Pacifism as Tyranny

Years ago when I was mentally gravitating towards the libertarian mindset, I dabbled in pacifism a little. I greatly admired the civilly disobedient heroes of the 20th Century that I learned about in high school history classes. Gandhi, MLK Jr., Mandela, etc. I loved the elegance and power of their methodology and the fact that especially Gandhi achieved so much without ever lifting a finger against anyone or promoting violent opposition in any way. I consider him to be responsible for bringing down the British Empire without so much as a hint of violence.

I was into this concept enough that I read Gandhi’s autobiography and seriously considered adopting his worldview on the subject of violence, but I couldn’t shake the nagging thoughts that interfered with my ability to become a pacifist. You see, I was bullied incessantly in school when I was a kid. I was the smallest boy in my class, and the larger boys saw me as an easy target. The attacks were sometimes daily. I was no pushover however. I always fought back, and to the point that my idiot teachers often saw me as the instigator of these fights, rarely taking action to protect me from the bullies. I knew from this experience that an individual alone could not exercise pacifism without also becoming a perpetual victim, especially in situations like I found myself at school in my youth. I lost some of those fights, but most of the time my attackers were forced to stop because of the escalation.

These thoughts and memories ultimately caused me to reject the notion of pacifism as a way of life, and I now only see it as a means of powerful political action that I can admire from afar. This thought process led me to essentially adopt the Non Aggression Principle (even though I didn’t have a word for it at the time) because the NAP allows for violence only in cases in which one is being attacked. I sort of stopped thinking about pacifism after that, and it recently came back to my thoughts when I read an article about self-defense and the outcomes for people who engage in it rather than submit to attackers.

https://www.thetrace.org/2015/07/defensive-gun-use-armed-with-reason-hemenway/

The article sites a study that claims that the likelihood of injury for those who used a gun in self-defense were approximately the same as for those who did nothing at all. It is later admitted however that simply showing an attacker a firearm cuts the risk of injury to less than half of the do-nothing-at-all strategy, meaning that it’s a good deterrent, (but that if you actually are accosted, most people who try to use a gun in self-defense don’t improve their odds of getting away unscathed, a fair criticism). However, it’s hidden from view the fact that it is impossible to quantify the number of crimes that are simply prevented because the intended victims have firearms on their person and show them to would-be attackers. There isn’t any official stat collection on violent crimes that didn’t happen, just on ones that are actually committed or attempted. This is not to say that the only way to defend yourself against criminals effectively is to carry a firearm, but to call it a “myth” that guns protect those who carry them is a little more than disingenuous. If this were true, police wouldn’t feel the need to carry them to execute their duties, and the politicians passing these laws wouldn’t be walking around with firearm-carrying security.

Another thought to consider when interpreting this data is the deterrent effect of using firearms for self-defense. They freely admit that self-defense with a firearm doesn’t increase the risk of injury (making their argument a moot point), but what they don’t tell you is that it significantly increases the risk for an attacker if the victim is armed. And in cases where criminals are actually shot at by victims, it’s likely that their fear of retaliation by future victims will give them pause when deciding on whether to keep up their attacks. I know that if I was doing something that involved people shooting at me, I might think up other career options.

Their suggestion is to be a pacifist and let the police take care of you. It’s more than a suggestion even, because they’re advocating for laws that essentially make it illegal to defend yourself with a firearm. They want to victimize those who refuse to be victims. This demand of pacifism in the face of violent crime is one of tyranny in my opinion. This is not a suggestion of organized political action or even large groups of people engaged in an activity. It’s one person against an attacker, which means a submission to victimization if you simply allow it to happen. Attackers don’t yield to civil disobedience, government institutions do. That’s an important distinction here to be making. Pacifism for the individual, in some situations, would mean certain death, and I’m not about to invite my fellow citizens to engage in such lunacy.

Why Do People Continue to Push This Narrative?
I can only guess what’s going on inside the heads of people who push for strict gun-control, so I have to take what they say at face value. Their claim usually is that they want to make the world a safer place. I believe this to be a noble pursuit, but I have to disagree with their methodology. I have seen no convincing evidence that personal safety increases when a population’s legal ability to defend themselves is restricted. Assuming they’re being honest about their intentions with these laws, I consider their position to be ill-informed and ill-conceived.

As I did in when I was in school dealing with bullies, I will choose to continue to take responsibility for my own security, and I invite others to do the same. I won’t wait for someone else to do it for me, because that would be a naïve course of action in my opinion. Nobody cares as much about you, nor are they in as good a position to defend you as you and yours. I’m happy to say that I currently don’t feel threatened in any way by anyone, but in the event that I do feel threatened, I take solace in the notion that I am prepared to meet that threat from a position of strength. I consider the ability to do this a basic human right, and we should be vigilant in protecting it in our legal system. Anything else is tyranny.

Image Attribution: Skitterphoto on Pixabay, located here https://pixabay.com/en/gun-hands-black-weapon-man-crime-1678989/