What's wrong with killing people?

[TPaine7]

We often hear the statement made here--"guns are only for killing people." Sometimes this is limited to handguns, or to handguns and so called "assault weapons," sometimes not.

In any case the unstated premise is there--"killing people is an illegitimate purpose; an item made for that purpose is, by definition, illigitimate." There are very good reasons why this premise is unstated. If it ever saw the light of day it would be quickly reduced to rubble. (The speaker would have to explain, for example, why something so terrible that a civilized person couldn't imagine doing it is hired out to heroes whose bravery and virtue are legendary.)

First, let me state for the record that the premise is false on multiple levels. There are many guns designed for target shooting and to hunt. There are guns that are woefully underpowered for reliably killing humans under ordinary circumstances. Then there's the obvious objection that the vast majority of guns never serve their allegedly singular purpose.

But let's accept, for the sake of discussion, that the premise is true. Let's say that the only purpose of a gun is to kill people.

Put yourself into the position of a mother who has gone to the movies with her young son and husband to watch Captain America. You've politely asked some local thugs to be quiet so your son could enjoy the movie. Eventually, your husband called the movie staff and had some of the worst ones removed.

On leaving the theatre, you and your family are ambushed by some angry goons. Your husband moves to stand between the thugs and his family--and quickly finds himself on the ground being kicked. Your frigntend son is holding your leg and screaming. (Those inclined to see misogyny and oppression of women in a man standing between a mob and his family are invited to ignore either this paragraph or this entire OP. You know who you are.)

Your back is to the wall and one of the thugs (let's say it's me) zeroes in on you. You pull out your "evil weapon of death" and I am undeterred. In fact, I start bobbing and weaving, while telling you in graphic detail what I am going to do to you with that gun after I take it from you.

I am well inside the 21 foot zone, pumped up on adrenaline and ego--if not more. Meanwhile, your husband is in danger of death and/or paralysis.

You could quickly put two shots in my chest--and follow up with other shots including a head shot if necessary and practical--protecting your son and probably your husband by dispersing the crowd. But that would risk killing me.

So what's wrong with killing me IF NECESSARY TO DEFEND YOUR FAMILY? What's wrong with killing as many of us as the situation requires? What's wrong with killing people?







I know some people believe that scenarios like this don't happen, so I offer this similar mass thug attack (although I know it won't do anything for the true believers): http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x353329#353329

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TPaine7]

4. As predicted--on two counts. Yawn. Ok, anyone serious out there? n/t

[SteveM]

85. Gandhi certainly would not have objected to the DGU. nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

14. It is not always a fantasy...having had my wife shoot someone who was about to shoot me

Don't you have some other bad obfuscations to write?

[MyrnaLoy]

48. you do

have a link to the news report about this right?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

49. Happened well before the web existed. I have posted about it previously

We were fixing up a new house in DC, and I saw someone coming in with a handgun. I was tussling with him when his partner came in and declared his intent to shoot me. At that point my wife shot that one from the hall and killed him. The one I was struggling with was injured but not severely, and copped a plea. We moved out ASAP and refused to live in DC proper again.

[MyrnaLoy]

53. I bet you could

find a story about it or two somewhere. I'm only extending you the same courtesy I've been shown in this forum. No link, no truth. Good luck.

[rl6214]

55. Not everything makes the paper

or could have happened so long ago that it makes it difficult to find a link.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PavePusher]

2. Nice try with the "ignore this..." plea.

You know that draws them like a... magnet.

[baldguy]

3. Because in civilized societies it's immoral to take the life of a fellow human being.

But, no one is claiming America in the thrall of the Gun Lobby & the GOP is civilized.

[RSillsbee]

5. What if your fellow human being is in the process of trying to kill you? NT

[iverglas]

8. what if a little kitten came in the window and curled up in my lap?

I prefer to fantasize about nice things, myself.

Of course, if killing somebody is your idea of a nice thing, don't let me interrupt your fantasy.

[RSillsbee]

9. Not a fantasy dear heart

last time I killed someone they were pointing an AK at me.

If a kitten came in my window I would feed it milk.

[Starboard Tack]

114. How did that make you feel? And the next one pleasr step up here?

[TPaine7]

10. What if you made a cogent point?

Now that's a fantasy, at least as far as you are concerned.

The person you are attempting to mock--without anything approaching success--made a very cogent point. You see--well probably actually you don't--the OP and this forum are about guns being used defensively, not about kittens curling up in the laps of clueless sophists.

[iverglas]

13. what the OP is about

is some puerile fantasy about ... well, it speaks for itself.

That's what it's about and all it's about.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

15. Perhaps in your limited mind/imagination

[TPaine7]

19. Fantasy...

I remember debating some fools about the fantasy of government confiscating guns as (or soon after) they were doing so in New Orleans. The people couldn't admit to reality even with the proof in their faces.

Is the Gun Control Reality Distortion Field really that strong, or are some people dishonest and fools as well--dishonest to tell the lies they tell and fools for believing that anyone not under the Field will believe their lies?

While you know that things like this happen--innocent people get attacked by groups of thugs, often in situations where they can't huddle inside buildings and wait for the police--you still insist on the "fantasy" word.

Why do you think gun control extremists (like the ones who maintained that governments don't confiscate guns) deny reality in the face of evidence to the contrary? Are they liars, fools, deluded, or all three?

[cleanhippie]

62. Oh, now come on. That happens to you on a regular basis, right?

You have cats, right?

[ileus]

21. then you should respectfully die take the moral high road.

[RSillsbee]

25. no. NT

[ileus]

26. that wouldn't be very polite....guns are bad you know.

[oneshooter]

59. You really expect an answer from this drive by? n/t

[SteveM]

89. And here you are! Asking a question!

Actually, we don't expect an answer from you, not a meaningful one, and not addressed to the question.

[iverglas]

96. haha

bad post placement, or bad username recognition?

[TPaine7]

6. So name a "civilized" country--one that doesn't arm any of it's police and that forbids them

to commit the uncivilized act of killing to defend innocent people from agression?

Just one.

[TPaine7]

7. In any place whatsoever it is immoral to take the life of a fellow human being WITHOUT JUST CAUSE.

Fixed it for you.

Morality is unrelated to location.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

70. So you're saying...

...in civilized societies one should let the assailant kill him rather than defend himself?

I had no idea...I am happy I don't live in a civilized society.

[iverglas]

73. Ah! So you're saying ...

you have not a shred of respect for the principles of honesty and decency in discourse ...

[We_Have_A_Problem]

82. Coming from you...

...that borders on the absurd.

[SteveM]

88. Did you say you were enthralled by the GOP civilization? --

"ultimately, a civilized society must disarm its citizenry...The assault weapon ban is purely symbolic move real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation."
-- Charles Krauthammer, April 5, 1996, WaPo. It seems the Washington Post even recruits hard-line GOPers -- if they are anti-gun.


Glad to confirm the company you keep.

[iverglas]

104. how very interesting

I often don't bother finding out the truth about these gun militant misquotes so often posted by some ... oh, innocent dupe of the gun militants? ... in this forum. I thought I'd look for this one.

The source I find is the Chicago Tribune, not the Washington Post. Perhaps it was published in both.

The full piece is at the link; I reproduce as much as copyright allows here, to demonstrate my point. Everybody feel free to read it all.

It's those little dot-dot-dots that so often cover a multitude of sins.

Here's the "quotation" we were offered:

ultimately, a civilized society must disarm its citizenry...The assault weapon ban is purely symbolic move real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.

Here's the real thing:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1996-04-08/news/9604080024_1_assault-weapons-ban-gun-control-crime-rate

In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea, though for reasons its proponents dare not enunciate. I am not up for reelection. So let me elaborate the real logic of the ban:

It is simply crazy for a country as modern, industrial, advanced and now crowded as the United States to carry on its frontier infatuation with guns. Yes, we are a young country, but the frontier has been closed for 100 years. In 1992, there were 13,220 handgun murders in the United States. Canada (an equally young country, one might note) had 128; Britain, 33.

Ultimately, a civilized society must disarm its citizenry if it is to have a modicum of domestic tranquillity of the kind enjoyed in sister democracies like Canada and Britain. Given the frontier history and individualist ideology of the United States, however, this will not come easily. It certainly cannot be done radically. It will probably take one, maybe two generations. It might be 50 years before the United States gets to where Britain is today.

Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic -- purely symbolic -- move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation. Its purpose is to spark debate, highlight the issue, make the case that the arms race between criminals and citizens is as dangerous as it is pointless.

... What needs to happen before this change in mentality can occur? What must occur first -- and this is where liberals are fighting the gun control issue from the wrong end -- is a decrease in crime. So long as crime is ubiquitous, so long as Americans cannot entrust their personal safety to the authorities, they will never agree to disarm. There will be no gun control before there is real crime control.

True, part of the reason for the high crime rate is the ubiquity of guns ...

Krauthammer's thesis, predictably, is that "liberals" are wrong-headed. That they must get tough on criminals -- I mean, stop being soft on criminals -- before they can start working for that peaceable society.

Gosh, that sounds familiar ...

[rrneck]

11. Killing people is always wrong. Every time. I don't care why.

But sometime it's necessary. Just because something is necessary doesn't make it right.

[TPaine7]

12. I respectfully disagree. To my mind, not one scintilla of guilt should attach to the heroine. n/t

[RSillsbee]

16. Killing a human being is a huge moral taboo

even when you are 100% in the right it leaves a mark. I killed 2 men during a war 20 years ago. the first thing I experienced was an adrenalin dump. then there was some guilt / elation (That fucker tried to kill me and I'm still here!) then it was time to continue the mission and I had other things on my mind.

Twenty years down the road I don't brood on it , I have the occasional nightmare but I don't lay awake at night and think "Oh God I killed some one".

The only time I really bring it up is here and then only to throw it in the faces of the antis that think we just can't wait to kill some one.

I guess if there's any one change that stands out it's that I never use words like 'dust" or "waste" (even though "waste" is an accurate word to use because you're wasting all the years that person had ahead of them)I ended the life of another human being and that is never something to be done lightly or at all if you have any other choice.

ETA I wanted to add it's a huge taboo unless you're a fucking socipath

[TPaine7]

32. And it should be.

Letting a mob kill or maim your spouse or child should be an even bigger taboo.

[rrneck]

56. Legally speaking it's a justifiable homicide.

If I've got my terminology right. She won't be guilty of murder. But should she feel guilty? Don't we do the right thing because of how we feel inside more than what the letter of the law requires? Can we not follow the letter of the law and still perform an immoral act? How many times in history have the powers that be declared some heinous injustice morally right? And they always have some special reason; god told us to, they started it, they're not human, they're not as good as us. I don't think there should be some special set of circumstances that makes an act like killing someone moral because there will always be some asshole ready to put wheels on the goalposts. If there were ever a reason for a categorical imperative, matters of life and death are it.

We defend ourselves with deadly force when we have no other option. But if a moral act means choosing to do the right thing, how can an act that denies any other choice be moral?

I have sometimes thought that there should be a fifth rule of safe firearms handling:

Never judge anyone with a gun in your hand.

[RSillsbee]

58. You can't tell people how they should or shouldn't feel NT

[rrneck]

60. Absolutely

Others can't tell us that. But we should tell ourselves that. That is our conscience and those feelings are at the heart of morality.

Humans have a very highly developed theory of mind. We are able to consider what others may think or feel. It seems to me that a theory of mind, at the service of conscience, might be considered the practice of moral behavior.

[tortoise1956]

30. I disagree with your statement

Killing in self-defense is not wrong or immoral, as long as all other means have failed. Even the law recognizes that.

That doesn't mean that I want to kill someone, as other posters in this thread seem to assume of RKBA defenders. On the contrary, I sincerely hope I never have to take a life. That is one of the reasons I haven't gone hunting in almost 30 years. Life is precious, and should not be taken without a compelling reason.

[TPaine7]

33. Exactly! n/t

[rrneck]

57. Please see #56. nt

[oneshooter]

66. Killing a human is easy, living afterward not so much so, n/t

[Philippine expat]

103. I disagree

The death penalty is NOT wrong, in fact it should be expanded
Killing someone in self defense or defense of property is NEVER wrong

[iverglas]

106. tell us more

The death penalty is NOT wrong, in fact it should be expanded

To what/whom?

Another simple question, easily answered.

For extra points, let us know which principle of

liberal philosophy
progressive philosophy
democratic philosophy
Democratic Party policy

your answer coincides with.

[rrneck]

108. So

why is the death penalty or killing someone for property the right thing to do?

[oneshooter]

109. because according to some posters here

A life is worth more than almost all "property." Again, some gunners apparently don't agree.


Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[rrneck]

111. People are more important than stuff.

Even scuzzy people.

Even if you have to shoot somebody for stealing stuff you need to stay alive - still wrong.

[oneshooter]

112. But the origional poster won't say what stuff is worth more. n/t

[rrneck]

113. Aye, there's the rub. nt

[ileus]

17. SD firearms are safety devices meant to save people.

[gravity556]

64. In the hands of the law abiding, that's absolutely correct.

Firearms are safety devices meant to protect. In the hands of an amoral thug whose social status is dependent on his willingness to commit violence (think gang members-who also happen to the be the source of most of the firearms murders in our country) and lack of fear of jail time and other judicial punishments, a gun is a very dangerous thing indeed. However, the best defense against said amoral thugs is two-fold: avoid situations wherein you may come into contact with feral gangs, and, should that fail, the ability to defend yourself against their deadly weapons with your own.

If you doubt that there are bands of individuals who have no respect for human life, open your eyes. In fact, here's a recent example. Keep in mind that these are NOT law abiding citizen gun owners. These are the people who would happily beat you savagely to steal whatever you had with you. This video is disturbing, but I believe that through some miracle, no one was seriously injured...

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/video-captures-philadelphia-bus-shooting/story?id=14242970

Note the lack of police showing up instantly to intervene on behalf of the bus load of terrorized people.

[bluerum]

18. Jeezuz. Killing people is bad. Is that simple enough for you?

Killing people is bad. It's that simple.

In self defense you may make the decision to kill. But don't think for a minute that you will feel good about it. If you are anywhere near sane you will be pretty freaked out. Never mind the legal swamp you have just wandered into.

Self defense may require it. It does not make it right. Or good.

[TPaine7]

20. What would be right then? Should the woman surrender her husband, her son and herself

to me and my buddies? Would that be right?

[bluerum]

39. Who said anything about right? I can't decide for other people. I would shoot.

Not a good thing. But I am pretty sure I would.

But make no mistake. There are plenty of people who would not shoot. You can't decide for them.

[TPaine7]

41. The person who said this in post 18:

Self defense may require it. It does not make it right. Or good.

[bluerum]

44. So? That's what is wrong with killing people. It leads to all manner of difficulties.

Best avoided if at all possible.

[TPaine7]

46. Many things lead to difficulties. That is not my definition of "wrong."

I do agree with you that killing of people (and even of animals in my thinking) should be avoided if possible.

[Euromutt]

101. "Bad" is not the same as "wrong"

We can agree that killing people is generally a bad thing; we can even argue that it is, devoid of context, generally a wrong. But there are times when one has to commit a lesser wrong to prevent a greater one, and doing so is, for want to a better word, right.

My positions on abortion, military action and lethal force in self-defense are in broad terms the same: all result in regrettable loss of (potential) human life, and to be avoided if at all possible, but sometimes they are all necessary to prevent greater harm from occurring. And there's nothing wrong in doing so.

[onehandle]

22. Fear! nt

[SteveM]

90. Why are gun-controller/banners so paranoid? nt

[DanTex]

23. It amuses me that seemingly every pro-gun person here...

...has a long, elaborate, detailed fantasy in which the bad guys attack and the heroic gun owner saves the day. I mean, this one is complete with the name of the movie being watched!

[RSillsbee]

27. Please see post 16

it's not always a fantasy

[TPaine7]

28. I did that--and supplied a similar real-life case

because if you don't nail down enough details the anti-gun people here will always find some technical detail to sidestep the issue.

If you notice, the very first responder found one despite my efforts. The woman should have apparently stayed inside the theatre until police arrived--probably a very long time since no crimes had been committed at that point.

If I had added a reason why she had to leave with her family at that point, it would have added to your complaint.

So if the story isn't complete enough, it's open to evasion from one faction of those who oppose gun rights and if it is too complete it is open to criticism from another faction. In this case it is both.



Besides that, I like writing stories, and write them for fun sometimes. (They have nothing whatsoever to do with guns or Second Amendment issues, BTW.)

[iverglas]

76. aw, tommy boy

If you notice, the very first responder found one despite my efforts.

You know we can't notice, because somebody had it suppressed.

I'm sure you are greatly disappointed.

[TPaine7]

80. It takes a special kind of "class" to mock someone because your post was removed...

Yes, I know someone had it suppressed. However, it was suppressed long after I made my comment, and it was not suppressed at my request. The dishonest insinuation that there was something deceptive in my statement is noted and dismissed.

You are right, however--I am mildly disappointed. I would have preferred that your slime air out in the sunlight; I doubt it would have fooled anyone even remotely open-minded.

Of course the fact that your drivel violated the rules of civility and the rules of this place, and that fact that it was removed without my involvement is a reason to mock me and "cleverly" find a way to call a black man a boy. Again.

Are the mods getting you down, iverglas? Do they refuse to follow your demands? Are your posts disappearing? Don't look at me; I am not the kind of person who abuses folks then whines to the mods when things don't go my way. That would be you.

Yes, if this latest drivel is deleted it will disappoint me too. I want people to see exactly who iverglas is. Who better to illustrate it than you?

Stay classy!

[SteveM]

92. Well, there you have it. nt

[iverglas]

93. yech

"cleverly" find a way to call a black man a boy. Again.

You assume that I accept your claim in that regard. You should not assume, my sweet.

Even if it were proved, your assertion would still be pukey.

Like decisions of courts, decisions at websites are evidence only of the decision, and not of the facts of the case.

I'd love to humour you by reposting the suppressed speech -- which I have successfully done on numerous recent occasions with a note that anyone (i.e. anyone) examining the post for rules compliance should read carefully. If I can find it, I will.

[iverglas]

95. there's a present under the tree for you

Santa wouldn't want you to miss it -- it's one of those good-for-you/educational prezzies, like socks and a book of math puzzles all rolled up together.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x447511#448831

[Name removed]

102. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

105. WHY WON'T YOU UNWRAP YOUR PRESENT?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x447511#448831

It's juicy!

If you don't say something, somebody might think you aren't really interested in learning stuff at all.

[Euromutt]

81. I can provide another similar real-life case, albeit with a different movie

The film in question was Carlito's Way, playing at the "riksbioscoop" (the "2½-guilder cinema," showing movies that had recently gone out of general circulation for about 1/5 of the price of a regular movie ticket) at the Odeon in The Hague, the Netherlands. This was probably late 1994.

During the show, my girlfriend and I had had some unfriendly verbal exchanges with two members of a group of five guys who were talking through the movie (cheering Bennie Blanco "from the Bronx" and reciting parts of Eddie Murphy's Raw show), and the two in question were affronted when we asked them to knock it off. All five happened to be black, which (I hasten to point out) wasn't a causal factor in the two having an undeservedly large chip on their shoulder, but it did affect the shape and composition of the chip, if you'll pardon my stretching the metaphor; I suspect these guys were second or third-generation Surinamese or Antillean immigrants with a bit of an identity crisis which they were trying to resolve by affecting the presumed mannerisms of a angry young black American (I wouldn't have been surprised if they knew most of the lyrics of Straight Outta Compton).

Be that as it may, when my girlfriend and I came out of the theater, these guys were waiting for us, and the most aggressive one of them attacked me, hissing something like "I'll teach you to disrespect me, whitey," albeit in Dutch. Again, I don't attribute the fact that he was an asshole to the fact he was black, but I do think it shaped the way he expressed his assholery, wanting to be some ghetto badass.

In a way, I was lucky in that only the one guy attacked me, and that after he'd landed a few blows, his buddies pulled him off and away down the street with words to the effect of "you've made your point, now let's go before someone calls the cops." They needn't have worried, because apart from my girlfriend, who physically tried to intervene, everybody else coming out of the theater were "not getting involved" in the best New York city fashion (also, this being 1994, cell phones were practically non-existent). But what if the one guy had managed to incite all four of his pals to join in? How much injury could I have sustained while damn near everybody stood by and watched?

Yeah, there was no gun "toter" to "save the day" because this was the Netherlands, where carrying a firearm in public had been illegal for private citizens for 75 years at that point, and using one in defense of self or others would probably get you into bigger trouble than the person whose actions prompted you to draw it. Point remains that this kind of scenario--some dicks with a chip on their shoulder assaulting the people who had the temerity to tell them to shut up during the movie--is far from a fantasy.

[iverglas]

107. ah, what if, what if?

What if you or she had had a gun?

Presumably, you would have used it -- certainly the assembled masses here would have been urging you to.

And one more ... y'know, I can't even bring myself to type the kind of language used here ... would have been dead. And that would have been a good thing.

I'm actually failing to take your point.

One of those conflicts that tend to happen in, well, every human society and community that has ever existed, took place and ended with a couple of punches and the parties going on their ways.

And the moral of your story is .................. :shrug:

But hey, it really was very, very funny of you, all that clever claiming that race/ethnicity had nothing whatsoever to do with the situation, and how you had to explain that in such very descriptive detail ...

[tortoise1956]

31. It seems you despise those of us who fight for our civil rights...

That is the only reason I can think of to cause you to write the garbage contained in your post. You do know that there is no factual basis for your statement, right?

[iverglas]

77. actually, it seems that the poster ridicules people

who do exactly what the poster described.

It seems you can't address what was said, and feel compelled to make shit up instead.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

51. Actually happened to us many years ago

Happens with some of my self defense students as well. Sometimes just the display of weapon or stating you are armed is enough to get bad guys to back off. Sometimes it is not.

Depending where you live, things can be quite safe or fairly dangerous.

[cleanhippie]

63. Had you bothered to pull your head out of the sand for just a minute

you would see that this scenario ACTUALLY happened.

[spin]

65. Not all of us ...

There is absolutely no guarantee that using a firearm for self defense will work. You can do everything right and still get killed.

A firearm can dramatically increase your chances of surviving a violent attack if you have the knowledge and skill to use it effectively. That is the best that you can hope for.

[SteveM]

91. Uh, you might want to take up kitty cat fantasies. nt

[GeorgeGist]

24. Would you feel better ...

if you could shoot those DUers who threaten you?

[TPaine7]

29. Would you feel better if our second sun put out less heat?

No DUer has ever threatened me either.

<typo>

[saras]

34. In an ideal world, it depends. In America, something called "due process"

It's not about "what's wrong with killing?"

It's about "what's wrong with being accuser, witness, prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner, all while most likely in a highly emotional state?"

The number of Americans I'd trust with this power is very, very few. Far fewer than already have this power, legal or otherwise. The debate about whether gun owners, as a class, are more, less, or just as trustworthy as the average is a different debate, much uglier and more personal. But if they're anywhere near normal people - and I mean ANYWHERE near - then I would NOT trust them with that much power.

But I, too, live in a world where sometimes it becomes necessary to do wrong things, without this necessity making them right. (voting for conservative Dems, for example).

Killing someone is drastic enough that I think it should always go through the legal system before being determined to be the best available course of action, but I think we tolerate, and want, looseness in the enforcement of a lot of laws because we recognize that sometimes the best available course of action is illegal, from self-defense to medical marijuana.

Ultimately, what it amounts to is that there is no way to walk through life where one gets to feel right all the time.

[tortoise1956]

36. Sometimes you don't have the choice

to allow due process to take its course. If you, or your loved ones, face a mortal threat, deadly force may be the only course. It should be the last resort. That doesn't make it legally wrong. Morally, it isn't wrong unless you want to kill. But that is another topic.

[saras]

43. This is where we disagree. I think it's a lesser wrong than letting them live, but still wrong.

[tortoise1956]

47. I tell you what

How's about we agree to disagree? I don't think either of us will change our mind on this.

We seem to agree that it may be the only option left in some cases. Or have I misunderstood your posts?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

52. There are binary circumstances that occur

Also the available tools for self defense do not represent a smooth linear curve of response. Instead it is a series of steps, one of which is firearms. The law and common sense do not expect people defending their lives to shoot the weapon out of the perps hand or just wing them. Instead once deadly force is appropriate/authorized any result from scaring them off to a double tap is equivalent in the eyes of the law.

[TPaine7]

37. I take it the judicial system would not be required to justify in advance a conscious

decision to let her husband, her son and herself fall into the tender clutches of a murderous group of thugs?

(I beg your pardon because I know that sounds sarcastic. I mean no disrespect, but I want you to think about the real life choice people in these situations have to make. I would think that a mother in this situation who failed to act within her capacity to protect her son could be brought up on charges of child endangerment, at least. Don't mothers have a legal duty--never mind moral--to protect their children?)

Feelings are important. That woman may bear scars for the rest of her life for shooting me or one of my fellow thugs. But imagine the scars if she watched her son and husband being killed while she had the power to stop it!

Ultimately, her revulsion of killing is less important than her duty to her son and spouse. This is a moral reality, and stands above any feelings she may have, But I am sure that for the vast majority of women, that moral reality would be ratified by her feelings after the event. The mother who watched her family killed would suffer more than the mother who protected them.

[AtheistCrusader]

68. Self-defense has fuck-all to do with being judge, jury, executioner, or any other 'justice' canard.

Please try again.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

71. Due process applies...

...only to the actions of the state.

When a private citizen is defending himself, due process doesn't even exist.

[Euromutt]

100. Oh, not that "judge, jury and executioner" bullshit again?

By that measure, anybody who employs any amount of force in self-defense is acting as self-appointed "accuser, witness, prosecutor, judge, jury" and whatever agent of the state is tasked with imposing punitive measures on the alleged offender.

An essential reason the state agencies that comprise the criminal justice system--police, prosecutors, judges and juries--are bound to observe due process is because they are not there when the offense occurs; they have to piece together what happened after the fact from indirect information. By contrast, when a police officer is present at the scene while an offense is in progress, we don't expect him to get a warrant, let alone a jury verdict, before intervening, even with force should that be required. Ditto for a person using force in self-defense; moreover, such a person may still be held to answer to criminal charges before a court of law.

[Kennah]

35. There are many proscriptions to killing

The religious commandment of "Thou Shalt Not Kill" appears to be best interpreted as "Thou Shalt Not Do Murder". The words murder and manslaughter establish the concept under the law of "unlawful killing" so there is implicitly a "lawful killing".

Washington actually spells conditions where homicide is justified.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.050

I'm given to understand many if not most states don't do this. They rely upon the absence of conditions for murder or manslaughter.

There is a social stigma to killing, even when it's justified. As such, other than a few armchair blowhards, most people try to avoid it. I have met a handful of armchair blowhards, and my assessment of them is they are full of shit and would seek to avoid conflict and killing if at all possible. They just like listening to the sound of their own bullshit. I have yet to encounter any such blowhards here in the Gungeon.

I have been through about a 100 hours of advanced firearms training (Wades Eastside Guns, Firearms Academy of Seattle, Mas Ayoob and Judicious Use Of Deadly Force, and the late Jim Cirillo.) It has been my personal experience, as well as that of others I've talked with, that the more training one undergoes the less likely one is to use force, even when it's justified. One is better prepared and better able to use force, but less inclined.

The best example is that of encountering an armed robbery in progress at a store. Under the laws of most states, if you're legally carrying, you can shoot an armed robber. They don't have to be moments away from killing the store clerk, and you can legally shoot them.

However, the question arises do you NEED to shoot them to stay alive. If yes, then shoot until the threat subsides. But if no, then while the law permits deadly force, avoidance is a better option, if possible.

[TPaine7]

38. Agreed. Dishonest fanatics (and I am sure some honest people)

try to imply that the proscriptions on killing people are--or should be--categorical.

That is nonsense as the OP illustrates.

[bluerum]

42. Hey. That makes sense. Glad to actually encounter it. But. I am not sure I qgree

that there are no arm chair blowhards here.

[TPaine7]

45. i am heartened to see that you agree. Actually, I agee with you that there are some blowhards here.

I've read their posts.

[gejohnston]

50. I read them too

but I also have come across the "I never could" blowhard. Ultimately, most people really don't know until if and when they are in that situation. The only people who are 100 percent certain are committed pacifists and sociopaths. Even then, I am not so sure about the former.

[Kennah]

67. I guess I provide a generous discount here ...

... given the shrill sound of blowhards in RW gunland.

[PavePusher]

69. "There is a social stigma to killing, even when it's justified."

Not in my social circles.

Anyone who would stigmatize me for defending myself won't be welcome in my vicinity, be they family, friend, co-worker or stranger on the street.

[Kennah]

72. After a justified killing, it changes one and the people around one.

I've never killed anyone, never fired a shot in anger, never fired a warning shot, and never even had someone at gunpoint. Been uncomfortably close a few times, I've met people who have killed, and I know more than a couple of people who've met or knows someone who has killed.

I don't hang out with gangsters. I know people in LE and firearms training circles.

Marriages that seem otherwise fine before a killing can just fall apart for no apparent reason. Coworkers stop talking to people, bosses find a reason to fire them, and even family can drift apart.

Even police departments didn't really know what to do or how to handle it for a very long time. Macho bullshit prevailed.

I saw a video at FAS (Firearms Academy of Seattle) in which a cop, I think he was a Lieutenant, had to sit down with an officer who'd been involved in a deadly force shooting. He said he didn't really know what to do or say, and he just starting talking some about his experiences in Viet Nam as an infantryman. This happened probably back in the mid 1980s and it was fairly common at that time. Today, almost any police department, large or small, will make sure the officer gets in to talk with someone.

Post Shooting Trauma, which is related but very different from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, is very real.

[iverglas]

78. yeah; one of them's dead

That's quite a major change ........

[Kennah]

79. If you're dead, you tend not to worry much.

[PavePusher]

86. Two different, though probably tangent/partially overlapping issues.

Personal psychological effects (mostly an internal issue, though commonly with external manifestations) are a different subject than social stigmatization (mostly an external influence, but can cause psychological problems).

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RSillsbee]

54. I see a huge amount of intellectual dishonesty in some of the responses.

If you kick down my door at any time day or night I am under no obligation to assume you are after "stuff".

If I find you in my living room at oh-dark-thirty I'm still under no obligation to assume you are after "stuff".

If, God forbid, I wake up and you are in my room I'm still under no obligation to assume you are after "stuff". A couple of years ago a woman I went to college w/ woke up w/ a man on top of her. Technically I suppose he was after her "stuff" that night. I guess she should have let him have it.

[Philippine expat]

74. Nothing is wrong with it,

you threaten me or my family or you try to steal my property you just signed your death warrant

[iverglas]

75. ah, a fan of extra-judicial killing

you threaten me or my family or you try to steal my property you just signed your death warrant

We were at risk of having a shortage of them around here.

Interesting phrasing, that "signed you death warrant".

You're familiar with the term "inalienable"?

You could try using it somewhere in your sentence, and see how it fits. I would find that to be a very amusing diversion, if you feel like humouring me.

[Philippine expat]

98. Just for you

I have the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,
when you decide to threaten me, my loved ones or my property you voluntarily
forfeited your same inalienable rights.

[iverglas]

99. yes, I believe you've said that several times

It's the same gibberish it was the first time.

Oh well, if someone wants to spout gibberish in public, it's their funeral.

[ileus]

84. I don't know if I'd say death warrant...but I'd agree for the most part.

my family and property are worth protecting. Family goes without needing a reason for defense, however.com the items I've accumulated have been at the price of my time...time that defines life. I won't tolerate people stealing from me.

[iverglas]

94. so everybody's been attending a natural law class?

It's very cute to watch the "my property is my life" stuff getting regurgitated back.

I've addressed it elsewhere. And I care no more about what you will or won't tolerate than I care what you had for breakfast. Nobody gave you the job of tolerating or not tolerating anything.

[ileus]

97. You said it not me.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

83. I believe it is called

justifiable homicide.

[jpak]

87. Welcome to Bloody Gun Fantasy Island - you're my hero!!!111

:rofl:

[ileus]

110. I think we can all agree that under the right circumstances....nothing.