"Taking" Another's Life

[IheartSig]

Oh you need a life, huh? Betcha don't have a closet fulla THESE babies, do ya?

View attachment 283151 View attachment 283152 View attachment 283153

sigh

 

[IheartSig]

People often feel and as a result think and express this sentiment in terms of gun control. Its an appeal to emotion that, in and of itself is a logical fallacy. It is nothing more than manipulation disguised as logic.

First, he incorrectly attributing the act of taking a life to an assumed right. No logical and prudent person would think they have the "right" to take a life. That is the effect, not the cause.
The cause is the actual right, and that is the right to protect ones life, their family or friends or even a strangers life and sometimes even their property.

As for the later part of the statement, that is simply an ad hominem type snipe at gun owners and a completely untrue and un-provable statement that speaks more to the blatant ignorance of the poster than anything else.

To quote Pennywise "Life is the most precious thing you can lose".

I will not suffer a fools opinion that a predator's life is more valuable than me or mine's.

 

[Sgt Nambu]

"Taking a life," is simply a by-product of stopping the taking of an innocent life or lives!

Apples and Oranges!

 

[albin25]

If a criminal attempts severe injury or worse on an innocent, and then ends up dying in the process, his life wasn't "taken".

A gamble was made. A wager that the criminal had entered into and won several or many times in the past simply because his victim was unable or unwilling to fight back. His dumb luck caused him to believe he was "smart". Until that is, the criminal once again placed his bet on attacking the wrong person, placing his chips on red yet again, but this time it came up black.

A violent criminal's life isn't "taken". The criminal chooses to put the limited value of his life against the value of a stranger's wallet, a TV, vengance, rape or murder....
......he bet his life, and he lost it.

 

[Joe13]

Anti-Gun = emotional responses
Pro-Gun = logical responses


Easy enough.

 

[eightyeight mag]

Ask him if he thought it was ok that Han Solo killed Greedo in the bar to defend himself.

 

[IheartSig]

Ask him if he thought it was ok that Han Solo killed Greedo in the bar to defend himself.

And if he says Greedo shot first, you slap his liar face.

 

[eightyeight mag]

Ya cause Libtard george lucas changed it.
Forgot about that

 

[Libertas7]

Thanks for all the responses so far, lots of good insight here!
And also thanks for keeping it civil.

 

[USMC-03]

The right to life is of course inalienable; by extension so is the right to defend yourself and others from unwarranted violence. No man has the right to initiate violence but it is incumbent, in my view, for good and free men to be prepared and willing to meet unjust aggression in like, and even heightened, manner, yet tempered with justice. Virtue (in the ancient Roman sense), intestinal fortitude and skill at arms is the mark of the honorable guardian.

 

[rick benjamin]

uses big words, must have been an officer

 

[etrain16]

The person that made the commented quoted by the OP shows they have an inability to see more deeply into the complexity of human life and what it means to take a life. It is not so simple as "take a life, and you're immoral". If it really were that simple, then laws wouldn't need to be as complex as they are. There are many moral reasons to take the life of another person, self-defense being among the highest of those reasons, which is evidenced by the fact that self-defense laws protect those that take the lives of others.

As a society, we understand that there are times that a life must be taken to preserve the lives and liberty of others. We empower the military and the police to do this. And, as I just noted above, we write laws to protect those that must take a life in defense of their own, or of a family member, friend, relative, neighbor or even stranger. It is not considered immoral.

Rather, it is immoral and lacking in character to impose your will on others, telling them they have no right to defend their own lives or those of innocents around them. What kind of moral high ground takes such a position? Is it a greater character trait to allow yourself or your family to be brutally tortured, raped, murdered, rather than take whatever steps are necessary to stop them, up to and including killing the attacker? Who defines this higher ground? And by what authority do they seek to impose such will on others?

No, whoever made that statement shows a severe lack of understanding of basic moral principals as well as a lack of basic legal precedent and is simply revealing a hatred of an entire class of people simply for the tools they choose to own. I wonder, is there no room in his heart to accept and love gun owners the way he implies he loves criminals?

 

[USMC-03]

uses big words, must have been an officer

No, just educated beyond my own good sense...

 

[DuneHopper]

The right to breath air, may be granted for both humans and Americans.
But the right for others to try and take my air away permanently is not a choice they get to make its not open for a forum discussion, its not something to be reasoned with.
If a person comes into your environment and wants you to cease breathing they at that moment
are rejecting such rights as they do not respect or honor rights to breath and the right to exist therefore I will respect that choice they would make and will help them along that path of not needing air themselves.

Two things to consider if you have not yet :

1. Ever seen a person die in front of you in a violent way? No, then be aware it will change you. not it might. It will.
   
2. In war there is no choice of whom survives and whom lives. If a person wants you to cease to exist there is no choice that they must cease to do so first, there is no second place in that battle, no do overs.

 

[DuneHopper]

The person that made the commented quoted by the OP shows they have an inability to see more deeply into the complexity of human life and what it means to take a life. It is not so simple as "take a life, and you're immoral". If it really were that simple, then laws wouldn't need to be as complex as they are. There are many moral reasons to take the life of another person, self-defense being among the highest of those reasons, which is evidenced by the fact that self-defense laws protect those that take the lives of others.

As a society, we understand that there are times that a life must be taken to preserve the lives and liberty of others. We empower the military and the police to do this. And, as I just noted above, we write laws to protect those that must take a life in defense of their own, or of a family member, friend, relative, neighbor or even stranger. It is not considered immoral.

Rather, it is immoral and lacking in character to impose your will on others, telling them they have no right to defend their own lives or those of innocents around them. What kind of moral high ground takes such a position? Is it a greater character trait to allow yourself or your family to be brutally tortured, raped, murdered, rather than take whatever steps are necessary to stop them, up to and including killing the attacker? Who defines this higher ground? And by what authority do they seek to impose such will on others?

No, whoever made that statement shows a severe lack of understanding of basic moral principals as well as a lack of basic legal precedent and is simply revealing a hatred of an entire class of people simply for the tools they choose to own. I wonder, is there no room in his heart to accept and love gun owners the way he implies he loves criminals?

Nicely said @etrain16

 

[RVTECH]

J-rod is completely missing the point - the intent is NOT to take the life, it is to defend oneself or others and to stop the threat. If the attackers' life is ended it is an unintended consequence of his/her chosen actions.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Speaking only for myself as a gun owner and combat veteran I have never wanted to take a persons life or ever felt that I had a "right" to do so.
There are however times where I had to do that in order to survive.
I view it as simply that.
Not "right" , not "wrong" , "moral" or "immoral".
Just what I needed to do at that time to survive.
And I can live with that.
I do hope that no one ever has to make that choice.

I have found that "blanket" statements like the OP quoted are usually made by those who have no real experience with what they are speaking of.
Not that they are not entitled to an opinion , but its just not generally a well rounded one or one backed by real life experiences.

Sorry for such a grim post.
Andy

 

[RVTECH]

If a criminal attempts severe injury or worse on an innocent, and then ends up dying in the process, his life wasn't "taken".

True - he/she killed himself/herself - the savior just pulled the trigger.

 

[mjbskwim]

I have found that "blanket" statements like the OP quoted are usually made by those who have no real experience with what they are speaking of.

This,right here is why I hate these threads
MOST of us haven't a clue as to what it is like to take a life.
Having worked with quite a few WWII and Viet Nam vets,I can say that no 2 people are alike.
Some ,at least on the out side,don't react much to taking a life. Most,that I have come in contact with,didn't take it lightly.
Most of us on the forums have never been on a two way shooting range and are taliking out of our A$$$ about would they could they shoot someone

 

[Joe13]

This,right here is why I hate these threads
MOST of us haven't a clue as to what it is like to take a life.
Having worked with quite a few WWII and Viet Nam vets,I can say that no 2 people are alike.
Some ,at least on the out side,don't react much to taking a life. Most,that I have come in contact with,didn't take it lightly.
Most of us on the forums have never been on a two way shooting range and are taliking out of our A$$$ about would they could they shoot someone

True.

Those that haven't taken a life will not truly know the aftermath of such an action and how they will handle it. It can be horrible to live with even in the best of situations.

However, if you carry then you NEED to have the conviction to pull the trigger and deal with what happens next. Demons come in many forms.

Or you shouldn't be carrying.