From: Michael S. Lorrey (retroman@turbont.net)
Date: Mon Sep 25 2000 - 09:36:56 MDT
Jason Joel Thompson wrote:
>
> ----- 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.
While this may work in some instances, I don't recommend you do it with, say, a
revolver, where the perp can see that you have blanks. I also would not use them
for the simple fact that a perp with a gun is going to shoot back, and blanks
won't help you then.
>
> > >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"
The repercussions he is implying is, for example, that you won't be able to
empathize with your wife after killing someone who was attempting to rape her,
etc.. Frankly, I would expect one's wife to fail to empathize with you if you
refused to kill someone who was attempting to rape her.
>
> 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.
Sorry, he's just a yellow bastard. I don't care if thats his 'moral code'. His
moral code is one of rationalizing cowardice. Valuing the life of a criminal
over the life of a loved one is cowardly, a mental illness of phobia bordering
on psychosis.
>
> > 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.
No, he is implying that people who kill in self defense will become, mentally
deranged, as much as people that murder. There is a significant difference
between the two. While there is no doubt that highly stressful situations do
have a greater impact in one's memory, the only difference between carrying a
gun or not in such situations is that you are more likely to survive the
situation to remember it than you are if you are disarmed. Dead men tell no
tales.
>
> 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.
Do you mean they choose to live in a jurisdiction that has fewer high paying
jobs because they value their right to defend themselves and their families over
purely commercial concerns? Frankly, every state and I've ever been in that
tends to the free end of the scale with regards to gun ownership and use tend to
have a far higher quality of life than those cities and states on the other end
of the scale, so I dissagree with you greatly. Such free jurisdictions also have
far lower crime rates on all levels than jurisdictions which restrict gun use,
so survivability is also higher with guns than without.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:31:11 MST