"Taking" Another's Life

[Libertas7]

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

Believe it or not, there's a thread over there about that very thing. What's really bad is one or two people claimed the rebels were terrorists and had no right attacking the empire.

 

[Libertas7]

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

Grim? Compared to what? Life can ugly, and if you've seen combat you know that a lot better then most, myself included.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Grim 'cause the subject is often hurtful to talk or think about to those who have experienced it.
Grim 'cause as stated in a earlier post killing in never a subject to be taken lightly.
Andy

 

[bbbass]

Most of the combat vets I know won't/don't talk about their actual experiences. What does that tell us? Many did say tho that they did what they had to not so much for themselves but to protect their teammates.

I was fortunate enough to serve as a USCG Search and Rescue Aircrewman. Didn't take any lives, not like it is in the LE sections now, but was able to save a number. Lot's of divers I couldn't save tho... I don't like to think about it much.

 

[Martini_Up]

Okay, so it's a leading question. If I get what your saying correctly, it's not that we're taking someone's life it's that they lose their life as a result of us exercising our right?

No. They lost their life because they tried to take another person's.

You don't need a firearm to kill someone.

 

[bbbass]

They lost their life because they tried to take another person's.

Or my JUJUBs.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Let us frame it as thus;
Does one have the will to end the life of another?
How is that will applied?
For example, suppose a person wills that he or she wants me and mine to be dead and victimized, and thus goes out of their way to ensure that I die, then is it not natural for me to defend myself, and if I have such a will to defend, then the aggressor shall have to face the consequences, however fatal it may be, and I am absolved from the crime, in having defended me and mine?

 

[Mark W.]

Officer I was in fear for my life (or the life of another) I fired my weapon to stop that threat. As soon as the threat was over I stopped. My name is ................... I need to call my lawyer now.

 

[Libertas7]

Grim 'cause the subject is often hurtful to talk or think about to those who have experienced it.
Grim 'cause as stated in a earlier post killing in never a subject to be taken lightly.
Andy

I guess killing would make the other grim parts of life pale in comparison. Sorry for bringing that up.

 

[Libertas7]

No. They lost their life because they tried to take another person's.

You don't need a firearm to kill someone.

I meant your right to defend yourself, not your right to bear arms.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

No need to be sorry libertas7
The fact that you felt the need to apologize speaks volumes for the good in your intent.
Andy

 

[BDA.45]

I've read every post here and can say from personal experience I WILL NOT HESITATE in "taking a life". Being the in-law of a murder victim changes your thinking. Been there done that. NOT gonna happen to me or my family. No remorse either..........now I'm gonna drink some more and think.......

 

[tac]

Late one night, after a harrowing day in court in London, and previously alone in a 1st class section of a train car, I felt threatened by the arrival of three youths who triangulated on me in the corner where I sat, whilst pretending to be unknown to each other. Yeah, right. One white guy in the entire car, and three black young men wearing hoods sidling up to him. After a couple of minutes of trying not to look at each other, one got up and moved nearer to me. I looked at him and said, move just one inch nearer to me and I will carve your face off and cover your buddies with parts of your body.

They all moved away.

My family motto is 'Na sirs na sióchain an cath' - 'Neither seek nor shun the fight'.

Thirty-three years in the Army, and I never got killed once.

tac

 

[Stomper]

"I will carve your face off and cover your buddies with parts of your body"..... HUAH!!!

 

[tac]

My dad said that our motto should have been 'Ná ní ghlacfaidh aon cac' - 'don't take any s**t'.

Works for me.

tac

 

[PaulB47]

How I see it is that if someone attacks another the attacker states, physically not verbally, that they have given up their right.

It's a silly notion, that there is a right to life. Human life is one of the most expendable things in the world. The reality is, that most of the time, most people won't kill you. That's about as good as it gets.
http://strike-the-root.com/life-without-rights

If we dispense with the language of rights, it all becomes very simple. Don't attack me or mine, then you won't have to worry about losing your life. That's all.

 

[Stomper]

He probably came up with that "philosophical gem" by rolling a 20-sided dice at a D&D session.

 

[Libertas7]

It's a silly notion, that there is a right to life. Human life is one of the most expendable things in the world.

Someone playing devil's advocate? This should be fun!
So, because human life is expendable means it should be?

The reality is, that most of the time, most people won't kill you

Why not? Is it because they believe I have a right to life, they are afraid of the consequences or most likely, they have nothing to gain by my death?

http://strike-the-root.com/life-without-rights

His whole premise seems to be that getting rid of the right to life would make people more likely to look out for themselves and therefore make things better. But wouldn't removing the notion that the right to life means you also deserve to have your life protected by others do the same thing?

 

[bbbass]

Yah well, an anarchist would say things like that. He prefers no society at all. Everyone out for themselves. Coalitions of like-minded thinkers forming their own micro-governments. Sound like that would work? How long before these little units make war on each other?

It's not to hard to disprove that kind of thinking if one looks at the consequences logically... No right to life would devolve into Lord of the Flies. Think anyone can look out for that on an extended basis? How would offing other people willy-nilly make things better? How would the hospital refusing to treat folks anytime they felt like it, as they do in UK, be better? Etc, etc. Can one imagine living like that?

Yes Libertas7, in a coherent and cohesive society one expects to have his rights respected. That's the only way a group can survive. Because it's not so much being protected by others as it is having empathy for others. Those that don't are known as SOCIOPATHS!

Look around the world at places such as Syria, Iran, or Somalia where there is no value to human life. Do you want to live there? Look at the results of criminals, gang members, and mass shooters that do not value their own lives much less any other. Are we not weary of such violence this kind of thinking has wrought?

 

[Stomper]

Tribalism is the end result...