hal@finney.org wrote:
> Samantha writes:
> > Frankly I have had enough friends raped, mugged and even
> > had a second level friend beaten to death. Like most of us I tend not to
> > dwell on these things too much. But I can't help but wonder if one
> > friend would still be alive and if the others would have been a lot less
> > traumatized if they were armed. The issues aren't all academic or a
> > matter of 2nd amendment justifying of not justifying it. These things
> > are also a matter of life and death of real people, some of them quite
> > close to me.
>
> To carry a lethal weapon, as others have pointed out, means adjusting
> your thought processes to the point where you are prepared to exercise
> lethal force. You have to be ready to kill, if you carry a gun.
>
> And for it to be useful in the examples cited, you have to be ready to
> kill in response to an assault of less than lethal magnitude. You need
> to be ready to kill in response to robbery, for example.
Hal, thats clearly false, since she did say one person was beaten to death,
and given the statistics of risk of being killed during a rape, robbery, etc,
there is a significant probability of deadly harm in such events, and given
that its been proven that you are at least 30% more likely to survive such a
crime if you are armed with a gun, then not carrying one is simply stupid. The
law is that if you simply beleive you are in mortal danger, you can use deadly
force. It also is that if dependent people, like children or handicapped, or
elderly people are there, you are actually responsible to attempt to stop a
felony, and deadly force is authorized if the felon is using any weapon that
can kill.
> I don't think most people are ready to kill. I don't think they are
> prepared to personally take a human life. From what I've read, for most
> people (not all) this is a tremendously traumatic experience. To kill
> a human being carries the ultimate degree of finality. You take away
> everything he will ever have and will ever be. There is no chance of
> reconciliation, no chance of recovery, no chance of reparing the damage
> which has been done and beginning to start anew. It's over, permanently
> and forever.
You want to reconcile with someone who wants to kill you? Excuse me? Anyone
who would initiate deadly force has already given up their right to live, so
you are not taking anything away from them. Its THEIR fault, not yours. If a
person is killed for comitting a violent felony, such a homicide is more like
a suicide than a manslaughter.
> It seems to me that preparing yourself psychologically for this action
> requires a certain amount of distancing and depersonalizing your
> attitudes towards other people. You can't think of your target as a
> human being with hopes and aspirations, struggling under the weight of
> damaging experiences and harmful thoughts. He needs to be thought of
> impersonally, as a threat to be eliminated.
No, you can empathize with them, you can understand them, but when it comes
down to it, that does not take away from the fact they need to die, otherwise,
you are going to die. They are sick people that cannot be reasoned with,
cannot be reconciled with, who have no pity, no mercy, no compassion. If they
don't value your life, then they obviously don't value their own.
> In the long run, isn't it possible that this psychological adjustment will
> be damaging to your relationships with other people? Aren't killers (and
> potential killers) going to be a little more cold-blooded, a little more
> impersonal and hard-hearted? Might they not face a burden in setting up
> alliances and working together with other people, compared to those who
> are more trusting, open and accepting of human limitations and weaknesses?
Murderers are more cold blooded, more impersonal and hard hearted. Killing a
murderer is the duty of any freedom loving person, whether on a one to one
basis or as a society through the justice system. People who are 'trusting,
open, and accepting of the human limitations and weaknesses' of murderers are
no longer people (as far as the murderer is concerned, they are just prey, and
then they are dead. A free society cannot tolerate the existence of those who
would prey upon the liberty of other individuals and the trust free men have
other freedom lovers.
> Taking the responsibility of carrying a gun is going to change you.
> It forces you to think of yourself as a killer, as one who is willing
> to kill. Admittedly, if you actually save your life by carrying the
> gun then any costs it imposes are worthwhile. But the chance that you
> will actually be killed by violence are highly remote.
There is nothing wrong with being a killer. Being a murderer is something else
entirely, something distinctly different. Much like the difference between
giving and taking, the difference between killing and murdering is frequently
confused by those of casual moral development.
> Given the very small probability of this outcome, the costs in terms
> of your alienation from society must be considered significant. In the
> long run your survival prospects will be hurt by having a lesser degree
> of social connectivity.
Bull. A person who is willing to kill for the protection of their fellow man
or themselves values liberty far greater than those sheeple who do not think
life is worth fighting for.
Mike Lorrey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:38:44 MDT