Why so hostile? I never questioned your mental abilities.
Is it your place to take away another person's life?
2nd Amendment - what's the point?
- Thread starter the
- Start date
Why so hostile? I never questioned your mental abilities.
Is it your place to take away another person's life?
I have doubts about your sincerity. I refuse to be the contrast for your preening.
Is it your place to ask me this question?
Well I am sincere. I don't think that I'm preening, and I don't mean to. I just don't agree with the second amendment, and I don't think that private citizens have the right to own guns. Why participate in an online discussion if you don't think that people have the right to ask you questions?
What you or I think doesn't really matter if we're not trying to change things. Are you out to change things? If you are, there will be opposition. If you're not, then you're just talking.
I'm trying my best to not participate, believe me.
I personally also could not be able to take someone's life. I just cannot conceive of it.
However, there are times when it might happen. In an ideal world, we wouldn't have to. But we don't live in an ideal world. An alternative method would be preferable, such as simply disarming someone, but when you're in the heat of the moment you have to act quickly.
For instance, if I saw someone about to kill others, or do another grievous harm. Or if I saw someone committing a heinous act. Human beings are capable of... terrible things. And there are things worse than death. Things people do to their fellow humans that are far worse than death.
There are times when the taking of a life outweighs what might otherwise occur. I agree that there are alternatives, but like I said, when you have to act quickly you sometimes don't have the opportunity choose what might be preferable.
If someone had been beating and were about to shoot my loved ones, for instance, I imagine I would feel compelled act, and I would have to do it with haste. It is not ideal, nor preferable, but I would have to act.
I'd love to change things! I don't mind opposition, I encourage it. That's why I'm asking you questions, to try and learn more about how you look at the issue. I could do without the insults, though. I honestly don't understand why you're so hostile.
Good points. It's a dangerous world. I would just definitely be more scared if I knew that everyone around me were carrying guns just in case. There's so many different self-defense, as well as tazers and pepper sprays ... Guns are just so inherently dangerous and capable that there's no comparison
We make our choices in life and live with them. If we knew all the answers before hand and could follow them, everyone would be perfect. You think you're doing the right thing.
Personally I'd rather not have to kill anyone. That's just how it is. But I'm not going to restrict myself with rigid principles because that's just not who I am. I face the world without fear and my life will be my judge. I accept death as a possibility and take full responsibility for what I do.
Someone might try to kill me one day. I accept that. Decrying that it is wrong isn't going to stop them. If it happens it happens. I also won't say that I'll never kill anyone. I won't kill for the sake of it because that's pointless and wasteful, but I'm not going to sit here and pretend to be entirely passive because that would make me a liar. There might come a time that I kill someone and it will be done, and principles won't stop it and nothing will bring that person back.
There are a lot of people who don't want to kill that end up killing anyway in spite of themselves. People who are suddenly thrust into violent situations and their instincts kick in. Soldiers who have been drafted and are reluctant to kill until they see their friends dying. There's really no telling what you'll never do.
just an FYI, no one is afraid of a half asleep guy trying to swing a bat in a hallway.
I haven't really insulted you and I'm not being particularly hostile either. I'm tolerating you. If my annoyance comes through it's because I'm in fact annoyed, but believe me I am NOT trying to be hostile. You don't want to see me being hostile.
[MENTION=5601]ezra[/MENTION]
Also the 2nd Amendment doesn't really specify lethal force. It's not about killing per se - non lethal self defense could be included in it.
For example in the US we allow civilians to have tasers, pepper spray, batons, and less lethal ammunition such as bean bags or rubber bullets. There are several countries where even these are illegal, even though they're not intended to kill.
There are places that don't want you to have any weapon or really defend yourself regardless of lethality. This is what the 2nd Amendment wants to avoid. It makes no sense to have to improvise a weapon - baseball bats are for baseball. Why not use something better suited if you're intending to have a weapon anyway?
Edit:
And in fact you're probably more likely to kill someone with a bat than say a taser or a baton designed for personal defense.
Also the 2nd Amendment doesn't really specify lethal force. It's not about killing per se - non lethal self defense could be included in it.
For example in the US we allow civilians to have tasers, pepper spray, batons, and less lethal ammunition such as bean bags or rubber bullets. There are several countries where even these are illegal, even though they're not intended to kill.
There are places that don't want you to have any weapon or really defend yourself regardless of lethality. This is what the 2nd Amendment wants to avoid. It makes no sense to have to improvise a weapon - baseball bats are for baseball. Why not use something better suited if you're intending to have a weapon anyway?
Edit:
And in fact you're probably more likely to kill someone with a bat than say a taser or a baton designed for personal defense.
The thing about tasers and pepper spray is that they're both shorter range weapons, the taser a little less so at least. With pepper spray I'd have to get in pretty close for it to be effective, and by then I could be shot dead, and those I were, hypothetically, trying to protect subsequently shot dead.
And one might say that scenario wouldn't have to occur if my opponent didn't have a gun, but gun laws aren't going to stop the wrong person from carrying and using a firearm; people will find a way regardless. And if it's made outright illegal, that'll just make it less regulated. And that's an even scarier thought to me.
I do agree, guns are very dangerous, and they make taking a life far too quick and easy - but - like I said, regardless of legality they exist now in our world, and will be wielded. There are many things we have as a society now in direct response to advancements in technology that wouldn't have been necessary before, that exist solely as a response to those advancements.
As a society, we now have guns. No laws are going to stop that. People are going to use them, and they are going to use them senselessly and needlessly. We know that laws certainly don't stop that.
I know that it isn't ideal. I know that you shouldn't have to take a life, and the very thought pains me; however, guns are an unfortunate fact of life now. It might be necessary to wield a gun, because of the very existence of guns themselves. Violence begetting more violence, but like I mentioned before - the violence someone reasonable uses in a situation could far outweigh what the other person was about to commit.
I see death as a natural part of life, which doesn't necessarily justify killing of course. But, there are times when it happens, and it is better than the alternative.
That's why our police forces haven't gone entirely to less lethal weapons. Any obstruction or even loose clothing can mess up a taser. If both darts don't go in with enough spread between them to make a good circuit, it's not going to work and they may even be able to charge you or break the wires. There are also people who can shrug off pepper spray.
Also a simple improvised shield can ward off a lot of less lethal attacks. A taser won't work if it doesn't hit their body and a deflected hit from spray might not be potent enough even if the overspray gets on them.
I'm all for alternatives as well and if given the opportunity to disarm or something similarly reasonable I would do so. This is purely hypothetical and the reality is that this situation is never likely to ever occur. The point being though is the principles involved. Murder is legal term indicating an unjustified homicide rather than self-defense. You can believe it to be murder all you want, but it likely wouldn't be seen that way by a court of law unless the context were different.
I'm assuming you've never taken another's life and I readily admit to not doing so as well, so neither of us can make any legitimate claims regarding the mentality of the act. I, though, have through illness had to fight to survive and been near death on a multitude of different occasions which have informed my opinion towards death and dying. I doubt very much that you know anything about such matters. What I fear more than anything is a slow, drawn out, torturous, and agonizing death. I very much romanticize a quicker death and with less foreknowledge of its impending occurrence.
This is why, if faced with the unavoidable, I would resort to viciousness. It is more merciful for both participants should a fight to the death necessarily occur. As I said though, this is purely hypothetical, never likely to happen, and as a last resort given the situation.
As to the original topic, I think the US could do with some gun reform. We don't allow private access to nuclear weapons. Why should we allow access to weapons designed for mass killings? The problem isn't even necessarily with guns at all, but our culture that is overly greedy and selfish that it would rather profit from gun sales and disregard mental health and well-being issues than make any societal change to better everyone's lives rather than the wealthy few. We have a society that encourages people to only care about themselves by and large.
Why do most criminals run away from an alarm, then? People usually don't count on any type of resistance and flee if they can.
You wrote that I would have no hope of understanding that death is a part of living. That's not hostility? How have I annoyed you?
You seem to expect other people to be like you. I find that annoying in anyone. And you obviously don't understand because you're not leaving me alone about it.
You can have your opinions, but this vitriol is not helping discussion.
Because you are not a trigger happy police officer.
You obviously wouldn't have thought things through. They've already committed to the act by breaking and entering. You think they're going to turn tail and run at that point when they still have the advantage? Hopefully your trust pays off and they don't intend to add murder to their list of charges, but that might also depend on their willingness to leave a witness and whether or not they may have been armed.
How do I expect anyone to be like me? I keep writing that these are my points of view, my view on morality, my reading on the world. You're not disagreeing with me, you're attacking me personally for no reason other than just being annoyed at my point of view.
Why does a person break and enter? To kill people in the house or to steal what's inside?