On Feb 5, 4:28 am, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote:
> Lee, if I have understood the discussion :
>
> ( 1 ) Fear is an argument for gun ownership, and KC says that it is
> good enough, particularly since the law so permits.
I didn't necessarily say that fear is an argument for gun ownership.
Fear is used as an argument against gun ownership all the time. My
argument is that the argument cuts both ways.
>
> ( 2 ) In addition, KC and others are saying, the " perceived " ( may
> not be actual ) danger of harm ( not necessarily of life ) is enough
> to kill an intruder, especially since it is impossible to determine
> precisely if the danger is actual or not, if the danger is to life or
> not.
My argument is that a reasonable fear of great bodily harm, or death
justifies using deadly force to protect yourself. I'm not talking
about some hunch, or a fear that some paranoid person would feel. I'm
talking about a reasonable fear. Someone comes into your home with a
gun, points it at your face, and tells you he is going to kill you and
your family. You shoot him. In actuality, he was only joking. It
was a practical joke. It was a fake gun, and the guy just gets his
kicks out of pointing fake guns at people and scaring the hell out of
them. In this situation, yes, even though the danger was not actual,
the person had a reasonable fear for his life and his families life.
Thus self defense was justified. Very rarely is this going to work an
injustice. Yes, sometimes it will, and we can come up with examples.
But most of the time, when someone has a reasonable fear for their
life, its because the attacker assumed the risk, and knew that he was
doing so.
Another example. 80 year old widow, living alone in her home.
Intruder breaks in with a knife, or blunt weapon of some sort, not
that it really matters, she's 80 years old. In this case the 80 year
old woman has even more reason to fear for her life. Her reasonable
means of defending herself will be different. We have to take it on a
case by case basis.
>
> It is all then fear, as I read it.
>
> ( 3 ) The third fact in the argument is that my life, the life of my
> near ones, is more precious ( valuable ) than that of the intruder
> ( even if he is only perceived as a killer, and may not indeed be
> so ).
The intruder assumes the risk when he breaks into someone's home. He
knows that he is putting them in a precarious position. I never made
the argument that their lives are any more valuable than the
intruders. I don't know where pulled that argument out of. It has
nothing to do with the value of ones life over another's. In a state
of nature, no ones life had any value given to it, other than what
each person gave their own life. In this theoretical state of nature,
we decided to exit the state of nature, and enter into organized
society. But one thing we would have never given up was our right to
defend ourself. I mean imagine how such a negotiation would go. Ok,
so I won't kill you, if you won't kill me. Ok, that sounds good. I
won't rape your children, if you don't rape mine. Ok, that sounds
good. I won't take your stuff, if you don't take my stuff. Ok, that
sounds good. And here's the last part, if I come into your home, and
begin taking your stuff, and raping your children, and killing you,
you can't stop me. Would we have ever agreed to that? I don't think
so.
>
> This survival instinct is natural to each one of us. It too
> reduces us to being in a state of constant fear and insecurity, such
> as is common among animals.
>
> In the face of above, I see that the discussion must address the
> issue : Is striving for a state of being without fear worthwhile
> enough to risk one's life, the life of one's near and dear ones or
> loss of property ? Is an attempt to rise beyond the ( natural,
> animalistic ) state of fear and insecurity, to a state of trust of
> others and freedom from fear, a worthwhile human value to pursue, even
> at the risk of one's life, pain, loss and discomfort ?
>
> You've answered, Lee ! You clearly seem to be saying : Yes, Yes. The
> only limitation I sense in your affirmation is that you are ambiguous
> about the global value of the pursuit. You seem to be saying that the
> value may not be relevant to Americans, who have their own history in
> which the answer to fear is gun - ownership.
In fact Lee didn't say that. He said that he would use force if
someone came into his home. "just not a gun." Maybe a club, or a
knife, or a really have vase. Who cares what the weapon is, a weapon
is. A bow and arrow, a sword, a gun. They are all deadly weapons.
>
> However, I find Ian unequivocal on the value ! He seems to be saying
> even Americans, their history and law notwithstanding, must strive for
> the state of freedom from fear, without resort to gun - ownership !
Why!? So we can own knives, and baseball bats, and other weapons, but
we can't have guns? Why?
>
> Sorry, if I erred in summarising as above.
>
> On Feb 5, 2:52 pm, Lee <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Hey KC,
>
> > I hope that you do not mean me? I don't see the need for the general
> > populous to own guns, and of course I can only realte to my own
> > experiances due to my own upbringing and the country that I live in.
>
> > I have always said that I feel it would be better if the USA did not
> > have the history of gun culture and ownership that it has, but
> > obviously that means nowt. Over there, your arguments may hold more
> > sway, over here though I do not belive so.
>
> > In essance all I'm really asking is, is fear a good enough argument
> > for pro gun ownership?
>
> > On 5 Feb, 04:25, Kierkecraig <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Vam,
> > > No the discussion isn't over. I'm only drawing what I see as the
> > > intricacies of the discussion. As in, those who are defending gun
> > > rights are arguing for the status quo. Those who are arguing against
> > > gun rights are calling for affirmative action, for a change. They are
> > > asking that those of us in our houses who wish to defend ourselves by
> > > force ought not be able to. Where as, we as the defenders of self
> > > defense are not saying that you must defend yourself with a weapon.
> > > In other words, those taking an anti-gun stance are forcing something
> > > on those who take a pro gun stance. They are threatening to take away
> > > a freedom that we have historically enjoyed (and by enjoy I don't mean
> > > get a kick out of). So personal feelings about self defense, and what
> > > you would or wouldn't do in a situation are really irrelevant to this
> > > discussion. That's why I brought up the "to each his own" argument.
> > > But by all means. Let us continue the discussion.
>
> > > On Feb 4, 9:11 pm, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > So, KC, is the discussion at an end ? After all, you are saying :
> > > > You do yours, I'll do mine. Which ends the matter.
>
> > > > In truth, we seem to be refusing to see the moral issue, as distinct
> > > > from the legal ( or even, the pragmatic one ) : freedom from fear.
>
> > > > But, perhaps, that is not the issue being discussed in this
> > > > thread ! ? However, I could appreciate Lee's position only in the
> > > > light of that moral.
>
> > > > On Feb 4, 10:00 pm, Kierkecraig <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > Lee,
> > > > > Again, all well and good. You keep doing what you do. Not telling
> > > > > you to stop. Seems like its served you well. I'm not telling you we
> > > > > should make it a law that you should have a gun in your home and that
> > > > > you should kill intruders. I'm glad the burglars that came into your
> > > > > home, without your permission, didn't hurt you, and didn't get hurt in
> > > > > return. Doesn't sound like you have been so lucky every time, but
> > > > > thats the risk you take. I for one will not take that risk with my
> > > > > family, nor with my own life. Your ideals are your ideals, and mine
> > > > > are mine. I do presume that someone who breaks into my house is there
> > > > > to do harm. If I have the opportunity of course I will do everything
> > > > > in my power to avoid shooting them, but not at the risk of my family
> > > > > being hurt.
>
> > > > > On Feb 4, 9:54 am, Lee <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Hey KC,
>
> > > > > > Yes I realise this, what I'm really saying is that this presumption
> > > > > > that you speak of is that, a presumtion, and a wrong one I belive.
>
> > > > > > And that this fear thing is not a great reason for gun advocates.
>
> > > > > > I have lived 40 years now and I have been burgurld twice during this
> > > > > > time, in both cases the intruders took stuff out of the house and
> > > > > > left
> > > > > > me and mine alone.
>
> > > > > > Who's to say what may have happend had my father woke up and
> > > > > > disturbed
> > > > > > them, but I'll not assume that me and my family would then have been
> > > > > > murdered.
>
> > > > > > Also during my 40 years I have had to protect myself and my family
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > often times this involved violence,(I was in fact the boy that
> > > > > > carried
> > > > > > his stabbed dad back home) yet I have never owned a gun and I manage
> > > > > > to protect my self and my family fine without one.
>
> > > > > > Is fear really the best argument for pro guns?
>
> > > > > > On 4 Feb, 15:22, Kierkecraig <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Lee,
> > > > > > > I can understand your personal feelings on the matter. Its very
> > > > > > > understandable that you could never imagine yourself killing
> > > > > > > another
> > > > > > > human being. That is a very good thing, by all means. And most
> > > > > > > gun
> > > > > > > owners can never imagine it either. They aren't sitting in their
> > > > > > > house, watching the clock, just hoping someone breaks in tonight
> > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > that they can "bust a cap in their ass". If you think the risk of
> > > > > > > shooting an "innocent" intruder isn't worth the benefit of
> > > > > > > protecting
> > > > > > > yourself from truly malicious intruders, then thats perfectly your
> > > > > > > decision to make. Someone who is a pro gun advocate is not
> > > > > > > telling
> > > > > > > you that he wants to force you to keep a gun in your home and to
> > > > > > > shoot
> > > > > > > intruders. He is only saying, leave me alone, let me do what I
> > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > is right, which is protecting my life, and my families life.
> > > > > > > There is
> > > > > > > a presumption, at least in the state in which I live, that if
> > > > > > > someone
> > > > > > > is wrongfully in your home, especially at night, that they are
> > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > to harm you. Everyone knows this. Everyone knocks on the door
> > > > > > > before
> > > > > > > they go into your home. Burglars who are sneaking around at
> > > > > > > night in
> > > > > > > someone's home are assuming the risk that they may be shot. They
> > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > know this, and yet they think the benefit of what they will get in
> > > > > > > that house, is worth the risk of getting shot. So no one is
> > > > > > > saying
> > > > > > > you have to keep a gun Lee. We aren't going to try to convince
> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > that its a good idea. We are only saying, leave us alone, let us
> > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > what we believe is the right thing to do.
>
> > > > > > > On Feb 4, 5:14 am, Lee <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > And this nicely sums up my stance.
>
> > > > > > > > There are those that will tell you they fell safe carrying a
> > > > > > > > gun, safe
> > > > > > > > from intruders to their homes, and safe from muggers on the the
> > > > > > > > street
> > > > > > > > and safe from the tiny percentage of other gus owneres that may
> > > > > > > > go
> > > > > > > > mental.
>
> > > > > > > > These same people will often tell you that they would kill an
> > > > > > > > intruder
> > > > > > > > to their house. Now this is the one tha t always gets me.
>
> > > > > > > > Partly I dislike the thought of gun ownership, because I know
> > > > > > > > that I
> > > > > > > > just could not point one at another human and pull the trigger,
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > imagine the mental anguish that I would go through being
> > > > > > > > responsible
> > > > > > > > for the death of another human, nope, just not for me. Added
> > > > > > > > to this
> > > > > > > > the reasons quoted for doing so.
>
> > > > > > > > To stop an intruder in your house, you have no idea what they
> > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > there for, whether they are armed or not, but because they have
> > > > > > > > broken
> > > > > > > > into your house you are allowed to kill them.
>
> > > > > > > > That seems like madness to me, and it worries me greatly that
> > > > > > > > people
> > > > > > > > cannot see it.
>
> > > > > > > > The very idea of guns to protect from guns, is a ludicrus
> > > > > > > > circle that
> > > > > > > > will not be broken with that argument.
>
> > > > > > > > On 2 Feb, 16:36, Kierkecraig <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > Ian,
> > > > > > > > > Its hard to tell who is more scared, it all depends on who is
> > > > > > > > > making
> > > > > > > > > the argument. A couple years ago we had a controversy on our
> > > > > > > > > campus
> > > > > > > > > at the University of Idaho about the right to carry on
> > > > > > > > > campus. In
>
> ...
>
> read more »
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
