Hal wrote:
>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.
I don't see the necessity of that relation. One might be quite willing to
carry a lethal weapon and yet be quite unwilling to use it. By far the
majority of defensive uses of firearms involve mere brandishing them. It
suffices to give the impression that you can and will use deadly force.
Even were that claim true, I question the rhetorical implications of Hal's
questions about the psychological effects of preparing to wield deadly force
in defense of loved ones and self:
>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?
To the contrary, I would argue that a person unwilling to conceive of using
deadly force in defense of self and loved ones lacks both self-regard and a
callous attitude toward the very people who most deserve protection. Imagine
a father who says, "Oh, my, no! I would not shoot someone even if it were
the only way to stop them from raping my wife and killing my children! That
would be so, so . . . cruel!" I think we would rightly regard that fellow as
not just a coward but as morally culpable for failing to shoulder his
responsibilities. Would he nonetheless seem admirably warm-blooded,
personal, and soft-hearted to Hal? If so, I aver that one can take such
traits, however virtuous in moderation, to unvirtuous extremes.
_________
T.0. Morrow
http://members.aol.com/t0morrow/T0Mpage.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:38:45 MDT