3 ms·

Nothing at all praiseworthy about e.g. this recent DGU as reported here: http://bearingarms.com/jenn-j/2016/04/29/80-year-old-woman-shoots-home-intruder-stabbed

by hga 11y ago

Nothing at all praiseworthy about e.g. this recent DGU as reported here: http://bearingarms.com/jenn-j/2016/04/29/80-year-old-woman-shoots-home-intruder-stabbed-husband/ http://bearingarms.com/jenn-j/2016/04/29/80-year-old-woman-s... What's you "better" for when a thug is using lethal force on an innocent? This is one of the most pernicious ideas advocated by those who defend guns, and makes it very difficult to discuss the related issues rationally. Yep, as long as you have such disdain for legitimate uses of guns you're certainly not going to be able to discuss the issue "rationally", you've already made up your mind. And if you think I view all human life as equal, you're sorely confused, which is further supported by you suspicion of bloodlust being a part of this.

bobwaycott 11y ago
Let me go ahead and start by saying you're probably not going to believe this. Nevertheless, it is true, and sincere. There are many people for whom I'd give my life, without the slightest hesitation, to ensure their safety and survival. Obviously, my teenage sons. And my family members. And my closest friends. Hell, even my ex-wife. There is no way I would take a life for anyone. That's a universe away, and a wholly different thing. I would do all I could to de-escalate a potentially dangerous situation. I would physically fight and attempt to subdue an attacker who threatened me or those I love most dearly. I'd do all I could to diffuse a violent confrontation and disable a threat. But I would not kill for it. I reject the notion that, where a human life is concerned, there is a "legitimate" use of guns. And yet, despite what you assume, I am most capable of discussing the matter rationally and unemotionally. That I take a strong stance against violence and, as you put it, have made up my mind on that point, in no way prevents me from engaging the matter in rational conversation. Moreover, as with all things, I am and have always been open to allowing my currently staked positions to be changed by a preponderance of convincing evidence and argument that proves more rational, reasonable, defensible, and warranted. As far as taking lives is concerned, however, that climb is far steeper than many other issues. That you don't view all human life as equal is your own issue to grapple with. I'm in no way confused. I think you may have overreacted to my using the term "bloodlust" in a very specific and narrow context, but I anticipated it being something that would likely incur a rather visceral response. I can only encourage you to view all human life as equally worthy of protection, and really, really difficult to take flippantly.
- hga 11y ago
  There are many people for whom I'd give my life, without the slightest hesitation, to ensure their safety and survival. There is no way I would take a life for anyone. These simultaneous positions are rational??? In what situations would you be able to a) give your life for another in which that selfless act would both "ensure their safety and survival" but could not entail the taking of a life? Do you really consider the human life of someone trying to kill your loved ones as equal to those loved ones? No, I believe in the concept of the outlaw, the person who's put himself "outside the law" in a sense, at least for the duration of his lethal threat, and who can be legally opposed with lethal force (which actually means the whole situation is within the law, hence my weasel words). I do not view such human lives as equal to those of the innocents they predate on, for the duration of their lethal threats. (Although, to make crystal clear, my legal and moral response is to use lethal force on them if necessary, killing per se is no legal, but the job of the judiciary after due process. Of course killing is a likely outcome when using lethal force, but stopping the lethal threat is the legitimate outcome, killing an unfortunate common result.)
  - bobwaycott 11y ago
    Yes, holding those seemingly at-odds positions is, in my opinion, both rational and morally/ethically defensible. I define the limits of my actions by what I believe to be morally and ethically defensible, not by what I think will be legally defensible. The law is no arbiter of what is right or good. Yes, I consider all human life to be equal, whether it is the life of a loved one, a stranger, an asshole, or what-have-you.[1] [1]: I'll admit that I have a difficult time coming up with a realistically successful non-lethal solution to the problem of individuals like Hitler, Stalin, et al. I admit the need for certain nuances, and find there to be a strong moral and ethical case to be made for removing a singular threat posed to millions of human lives. However, I still remain firm on the principle that taking a life, even of one such as Hitler, should be a last resort after all other options have been exhausted. And even then, I would hope the decision to be one that those who made it agonized over, and accepted with heavy hearts that they'd decided to kill.
    - 11y ago

by hga 11y ago

bobwaycott 11y ago

Let me go ahead and start by saying you're probably not going to believe this. Nevertheless, it is true, and sincere. There are many people for whom I'd give my life, without the slightest hesitation, to ensure their safety and survival. Obviously, my teenage sons. And my family members. And my closest friends. Hell, even my ex-wife. There is no way I would take a life for anyone. That's a universe away, and a wholly different thing. I would do all I could to de-escalate a potentially dangerous situation. I would physically fight and attempt to subdue an attacker who threatened me or those I love most dearly. I'd do all I could to diffuse a violent confrontation and disable a threat. But I would not kill for it. I reject the notion that, where a human life is concerned, there is a "legitimate" use of guns. And yet, despite what you assume, I am most capable of discussing the matter rationally and unemotionally. That I take a strong stance against violence and, as you put it, have made up my mind on that point, in no way prevents me from engaging the matter in rational conversation. Moreover, as with all things, I am and have always been open to allowing my currently staked positions to be changed by a preponderance of convincing evidence and argument that proves more rational, reasonable, defensible, and warranted. As far as taking lives is concerned, however, that climb is far steeper than many other issues. That you don't view all human life as equal is your own issue to grapple with. I'm in no way confused. I think you may have overreacted to my using the term "bloodlust" in a very specific and narrow context, but I anticipated it being something that would likely incur a rather visceral response. I can only encourage you to view all human life as equally worthy of protection, and really, really difficult to take flippantly.

hga 11y ago
There are many people for whom I'd give my life, without the slightest hesitation, to ensure their safety and survival. There is no way I would take a life for anyone. These simultaneous positions are rational??? In what situations would you be able to a) give your life for another in which that selfless act would both "ensure their safety and survival" but could not entail the taking of a life? Do you really consider the human life of someone trying to kill your loved ones as equal to those loved ones? No, I believe in the concept of the outlaw, the person who's put himself "outside the law" in a sense, at least for the duration of his lethal threat, and who can be legally opposed with lethal force (which actually means the whole situation is within the law, hence my weasel words). I do not view such human lives as equal to those of the innocents they predate on, for the duration of their lethal threats. (Although, to make crystal clear, my legal and moral response is to use lethal force on them if necessary, killing per se is no legal, but the job of the judiciary after due process. Of course killing is a likely outcome when using lethal force, but stopping the lethal threat is the legitimate outcome, killing an unfortunate common result.)
- bobwaycott 11y ago
  Yes, holding those seemingly at-odds positions is, in my opinion, both rational and morally/ethically defensible. I define the limits of my actions by what I believe to be morally and ethically defensible, not by what I think will be legally defensible. The law is no arbiter of what is right or good. Yes, I consider all human life to be equal, whether it is the life of a loved one, a stranger, an asshole, or what-have-you.[1] [1]: I'll admit that I have a difficult time coming up with a realistically successful non-lethal solution to the problem of individuals like Hitler, Stalin, et al. I admit the need for certain nuances, and find there to be a strong moral and ethical case to be made for removing a singular threat posed to millions of human lives. However, I still remain firm on the principle that taking a life, even of one such as Hitler, should be a last resort after all other options have been exhausted. And even then, I would hope the decision to be one that those who made it agonized over, and accepted with heavy hearts that they'd decided to kill.
  - 11y ago