"Taking" Another's Life

[CamoDeafie]

Back waaaay up to the beginning: A Star Wars fanatic is fanatically anti-gun? It's a story whose heroes are an armed rebellion violently overthrowing an oppressive government with, y'know, blasters and light sabers and all manner of offensive ships and artillery. WTF does he think the Jedi carry light sabers for? Where would Han be without his blaster? Or R2D2 without his taser thingy?

Wait, maybe his favorite side is the Empire?

You'd think that person would be more of a Trekkie lol
EDIT: Or perhaps he is of the opinion that since no one but the criminals, terrorists and the military carries arms, therefore the same should be true of real life? Nevermind the fact that in the SW universe, a lot of people are armed with whatever they can, and not everyone who is armed is either a criminal or military.

EDIT 2 Let's break down the known armed factions of Star Wars and their real life counterparts;

Empire-Totalitarian Big Government, controls nearly every aspect of life

Rebel Alliance- Terrorists, Militia, and Free Men who took arms up against Government (See Bundy, Hammond, Ruby Ridge, Waco, American Revolution)

Criminals/Gangs/Smugglers-Criminals, Gangs, Smugglers (Often allied with Cartels)

Jedi Knights- County Sheriffs

Of course these are broad strokes but....

 

[Warrenzvon]

Found in the book of "Kill 'em all, and let GOD sort 'em out".

It must have been written by a Marine in the Vietnam days...that was one of our mottos.

 

[dude23]

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

That's even the most extreme case of self defense, as it was a preemptive strike. Acting first to prevent an at the time future attack by a "person" who has a reputation for violence. In a world that truly values decency this would be self defense, but currently it would be murder. (truly ironic as these so called "good" governments who would call that murder use preemptive strikes to take out regimes of "evil" nations to avoid future aggression & "genocide" only to be the cause of as much if not more death than they claimed to wish to avoid, surmounting body counts of commoners from both the good & evil governments)

 

[Weldor]

That's even the most extreme case of self defense, as it was a preemptive strike. Acting first to prevent an at the time future attack by a "person" who has a reputation for violence. In a world that truly values decency this would be self defense, but currently it would be murder. (truly ironic as these so called "good" governments who would call that murder use preemptive strikes to take out regimes of "evil" nations to avoid future aggression & "genocide" only to be the cause of as much if not more death than they claimed to wish to avoid, surmounting body counts of commoners from both the good & evil governments)

 

[Larrytpdx]

It's not "taking" if he gave it up himself!

 

[ArtBrownSr]

There are many people who believe if they can only convince the lion they just want to stroke his furry mane and nuzzle his big, soft nose. If only the lion would understand, he would not choose to chew their face, and eat their intestines.

We had a fella from California that visited the wilds of Alaska for a few years "Taming" the Brown Bears, or at least living with them. One year he brought along his girlfreind and the Bears ate them!
because he was to wrapped up in the freindliness of the bears to understand the dangers they represented.
I have lived and am living in Ak outside of the city proper, about 20 miles out, and ANY danger to me or mine will be met appropriately, depending on the threat, the defense available, and the options I have.
IF that means I would have to take some one elses life to save mine or one of my family etc. YES I WOULD TAKE THE LIFE.

 

[etrain16]

We had a fella from California that visited the wilds of Alaska for a few years "Taming" the Brown Bears, or at least living with them. One year he brought along his girlfreind and the Bears ate them!
because he was to wrapped up in the freindliness of the bears to understand the dangers they represented.
I have lived and am living in Ak outside of the city proper, about 20 miles out, and ANY danger to me or mine will be met appropriately, depending on the threat, the defense available, and the options I have.
IF that means I would have to take some one elses life to save mine or one of my family etc. YES I WOULD TAKE THE LIFE.

I remember that guy. Funny how many parallels you can draw between that brain-dead moron and the large number of people around the world today that can't see the threats they face on a daily basis - believing that normally dangerous people are really just gentle loving folks Even the idiots running France and Belgium won't learn their lessons.

 

[bbbass]

The bears were waiting for the tender meat.

 

[Libertas7]

Back waaaay up to the beginning: A Star Wars fanatic is fanatically anti-gun? It's a story whose heroes are an armed rebellion violently overthrowing an oppressive government with, y'know, blasters and light sabers and all manner of offensive ships and artillery. WTF does he think the Jedi carry light sabers for? Where would Han be without his blaster? Or R2D2 without his taser thingy?

Wait, maybe his favorite side is the Empire?

But... But it's fantasy! That's actually how I hope he would answer. More likely he'd say some s*** about how the rebels had a legitimate reason unlike us, who the only thing wrong with our government is they are not oppressive enough.

 

[Libertas7]

It's not "taking" if he gave it up himself!

Annnnd you just condensed my first post in to nine words. Nice.

 

[shotsfired]

Wrongly framed argument. Gun-owners don't have a right to take another persons life, they have the right to protect their own. Taking someones life has nothing to do with it. I was never taught to kill someone. I was trained to stop the threat to my life.

This is the point

 

[bbbass]

Is that still allowed?