Philosophy Now Forum

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Mon Nov 05, 2018 4:35 pm And so nothing stops you from exercising your 2A rights to protect others. And you don’t need a uniform. Citizen arrest powers exist in just about every legal system.

commonsense wrote: ↑Mon Nov 05, 2018 7:56 pm So it comes down to this: do we want a society that condones killing or one that sanctions it?

commonsense wrote: ↑Mon Nov 05, 2018 7:56 pm It is fair to say that, no matter how compelling the arguments, one side will not convince the other to change sides. There’s something visceral about gun ownership v gun
control. Personal experience informs one’s position. Supporting argument follows.

I was surprised by an NVA soldier who suddenly appeared, just 3’ away from me on the ground in thick jungle. The fear I experienced felt like an explosion of adrenaline throughout my body. In about 1/10 sec, I emptied my ammo on him, putting 20 rounds into his body, 19 from the clip and 1 from the chamber.

It was then that I noticed he was unarmed.

My internal environment faded immediately to the worst nausea I had ever felt. I didn’t know that someone could be in a war, in the kill zone, without a weapon. He looked to be only 14 years old. I felt a choking sensation in my throat.

Whether someone has survived a home invasion by using a gun or has killed an unarmed kid, it’s our attachment to our experience with guns that creates our attitude toward guns.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Mon Nov 05, 2018 8:13 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Mon Nov 05, 2018 7:56 pm So it comes down to this: do we want a society that condones killing or one that sanctions it?

Killing is amoral. Some times it's necessary. Murder is immoral.[/quote ]

Yes, but never moral.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Mon Nov 05, 2018 8:13 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Mon Nov 05, 2018 7:56 pm It is fair to say that, no matter how compelling the arguments, one side will not convince the other to change sides. There’s something visceral about gun ownership v gun
control. Personal experience informs one’s position. Supporting argument follows.

I was surprised by an NVA soldier who suddenly appeared, just 3’ away from me on the ground in thick jungle. The fear I experienced felt like an explosion of adrenaline throughout my body. In about 1/10 sec, I emptied my ammo on him, putting 20 rounds into his body, 19 from the clip and 1 from the chamber.

It was then that I noticed he was unarmed.

My internal environment faded immediately to the worst nausea I had ever felt. I didn’t know that someone could be in a war, in the kill zone, without a weapon. He looked to be only 14 years old. I felt a choking sensation in my throat.

Whether someone has survived a home invasion by using a gun or has killed an unarmed kid, it’s our attachment to our experience with guns that creates our attitude toward guns.

As sorry as I am about your experience, you need to own the fact that you fucked up. Not the gun. You made a bad call. On the other hand - I don't for a second claim that I would've made a choice any different to the one you made in your circumstances.

I too have taken life. Justified. Unpleasant? Yes. Would I do it again under similar circumstances? Yes.

I really do own the fact that I erred. My M-16 functioned well. I worry that other good people will err as I did.

Would I do it again? No.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Nov 05, 2018 9:19 pm You kill (with gun, knife, fist, etc.) someone threatening your loved one, someone you're certain will kill your loved one if you don't act.

This, I think, is a moral act.

I think a body forsakes his claim to his own life when he moves to take another without provocation.

I think defending the undefended, up to and including taking life, is justified, moral.