From: Jason Joel Thompson (jasonjthompson@home.com)
Date: Sat Sep 23 2000 - 18:27:15 MDT
----- Original Message -----
From: <T0Morrow@aol.com>
> 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.
I tend to agree with Michael Lorrey here: "Any weapon you carry you MUST be
willing to use. Visualize using in various circumstances. Determine what are
appropriate weapons for you, what you are
comfortable with, and under what circumstances."
If you are truly unwilling to use a weapon, but want it simply to scare
people away, why not load it with blanks? You just don't fool around with
this kind of sh!t in my opinion.
> >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.
You should read Hal's post again, because this is -not- what he's talking
about. The issue at hand is the repercussions to one's dealings with others
upon making the specific decision to carry, and use, deadly force. This is
not a discussion regarding someone's inability to "_conceive_ of using
deadly force in defense of self and loves ones"
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.
I doubt such an impulse stems from cowardice, but you'd be right in the
assumption that I would find such an individual was critically limited by
the rigidity of his moral code.
> Would he nonetheless seem admirably warm-blooded,
> personal, and soft-hearted to Hal?
Admirably? It's interesting that upon Hal asking the question: "isn't it
possible that this psychological adjustment will be damaging to your
relationships with other people?" (a valid and interesting question in my
opinion,) there have been immediate responses seemingly interpreting his
question as an attack on people who make this adjustment and a resounding
praise in favor of those who don't-- an interpretation that fails to address
the central point by virtue of presupposition.
Instead, we might think about actually applying some thought to the issue.
For those of you who are interested in doing so, let me proffer the
following questions:
a) As best as we are able to determine, by what margin do you increase your
survivability by choosing to train and equip yourself with deadly force?
Clearly this number will differ from individual to individual-- but unless
we have ninjas or mobsters on this list, I think our relative probabilities
will clump fairly closely.
b) Choosing to train and equip yourself with deadly force is a powerful
decision with moral implications and necessitates the ability to take a
particular type of decisive and permanent action, with real repercussions.
Are there possible negative side effects to making such a decision? If so,
is it worth it anyway?
Several list members have already given the impression that they do not
believe that there are possible negative side effects to making such a
decision. (Maybe there are positive ones!) That's fine, and we know how
you stand on the issue.
I tend to disagree. But first a caveat: unlike some list members, I
actually don't associate with very many gun owners, let alone people who
actively carry firearms. So much of this is pure conjecture. However, in
my limited dealings with those who have inclinations in that direction
(including people on this list,) my impression has been that: as a result of
their decision, the means by which they interact with other people has been
altered in a fashion that I would consider negative-- in some cases, even so
far as to have a direct effect on their survivability, or quality of life.
HOWever, in accordance with the complexity of this issue, I suspect that to
some degree, and in some cases, the reverse is true. (Sense of security,
personal empowerment, etc.)
And even granted that there are negative repercussions, I can imagine
scenarios under which "it is worth it anyway," as I've mentioned in an
earlier posting.
In any case, at this point in time, it is obvious to me the repercussions of
equipping myself with deadly force outweigh the exceedingly slim margin by
which it would increase my survivability under current conditions. I mean,
come on people, you genuinely want to increase your survivability, stop
driving.
I invite discussion from those aware of, and interested in, the ambiguity
and complexity of this issue.
--
::jason.joel.thompson::
::founder::
www.wildghost.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:31:08 MST