> Saying it is so doesn't make it so. If you aren't practiced in the art > of shooting you can't be sure that you will be able to to make the > shot that saves your life. Sorry, that's a fact. ... and it is also a well-known fact that any kind of self-defense has to be lethal to the original attacker.
> It was accidental - but the perp is dead, regardless. Lets say you > didn't have a club but you did have a gun and you shot him, murder? Depends again, which makes it so hard to distinguish afterwards (or maybe unnecessary, even). However, exactly these borderline cases - at least they should be borderline in an intact society - are the best to defend your point and the worst for me, because everyone the trump card of "your daughter being raped by ..." can be played in almost any case. So is it a borderline case in your society? How often is the whole thing about a thief, not a rapist? With proper restrictions the criminal would less often have a gun on him, because he might feel that he doesn't have to "defend" his life from the house owner who's "defending" his/her property. > You should keep in mind that such a perp in such a situation could at > any moment infect your wife or daughter with AIDS (killing them, > essentially) should you not act quickly enough. Yes, that's why I agree with the "in the heat of the moment" argument, but without guns this would prove far more often non-lethal, I am sure. And I mean for *both* sides. Now, I already suspect that the trump card of "that will allow criminals to get guns, because they don't care about laws anyway - leaving us without defense". Weeeelllll ;) ... taking into account that there are a lot of countries on earth which have more restrictions on guns and a considerably lower rate of homicide, I'd say: give it a try then! Also the often cited ability to overthrow the government ... how often has that been exercised so far? > I know most all of the popular motives - I'm asking you which motive > you're going to attack first. But let me explain, its a joke. The one > true motive is the human condition and their isn't a "fix" for that. Good. Is there more to it than the statement? How did you verify that claim? And btw, greed would be a good point to start with. > <Oliver> There is no license to kill - for no one and from no > one.</Oliver> > > <Brian>Where does this idea of yours come from? If religious - I"m > unaware of a single religion which forbids killing. If its not, well > then, its an atheist free-for-all - or it comes down to property rights. However you like to see it. This was, by the way, aimed at the "soldier == murderer?" question. And reassuring families of soldiers doesn't make them less murderers to me. Sorry, that's also a fact. "You shall not covet your neighbour's oil^Whome" ... but anyway, if you are a soldier you got the license to kill in whatever situation and for whatever purpose?! Thanks, this will certainly make a lot of victims of <plug-in-nationality> soldiers as well as the families of both, soldiers and victims, happy, convincing them that their killer/relative was a good person. Including soldiers under the command of aggressors, dictators ... you name it, of course. But I think I can see what you're up to. Because the soldier is "forced" to follow the commands (his life being threatened if he doesn't), he's not responsible for what he does, but ultimately whoever is is in command - which then boils down to the small group of leaders or a single person. Is that what you mean? Sorry, but I don't subscribe to that view, because as Walter E. Williams said in his article: "That has to be nonsense. Guns do not commit crimes; people do.". Which means that a soldier is to choose whether: 1. he wants to be court-martialled (in wartimes usually done "in situ", resulting in the death of the soldier) 2. he wants to kill a potentially large number of people - including the previously mentioned children, daughters, grandmas ... you name it. Interestingly many sane people have gone crazy over the fact that they "had" to kill as soldiers. It doesn't make them less a murderer *to me*, but it adds a tragic dimension to the cases that let's me feel with them. But tell me, where exactly do you draw the line between "killing" (as a soldier), "murder" and "war atrocity"? Does it not depend on the victor or the victim? > [reworded] In all of these instances, the morals concerning the taking > of another man's life only consider it murder when the motive is selfish > (revenge, money, hate) as opposed to save the life of one's self, the > life of another or property.</Brian> Hmm, saving one's own life isn't selfish? That's new to me. The only excuse in that case and the case of your kinsfolk is, that humans have a certain instinct for their own survival - and it's hard to suppress instincts. That's why there is usually no penalty for killing in self-defense, whether accidentally (with a "less lethal" weapon) or intentionally (e.g. with a gun). Doesn't make it less selfish, does it? Sorry, but property is a bit misplaced on your list. But maybe you are, at last, allowed to covet (and take) your neighbor's oil anyway? Well, then it's a whole different story, of course. // Oliver -- --------------------------------------------------- May the source be with you, stranger ;) ICQ: #281645 URL: http://assarbad.info | http://windirstat.info | http://blog.assarbad.info _______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
