Would you take a life?What circumstance?

Subject: RE: Would you take a life?What circumstance?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Jul 01 - 03:39 PM

Good points, Sharon. I think inner intention is the vital matter in evaluating any act in a moral sense.

In other words, don't judge the book by its cover.

This is why crimes of passion (resulting in murder) bother me less than planned crimes, such as cold-bloodedly fraudulent schemes to rob a great many people through a phony stock promotion or whatever...

Any of us is capable of a crime of passion, under certain circumstances...that does not make us "bad" people, per se.

I think if humanity generally had a spiritual breakthrough, and "woke up", then people would not want to go to war with each other.

Military training is designed to overcome a person's natural reluctance to imperil his own life and take the lives of others. Then there's patriotism, which works strongly on the mind of a soldier. Most soldiers feel justified in what they are doing most of the time.

Some assassins also feel highly motivated and justified in what they are doing, as in the case of religiously or politically motivated assassinations. Just one example: the German military people who tried to blow up Hitler in his bunker...too bad they did not succeed.

Timothy McVeigh obviously felt very justified in what he did, which is no comfort to those he hurt, but how does one make a final judgement on the morality of a man in such a state of mind?

It's not a simple case of black and white we've got here.

- LH

Subject: RE: Would you take a life?What circumstance?
From: Kim C
Date: 26 Jul 01 - 03:44 PM

Like Spaw said.... if you've got a weapon, and I've got a weapon (or even if I don't), and I want to live, I'll try to kill you. And no one will ever convince me that defending myself or my family is wrong.

All of the guns in my house are very well-behaved, with the possible exception of my flintlock, Athena. Athena has a tendency to hang fire after about 10 shots because her barrel gets fouled. Other than that, she is a fine, upstanding member of my household. My daddy taught her pretty well.

It's really unfortunate when guns go bad. Gun owners need to be more watchful that their firearms don't fall into bad company.

I would also like to point out, that there are still a few parts of the world (even in the US) where people have to kill their own food or else go hungry. Sure, go tell those folks in the middle of Alaska they can't have any guns, and they'll have to go back to using blow darts to kill the caribou.

In addition, lives can be taken with other methods besides firearms. Not too long ago, a man in Japan was arrested for swinging a knifeblade around and cutting a bunch of folks. Even in a country without guns, people still get hurt.

and lastly, I don't think Cain shot Abel with a .38 revolver.

Subject: RE: Would you take a life?What circumstance?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Jul 01 - 03:50 PM

Nope, but if he'd had a .38, he would have probably been more dangerous...at least at a distance.

- LH

Subject: RE: Would you take a life?What circumstance?
From: SharonA
Date: 26 Jul 01 - 05:18 PM

Or he might have shot his parents, too, and then himself. And THEN where would we be?!

Little Hawk sez: "Some assassins also feel highly motivated and justified in what they are doing, as in the case of religiously or politically motivated assassinations." True; I wasn't really thinking of them when I wrote my "point (c)"; I was thinking of the assassins in Jon's argument who are paid to kill, but I was assuming he meant those who have no personal reasons for murdering. Then again, religiously or politically motivated assassins often receive nothing but the satisfaction that they are living by their convictions (while, of course, their victims are not living at all!).

KimC: But a blow-dart is a weapon, too, isn't it? How about telling the Alaskans to become vegetarians instead, and to till the permafrost to grow their food? /:^)

SharonA

Subject: RE: Would you take a life?What circumstance?
From: Kim C
Date: 26 Jul 01 - 06:27 PM

Sure, a blow-dart is a weapon, and can be just as dangerous as a gun in the hands of someone who knows how to use it.

I think they do pick little wild blueberries out of the permafrost...

Subject: RE: Would you take a life?What circumstance?
From: Gareth
Date: 26 Jul 01 - 07:13 PM

When a man puts on a Red Coat or a Blue Jacket does he discard his natural instincts or feelings ?

I am to young to have done National Service in the UK (draft) and to old to voulenteer.

But the thought what if will always be what if ?

And with that I'am to my bed, if the dog will let me, for I've got to take a lethal object to Swansea in the morning, its called a motor car.

Gareth

Subject: RE: Would you take a life?What circumstance?
From: Grab
Date: 26 Jul 01 - 07:42 PM

Thing is, all of us are reasonably intelligent, reasonably self- and mutually-respecting ppl. This is very different from the tiny minority who (as per police statistics) commit the majority of crimes. If everyone has the right to own a gun, that includes this minority. Vetting is a good step to avoiding this situation, but it's not perfect (Dunblane). If threatened, we will shoot at the person threatening us - the trouble is, that other person may not even need that reason, and may be quite prepared to shoot you on sight. So widespread ownership of guns (or any other weapon) is a dangerous thing, at least without the proper teaching/indoctrination so you won't use it on others.

Military training is designed to indoctrinate you to make it psychologically easier for you to kill. In my teens I received the opposite training from my Taekwondo instructor - that you must never fight outside the class. She did that so successfully that one boy in the class was beaten up bcos he wouldn't fight back, and it worked pretty well on me since I previously always used to be in fights. That _doesn't_ mean that I have an easy temper, just that I have a high threshold at which I become provoked (a very thick skin, in other words) which is superficially similar. But there's a few times when that's been crossed, and fortunately the person involved wasn't around. Once was when a friend at uni was being racially harassed - I went over to see him with the single purpose of at least threatening the person responsible, and I'm glad in retrospect that the culprit wasn't around so that the "most" wasn't explored! I have refused to do self-defence training with my wife, on the grounds that the one time I did she seemed to really be fighting, and that kicked my instincts in. I stopped and refused to continue bcos I knew that if she had caught me with an attack, I would almost certainly have responded and hurt her without thinking about it or being able to stop myself, and I couldn't have lived with myself if I'd done that. The flipside of the restraint that training teaches you is that when the instincts are required, you're much more likely to cause harm to the other person since you generally have better skills - this is as true for shooting as for unarmed martial arts.

As far as self-defence or the defence of others goes, the first instinct must _always_ be to attack the person with as much force as possible until they are no longer a threat - in my case that will be hands and feet, or a kitchen knife if I'm at home. Whether they live or die after that is not important - sorry to be so callous, but I believe (and my instincts agree) that you and/or the person/ppl you're protecting have more rights than an attacker.

Sorry this is such a personal note. I tried making it general, but I realised there was no way I could say "in theory in this case, I'd do this or that". I'm quite introspective and I know myself enough to say that theory will have nothing to do with it. (I've rephrased this to cut a rather more detailed explanation, which was a bit too much). This is not pleasant to hear, but it's the only truthful answer to the question. It isn't pleasant to think about either since I don't like being so out of control and I don't like what could happen, but it's not optional, it goes with my body and brain, and I just have to deal with it. Hence I tend to avoid situations where I could get in fights.

Graham.

Subject: RE: Would you take a life?What circumstance?
From: GUEST,Ralph in Leeds
Date: 26 Jul 01 - 09:02 PM

Yes, I would...I have. In anger. Would do it again if pushed.

Subject: RE: Would you take a life?What circumstance?
From: Ebbie
Date: 27 Jul 01 - 02:22 AM

"Every country or state that has outlawed weapons has seen a huge increase in crime rates." Is this true?

Ebbie

Subject: RE: Would you take a life?What circumstance?
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 27 Jul 01 - 03:08 AM

I heard this on the radio-Number of people killed with gund in USA last year 30,000
Number of people killed with guns in UK

19

Subject: RE: Would you take a life?What circumstance?
From: Kim C
Date: 27 Jul 01 - 10:11 AM

The population of the UK is also a LOT smaller than the US. But it could also mean that the folks in the UK aren't very good shots. ;-) How many murders were there overall in the UK last year? Gunshot stats alone don't tell the whole story. I seem to remember hearing a news report a year or so ago about two teenage girls in England who BEAT a woman to death. In the absence of a gun, a person with a murderous intent will find some other way to carry it out. Remember that guy in Japan a couple of months ago who attacked a group of people with a knife?

I'm sure our GUEST Anti-Smoking Crusader can tell us that more people died in the US last year from smoking-related illnesses than by gunshots.

Death is usually tragic anyhow, whether by disease or injury. Why do we like to put so much emphasis on gunshots?

When I took tae kwon do (this was years ago) we were never told not to fight outside the class. What we were told, is that we should never fight to show off, but fighting in defense of yourself, or another who was incapable of defense, was fair game. That was why we were there, after all.

Subject: RE: Would you take a life?What circumstance?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Jul 01 - 12:10 PM

I took a frog's life once. A tree had fallen and it had sheared off the frog's eyes...both of them...and left the rest of the frog intact. I was horrified, and killed the frog as an act of mercy, with a hammer...that being the only thing at hand which seemed workable.

It was an utterly horrifying and sickening experience. I had to hit that frog 3 times before it died.

I sure as hell hope I never kill a human being.

- LH

Subject: RE: Would you take a life?What circumstance?
From: catspaw49
Date: 27 Jul 01 - 12:18 PM

Well, that would explain why the Muppets never come to Orillia.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Would you take a life?What circumstance?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Jul 01 - 12:53 PM

There are about 4 times as many people in USA than Britain 30,000/19 = 1598, Sixteen hundred times the number of gun related Murders....

I moved to Toronto in 1989. There wer 32 Murders in Toronto that year. Something like 1,500 murders in Detroit (a smaller city) that same year. Admittedly a bad year for Detroit but America is certianly the G8 champ for violent crime. whether it is per capita or by gross numbers.

It's a gunslinger mentality, having the weapon in hand make one more likely to act. The possibility of the other guy having a weapon increases the fear and possibly makes one more likely to shoot.

Subject: RE: Would you take a life?What circumstance?
From: Midchuck
Date: 27 Jul 01 - 12:54 PM

It's a gunslinger mentality, having the weapon in hand make one more likely to act. The possibility of the other guy having a weapon increases the fear and makes one moke likely to shoot.

Can't argue with your numbers, but I think you spoke a greater truth than you knew, when you said it was the gunslinger mentality.

The Swiss have a gun in every home. They have to. It's a law. And they have a murder rate comparable to other european countries. I am told that the Mexicans are for the most part gunless. They have restrictive gun laws, and most people can't afford them anyway. But they evidently approach U. S. murder rates, relying on nothing but knives.

It's a question of mental attitude, not the available tools.

Note that, with the amount of guns in the U. S., if each and every gun in the country were used to commit one, and only one, homicide, you'd have to bring people in from outside to finish the job. The U. S. population would be gone before all the guns had been used.

Ergo: the great majority of guns do no harm.

Peter.

Subject: RE: Would you take a life?What circumstance?
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 27 Jul 01 - 01:15 PM

If all the guns in America were fired simultaneously the energy involved would be enough to stop Californias energy crisis.

Subject: RE: Would you take a life?What circumstance?
From: English Jon
Date: 27 Jul 01 - 01:17 PM

I think the point of the thread is more to do with the ethics of killing rather than the have gun/not have gun thing. You could kill someone quite easily with a well aimed banjo. Obviously it's impractical to ban every object that could ever be used to cause harm, but I do think it is in global society's best interests to adopt a culture of non violence.

Norton made an interesting point further up:

"The one thing I do know is that the core concept of an armed military being sent where the government wants with consent of the governed makes all of us culpable in the killing. Being the payee is no better than being the one paid in my opinion.

Makes us all assasins by proxy doesn't it?"

I don't know much about how politics works in the states, but in the U.K. we have a party system, where one party always wins whatever. So we have a choice of

Labour Conservative

(currently, politically almost exactly the same)

Smaller parties with insufficient support to gain a majority.

Or, If you don't like any of the buggers, you can say so on your voting card, in which case it is considered "spoilt" and counted as void.

In the last election, 4 in 10 did not vote at all (which I think should be considered a vote against all candidates), and due to the electoral system in the U.K. only those who live in marginal constituencies can make a difference anyway. Where I live, the Conservative candidate always wins, for example.

4 in 10 by the way is a greater proportion of the electorate than voted for the Labour party this time. I think they got something like 36% of the remaining 6 in 10 who did vote.

Also, there is no Socialist party in the U.K. with sufficient credibility to attract enough votes to gain a seat in Westminster (a few in Scotland, apparently) etc etc. Basically, The U.K. is far from being a democracy.

So, effectively, what I pay in tax goes straight to a body who exist contrary to my wishes, and they spend it however they see fit. I'd far rather it went to the health service, education etc, but large chunks of it go to the military against my personal wishes. Therefore I deny culpability for deaths caused by the military.

EJ

Subject: RE: Would you take a life?What circumstance?
From: Kim C
Date: 27 Jul 01 - 03:43 PM

Like I said, all the guns in my house are very well-behaved...

(Spaw I am glad to see the operation left your sense of humor intact!)

Subject: RE: Would you take a life?What circumstance?
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 27 Jul 01 - 05:24 PM

Thanks English Jon for reading my first post. OBVIOUSLY it's about "the ethics of killing". We've had dozens of threads about whether guns should be "a right" or not. More arguments about the "constitution" or The Bible are probably not of much interest.

I was curious about how folks felt about taking a life, and how far they'd need to be pushed to do it. Thanks for the feedback folks.

Rick

Subject: RE: Would you take a life?What circumstance?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Jul 01 - 05:48 PM

Point about the ethics well taken. But murder is motive and opportunity. Guns increase the opportunity. I know I would kill someone because a couple of times I was stopped from doing so. Two knees on the other guy's chest, hand s on throat and him turning blue. If I had had a gun they would have been dead before my friend pulled me off.

Neither occaision had much to do with ethics. It was a hard, unexpected. blow to my face and me coming up swinging

Subject: RE: Would you take a life?What circumstance?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Jul 01 - 07:13 PM

Hey, Spaw - Funny you should mention the muppets. My personal mascot has for many years been a stuffed Kermit the Frog figure, about 16 inches tall! I don't think there's any connection with the wounded frog incident. I do think that if we were required to slaughter our own beef and pork and chickens, that vegetarianism would skyrocket in North America. Times have changed in that respect since the frontier days.

Midchuck - you are absolutely right. The mental attitude is the key. The undercurrent of violence in Mexico was extremely apparent when I was there, as well as the constant presence of a very dangerous and corrupt police force. Mexico and the USA are extremely violent countries, as countries go, and it's due to the prevailing mentality in both cases. As you point out, the Mexicans manage to commit most of their murders with knives. If they had guns it would probably be even worse.

Canada is a pretty peaceful country. Again, it's the prevailing mentality that is the key.

Cuba seemed to be pretty peaceful to me when I was there. The streets were safe at night, and people seemed relaxed. However, a couple of my young friends told me that a fair number of fights arise due to drinking (rum, usually), and those often involve knives, machetes, or whatever is to hand. I did not see any such incident. I saw several in Mexico. I do not doubt that it happens in Cuba, but the place felt way, way safer than Mexico or the downtown of most large American cities.

- LH

Subject: RE: Would you take a life?What circumstance?
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 27 Jul 01 - 08:10 PM

80% of the guns picked up on Civil War battlefields un fired? Hmmm. Since we killed more Americans in that war than died in all our other wars combined I wonder (but don't REALLY question) about the percentage

I believe this is close to the truth. War has always been to a great extent about intimidation rather than murder : By displaying sheer numbers and iron will, inducing the enemy to flee the field. Even in the blood bath of the Civil War, the desire to AVOID killing or being killed must have been overwhelming among a vast number of combatants. Although bayonets were general issue on both sides in that war, they were seldom used even in infantry charges and melees, the men instead choosing to engage each one another using fists and rifle-butts.

Would I take a life? To stop a murder or terminate a tyrant, certainly. To kill another man on the field of battle would be much, much more difficult.

Subject: RE: Would you take a life?What circumstance?
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Jul 01 - 09:19 PM

Rick, I've been thinking a lot about the question you posed earlier up on the thread about that movie. It's an interesting dilemma, isn't it?

Of course, they couldn't do it this way in a movie or it wouldn't make much of a movie, but I was thinking about how something like that might play out in real life.

What's got me wondering is what would happen in a situation like that, if the guy who felt that his life's work was threatened tried to find some sort of arrangement that would be mutually acceptable to both of them. One in which he felt his work was safe, and she felt that she could get on with her life and forget about him. I guess I'm assuming that the guy didn't really want to have the woman killed but just felt that he had no other choice.

Maybe it's just the idealist pollyanna in me, but your question got me thinking about that.