to protect myself or my family, but I'd also do it just because it's fun.

I'd think it only right to defend the defenseless if possible and necessary. What would be important is knowing when it is possible and necessary I guess. The knowing if defense was possible would be the easier of the two to determine.

Necessary on the other hand... I'd wager there have many good people die or become injured when not necessary and a good many die or become injured when they failed to defend themselves or be defended.

Anyone, anywhere as long as I reasonably believe they did not incite the attack.

The world is full of too many people standing by for me to be one.

I'd probably just grab the gun off the gun-rack in my car and start shooting. At least, I've been TOLD on TFP that all Southerners have gun-racks in their cars. Grancey and I are still searching for ours, though, because the dealer must have hidden it pretty well. We actually didn't even realize we HAD three gun-racks until TFP clued us in.

I don't think anybody really knows until they're in that situation. I know what I THINK I'd do, but who knows what my instincts and adrenaline will really do?

I'm on that bandwagon, I don't know what I would do.

I'm with willravel on this, I am less inclined to defend myself than another person.

I would like to think that I would leap to the defense of anyone (in fact, in the past I have - just not with violence).

I would also note that regardless of any gun law, I have no plans to carry a weapon of that sort. It doesn't fit with my world view.

I'm a fighter if the cause is a good one in my opinion. For example, I don't get into bar fights over stupid shit like who is next on the pool table, but I have proven that people should look behind them to see if I'm there before assaulting my friends.

So if someone was going to attack your wife, for example, you'd just watch them do it? I find that hard to believe, to be honest.

WTF?

I still hold to my Marine Corps principles, meaning I'll fight for anyone that can't fight for themselves.

I'm with willravel and Charlatan, and I, too, would never provoke violence.

I am, however, extremely against those would purposefully kill someone out of jelousy or greed. If such a person tried to take the life of my family, friends, or myself I would do alot more than disable them.

Edit: I abhor guns in every way and would never, ever, use one.

I wouldn't use violence to stop him/her, no. Not that it would make much difference; Grace knows how to handle herself when it comes to physical self-defense and I'm next to useless. I'd probably just get in the way.

I wouldn't just watch. Call or go for help probably is more like it.

I'd fight for my friends and family, and you'd better hope you hadn't pissed me off, because i will end you. No ifs and buts. I've got a good enough working knowledge of the legal system to claim self defence, or self defence via proxy.

If someone needed protection through force (such as a street robbery) then i would step up to the plate. I'm a big enough guy to stand my own, and i'll be damned if i watch shit like that go down without at least doing something.

I think it's, "No ifs, ands, or buts".

...or butts". :)

I'd fight to:
1) Defend myself
2) Defend family and friends
3) Defend those who are weaker or outnumbered

I'd use any means at my disposal, regardless of lethality.

I hope that I'm never put in the position to defend anyone that I love. I'm not sure what I would do or how far I would go but I would protect them. I would like to think that I would give my life for those I love but who knows until I am actually there.

I like my one better:thumbsup:

Yeah, this is pretty much what I was trying to say.

So far, over my adult life I have been in a few situations where someone close to me, and even one case of a stranger, was being attacked. In these cases I saw enough that I was totally satisfied that I made the right choice to protect the attacked and put a stop to it as quickly as I possibly could. That is my instinct and that is the way I want it to be and think it should be.

I do know a couple of "absolute radical pacifists", as I describe them, who say they would not use violence no matter what was at stake but that is an unacceptable concept to me.

Of course it was. :thumbsup:

Ditto. While rare, sometimes violence is actually the right answer. :)

it comes down to your fight or flight instinct. I can easily say that if someone were to try to harm my kids in anyway, I'd definitely step up and do what I can, but given what type of situation it is, I couldn't guarentee that I'd know exactly how I'd react or what to do.

I am very non-confrontational, but there have been a few times that I was ready to fight to protect my wife if certain aggressers decided to cross the line. As for my kids...no question about it, I would fight to the death if necessary.

Why? I understand why people are willing to use violence in defense, but not the criticism of pacifism.

I would fight for anyone that was being victimized. If that means debating or physical violence, then so be it.

I have fought to defend myself and my family on multiple occasions. I have never enjoyed physical violence. Almost every time action was required, I tried to talk things down, most of the time I did so successfully. I have run from fights where nothing was to be gained beyond keeping a macho appearance. Everytime that violence was required I have stepped up to it.

Once I had to run into a house and stop two teenage boys from killing their mother. I heard her screaming for help as I was walking past the house. The front door was open so I went in and ran upstairs where they were. The older son was punching her and telling the younger son to get a knife so he could "finish her off" I took down the older one, (17 or 18 years old I would guess) and then told the younger (14-15 years old) to sit down or I would have to hurt him too. No further violence was required.

If presented with the same situation again, I would do exactly the same thing.


I can understand the draw of being a pacifist. It sounds good when your sitting comfortably in a "safe" world.

What I don't understand is deciding, that when confronted with the choice between letting an innocent person be killed or stopping the attacker why a person would choose to simply allow the "good" person to die. To me, it looks like a coward trying to cover his cowardice with a pretty picture.

However, I haven't had the chance to talk to a pacifist and ask them the kinds of questions to be able to understand their stance. If a pacifist would be willing to start a new thread on why they can justify standing aside, I would be interested in reading and getting to understand the reasons.

If I fought a wet paper bag, I'd lose.

Because pacifists want someone else to risk injury protecting them.

There must be a great many chivalrous individuals where you live.

nothing to say

Once upon a time my house got broken into. It was pretty bad. The guy did not know anyone was home.

I thought I was a pacifist until then.

I fought. HARD. I got bone fragments in my rolling pin. I lost, but damn if he didn't PAY for what happened.

I fought to protect my TV (and other valuables). I did not know I would do that sort of thing. this guy was in my house and he scared the shit out of me, I was barely 18 at the time, and I went a little crazy. You never know what your philosophy really is until you are there and you find that you have to either fight or let someone hurt you, your family, or your TV.

No doubt, it's easier to exercise in a relatively safe situation.

It also sounds good when you are by nature a nonviolent person.

That's arguing from a single extreme case as if it were representative.

Pacifism is about not using violence in various possible scenarios. Defense of another is only one of these. Aggression and self-defense are the others.

I do wonder why you think violence is the only possible way to come to the aid of another. I can think of several.

Not necessarily. I want there not be in any kind of physical confrontation so that nobody has to risk injury.

But assuming this is true, why is it a bad thing?

Probably, we live less than an hour from a military base. I do know my wife would be willing to kill or die to protect me from physical harm if it came to that.

First, as one who has actually drawn a gun in defense of myself, I feel I can answer your question more ably than those who have said they would never do so. When I was 16 years of age, my parents left for the weekend, leaving me at home alone. We lived close to a race-track, and sometimes some unsavory folks would come our way, so we would always keep our doors locked.

That night after my parents left, I heard a noise in our garage - so I retrieved my dad's 9 ml german luger, so that I would be prepared just in case. It happened that the noise was due to a stray cat, but I was ready regardless.

I think that we would all do what we could in order to protect those we love - wouldn't we? If someone was breaking into your house, and you thought they would hurt your family, wouldn't you try to do whatever you could to help fend them off until the police arrived? Wouldn't you grab a baseball bat or whatever was handy to keep them from hurting the ones you loved?

I know I would. It just so happens that I would head for my dad's shotgun to do so. I live in the country where it is absolutely sure that anyone who is trying to get into my mom's house isn't trying to get in for any good reason, so they need to get shot. Case closed.

I would fight for anyone that needed fighting for starting with my dog.
I'm no bloody hero, I just do what has to be done.

I'm trying to decide if I expressed criticism of pacifism. I said "...but that is an unacceptable concept to me." Is disagreement the same as criticism? I don't think so. I strongly disagree with the concept of absolulte pacifism, but I don't criticize it or my friends who are believers. I wish it worked because it would be a better, more admirable solution. I just don't think it works. :love:

Unacceptable can be criticism, but given this clarification, I can see that you didn't mean it in that way.

You say you don't think it works. I'd say that would depend on the person and the situation. It's a philosophy that works very well for me. It probably wouldn't be a good life philosophy for a soldier or a boxer, which, among many other reasons, means that those wouldn't be good jobs for me. Fortunately, my profession is one in which I think it's entirely reasonable to expect will never involve violence of any kind. Given who I am as a person and my job situation, it works well.