depends


prolly not



unless there were hot chix i wanted for my stable lol

 

Hot chicks are a good thing. Hot chicks with guns...even better. :thumb:

 

I would like to say that I would. After all, I have spent the last 32 years playing sheepdog against fire. But I also learned that sometimes one must let Darwin do it's thing.

One of the new mantra's in the world of wildland firefighting is: If your not going to do anything to save your house then why I should risk MY life to save your house? (far too many firefighters have lost their lives trying to save the unsavable)

In other words, If your not going to make an effort to save yourself then why should I?

 

if he/she was a doctor/ nurse and needed in our group for survival i would .. if they were a lawyer / banker id have my doubts ( just me though)

 

this would be my answer some what. Since I have a desire/need to help bring back sanity for SHTF scenarios. I would weigh the risk of aiding vs the what the pacifist could bring to the table.

Also if the group of raiders/thugs were ones I was looking to nuetralize anyway I would aid regardless who made the call for help and what thier beliefs are. Even then my decision to aid would be based how successful I think I would be. If the risk was high then maybe not.

 

So the concensus is, the OP's answer is another question:

Is she hawt?

 

If there were children or helpless elderly/disabled there, probably. If they were just able-bodied adults who happened to be anti-gunners, absolutely not. I vowed long ago not to use my peaceably acquired firearms to defend a person who thinks I shouldn't be allowed to own them.

 

What if they don't care if you have firearms and are just pacifists who don't wish to impose their views/beleifs on others?

I would not help somebody from the Brady Campaign but I might help an Amish person.

 

Look at it as an opportunity to sharpen your aim. Also, I'm a pacifist. Violence and war are just contrary to my belief system. However I am also a realist and know the world in which we live. If it's the life of an intruder/attacker or the life of my wife/child, well, there's no guessing who's having a funeral is there.

 

I mean no disrespect but there is no such thing as a "situational" Pacifist. By your own admission you would respond to violence with violence. Of course this begs the question would you revert to your pacifist ways if it was someone elses child in harms way and not your own? I too abhor violence but this doesn't make me, nor would I call myself a pacifist.

As to the original post. If they were part of the community I would come to their aid. I also understand that when who ever is attacking them gets done I could be next. So its in my own interest to go and attack the attackers which I guess you could say is not quit the same as coming to their aid.

 

If they (the pacifists) where friends prior to the collapse and had done those things to be low profile and not attract attention. I would try (hot women would be a plus).

If they are by themselves because they "disdain" violence and refused join a coalition for their security, I would not want to risk my life and perform violence upon the raiders in the pacifist's interest. Although, ambushing the raiders after they are "fat & happy" leaving the pacifist's compound...

If they are people that I knew had actively attempted to deny me my second amendment rights, or had been part of the reason the collapse happens, they can go straight to h*ll.

 

The question was :"Would I defend a pacifist?" My answer is no. History warns against pacifism. Nature abhors it.Logic refutes it. TP

 

They believe in non-violence, so violence comes knocking at their door. They chose to not defend themselves, while I did choose to defend myself. Choices have consequences, something too many people have forgotten. Being they chose to be unarmed, as opposed to the inability, no, I would not try to save them.

 

For me violence can only be considered to be acceptable when it comes to direct self defense or to help other that are under direct attack. And then the level of violence must be in proportion to the threat. Quite simply Jus in Bello and Jus ad Bellum from Christianity.

For me it would not matter if it was a pacifist or not. That is not the issue.

I think it’s hard to say how anyone would behave after a total collapse, but my guess is that the situation may not resemble what most survivalists seem to think will happen. In real collapsed states like Bosnia, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Rwanda, Colombia the groups that form are so powerful that not even the government forces can defeat them. I have a hard time to see how even the most well-armed survivalists could. It’s not a question of a few “raiders”.

The brutality and terror of these conflicts can’t be overstated. Torture, ethnic cleansing, concentration camps, genocide, forced castration, amputations, landmines, snipers, artillery fire, systematic sexual violence, child soldiers, kidnapping, abductions, trafficking and slave labor are just some examples.

 

The situation is this. A collapse has happened, all economic activity has come to a grinding halt. No more food of gas to buy. No more police or military to stop raiders.

Would you risk your family/group to go save people ringing their bells or blowing their whistles or squawking on the CB, that they are under attack? Knowing full well they have no weapons because they believe in non violence. Knowing full well that they won't come to your aid if you were calling for help?

That is a tough question. My first priority would be to the welfare of MY family. Then other questions come into play. Is it someone who "can't" defend themselves, or someone who just refuses to? Can they contribute in other ways such as food, supplies, or knowledge, rather than fight? Are there children at risk? How many people are there? It's hard to say. Your last paragraph asks questions, while at the same time is seeming to push for a "NO" response. I could not really give an honest answer until I was actually confronted by that situation. I can't just flat out say "absolutely not" either and still consider myself a good man. The circumstances would dictate my response. Just have to wait and see.

 

once I have secured my own family.. I don't have any plans to leave them to go save others.

to play your game though... I do have dear family members who have told me that they don't want a gun in their house because they know without a doubt that they could not use it..that they would simply hand it to a bad guy..so they don't prepare to defend themselves.

I also agree, that certain roles in society...hospital workers, children's day care, etc...likely would not have weapons by the very design of the work they do...doesn't mean they are pacifist..just means that if they were caught in a bad situation..that they would typically not be armed....I would be willing to help folks like that, as opposed to the bead babies who are still playing hippy cause their parents left them enough money and property that they can get by without working..and think gun people are freaks...ok fine...scream in the dark all you want.. I'm not coming for you.

in the end...I'm not leaving my family for anyone other than to recon others of my family..for example if the wife is secured at home..and my daughter is at school... I'm rolling.

 

Let them live or die by the choices they made.

 

no

why in the world would someone defend someone who would not defend them self??? no no no.... god only helps thoes that are willing to help themselfs :thumb::thumb::thumb:

 

I have to draw a distinction between someone who finds themselves "defenseless" as opposed to a pacifist that REFUSES to defend themselves or their loved ones. I also have to weigh in the factor that my family needs me to help ensure THEIR survival. The family MUST come first. Darwin can be a real pig sometimes. TP

 

I absolutely will defend the right of any pacifist to die a slow and agonizing death.

 

If they were true pacifists then they would not want someone else fighting and shedding blood in their name. "They would have planned on beating their swords into plow shear in order to plow for those who did not." (Thomas Jefferson). It would be wrong of me to intervene in their beliefs.
If your the kind of man who would stand by and watch your wife getting raped because your a pacifist Then I would feel sorry for both of them. I would also use their situation to teach my children about peace through superior firepower. I hope none of us are ever put in a position to make this choice.

 

If I could, maybe. I'm a little put off by comments (not just here) that suggest that those who don't prepare don't deserve help. You have your leaders and you have your followers, and in such a situation the survivalists would be the potential leaders. Pacifists that refuse to change their ways could still have their uses (diplomats in some cases, maybe?)

 

OK, You make a valid point. But, if you have to use armed force to defend the pacifist then that means that you risking YOUR life to do so. Considering that you could potentially leave your wife, children or other loved ones with out you would you still feel the same?

While I have no issue with the basic premise of your post would you still be willing to potentially get killed defending those that won't defend themselves?

 

It depends on the situation, but I would probably not care that much whether they were pacifist or not. It would depend more on my priorities regarding protecting my family.

However, think about this; someone attacking pacifists may attack you next. If the opportunity is there to stop them when attacking someone else then that may lessen the risk of the attackers getting around to your family, or of them being successful in their attack on your family.

But there are a lot of strategic and tactical factors to take into account before committing to such a decision. Whether they are pacifist or not would be way down on that list for me.

 

It depends on the situation, but I would probably not care that much whether they were pacifist or not. It would depend more on my priorities regarding protecting my family.

However, think about this; someone attacking pacifists may attack you next. If the opportunity is there to stop them when attacking someone else then that may lessen the risk of the attackers getting around to your family, or of them being successful in their attack on your family.

But there are a lot of strategic and tactical factors to take into account before committing to such a decision. Whether they are pacifist or not would be way down on that list for me.

This is about the way I feel on it.

 

If I were able to help, I likely would.

Just because a person is an idiot doesn't mean they don't have value as a human being.

 

Really?

Name some valuable traits and/or qualities of IDIOTS.

Other than as my personal sex slave!

 

For me it depends on many things.

What are the risks? would it be easy to save these pacifists?

If its me and my family armed with firearms defending the pacificts against some bandits with baseball bats then sure i would help out regardless of whether I thought they deserved my help or not. Chances are once they are done with the pacifists they are going to come hastle me later, possibly after acquiring some firearms.

Saving the pacifists from a militant group with machine guns and night vision and body armor? probably not. (its going to be hard enough to defend from them in a dug in position)

If I save them what can they offer?

Assuming I know the occupation/skills of the pacifists, this would definitely play a vital role in my decision. Also, they may have a large supply of food they would be willing to share.

Children

Its not the child's fault his/her parents dont believe in self defense. However, will we be able to support the child if we save it but not the parents?

Are they just generally nice people?

If I know them, are they nice? being a pacifists neither makes you a nice person, or an unpleasant person to get along with.

If I save them, what can I confiscate off the raiders?

Hey, they are going around raiding, they might have more food than anyone else. Assuming the raiders are less armed than we are, its probably worth helping just for the sake of confiscating all their stuff.


All of the above considerations would play a part in me deciding whether to help or not.

 

demdesden has a very good point. I guess I should have prefaced that my pacifist neighbor hates seeing me and mine with guns and is very willing to give their unwanted opinions (suburban life..yuck). I would not feel that way about people who I have things in common with or could add to the overall survivability of the group. But if they have no skin in the game they should not have a voice in the defensive operations of the group. My answer reviles some below the surface attitudes that flavored my response. Sorry if I offended!

 

generally NO.. wouldn't that be opposite their wishes having someone kill for them?

If the person attacking them could pose a threat to me or mine then maybe

 

You are right on the money. I would never want someone to kill someone else in my defense. I don't think any true Christian would.

 

If its the fathers/sisters in the local catholic church - yes
if its the local hospital being overrun by druggies - yes
if its the amish folks we lived near in montana - yes

most regular folks - no

 

If they are not willing to defend themselves or this country, then I am not willing to defend them!
So unless their are some seriously extenuating circumstances..... No.