Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Hold Up Victim Kills Would Be Robber
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I can easily understand, from a certain point of view, how it appears that there is just a single life to be lived, i.e. this one, here and now. It is an integral aspect of the Christian and post-Christian world-view. Had we been born elsewhere, in the Subcontinent for example, the idea of multiple lives would seem just as 'obvious'. Both are simply 'stories' that we tell ourselves.
It is possible, however, to see that our life is not an isolated or insular event. What we do affects future generations, whether for good or ill. This is most obvious when we become parents: our DNA, actions, inactions, opinions, etc., determine much of what the child becomes. We linger for a while, after death, in the memories of those who knew or heard of us. Even the 'annihilationist' recognises this fact and, acting ethically, expects to affect the future in a positive way, leaving the world better than they found it.
I was thinking about this on Thursday while I was attending a wonderful Quaker funeral for a very special elderly lady who has just died. The coffin (made of cardboard and brightly painted) was being pulled up a hill to the old burial ground and people were putting flowers on it. One child tried to pick some honeysuckle which resisted him. His mother asked him not to pull at it and kill the blooms. It struck me that the habit of cutting flowers, and therby killing them, to celebrate a death was interesting. When I got home, I told my family that, at my funeral, I want no dying flowers: my coffin, be it wood, card or wicker, is to be covered with packets of seeds which are to be distributed after the interment.
Whether there is a single life or a multitude, we are intimately connected to each other, the world around us, the past and the future. We are effects and we are causes. Our choices will determine some part of the future of the whole cosmos. A bit awe-inspiring, really.
metta
_/\_
An amusing & poignant zen story:
In other words, these poor attackers are in such a desolate state that they have no ability to see what they really have, much less appreciate it. By stealing, killing, etc. they are doing themselves harm as well as others. Sooner or later (in some way) they WILL have to pay for their actions. And considering the depraved minds they must have to carry out such actions they ALREADY are paying. In this sense they are truly pitiable, though that does not justify what they did in any way.
Now, I'm not saying (from a general perspective) that the individual wasn't justified in his actions. I'm just saying that the killing might not have been necessary & may well not have happened had this person been established in mindfulness. On top of that, regardless of whether the actions were justified, killing with intention (even with self-preservation) comes with resultant consequences (vipaka). Taking a life is a traumatic event & this person will undoubtedly have some negative consequences in some way shape or form that would have been preferable to be avoided. These consequences may take place on a subtle level that this person is not really aware of, but they will be there.
Does this make sense at all to you KoB?
metta
_/\_
The loss of ANY life in such a situation would not be good .. so .. if ones actions will play a role in who may die or live one can only hope the mind is clear .. free from intoxication .. fear .. anger ... hatred .. and NOT biased by todays politics ect..
"The soul must be the warrior" ..
So we work our minds not to escape but to prepare.
Good Day ...
His possession of course being his life.
Yes.
I think this is the point of view I have been conveying. Or at least trying.
metta
_/\_
Maybe he would. Maybe he wouldn't. I find it almost irrelevant. If you pull a gun on someone, regardless of your intention, you should not be surprised if you get shot. Regardless of what statistics say, or even if your gun is loaded, it is a big risk. One that cost a young man his life.
And besides, would you or I be so willing to make such a presumption? "Well, he might not shoot me." Not me. In self-defense class, you are taught that if a an attacker or rapist assaults you forcefully, you have to presume that the person intends to kill you or at least is capable of killing you. Whether or not they will is irrelevant.
Originally Posted by not1not2
I would like to add quickly that my reading of that article implied that the 15 year old gunman was attempting to rob the individual & may very well not have taken his life. That is a large part of my point, in fact.
metta
_/\_
Maybe he would. Maybe he wouldn't. I find it almost irrelevant. If you pull a gun on someone, regardless of your intention, you should not be surprised if you get shot. Regardless of what statistics say, or even if your gun is loaded, it is a big risk. One that cost a young man his life.
And besides, would you or I be so willing to make such a presumption? "Well, he might not shoot me." Not me. In self-defense class, you are taught that if a an attacker or rapist assaults you forcefully, you have to presume that the person intends to kill you or at least is capable of killing you. Whether or not they will is irrelevant.
very well said-Oh perhaps it was that young man's karma coming back-pull a gun-expect to get shot by one...
So you like doing business with a robber ??
Still you make a good point ... when one points a gun at you and wants to rob you ... both of you are involved in the situation ... both of you are guilty or play a role for life lost or gained. This is quite contrary to popular experience but from a buddhist experience it is so.
As I get older the thought of taking away a weapon from an armed robber is just to much work .. I'd be more then glad to hand over the cash just as I would pay at the car wash rather than wash the car myself. It's kinda a service provided .. a lesson in un attachment and by paying the dude off i can get back to better things like my garden .. family .. meditation.
Unfortunately young robber's don't make honest deals.
So it's tricky and one must be in the "momement" and be of clear mind. Zen mind.
If I was there and it was me being robbed and I attached to any baggage/ "THINKING" from my young american upbringing .. the results may of been disasterous.
Good Day ...
The teenager may easily kill you regardless of whether you give him the money or not. Are we willing to make the presumption that they will just run away once he has the money? Or instead kill you anyway? It's a tough choice, but a situation that demands a choice none the less.
When someone points a gun at you, it is only reasonable to assume that he means to kill you. That is how a lot of robberies happen in Cleveland. Take the money easily and then kill the victim so they can't pin you as the thief for the police.
.. and the best way to make a quick tough choice is to be of clear mind.
It is a good exercise to put ourselves in the place of the person being robbed or in the robber's place but counter productive to take sides.
Good Day ...
It follows, therefore, that both individuals involved in this tragic incident had the same intention.
This is precisely why so many of us supported unilateral disarmament: by our relatively recent decision to maintain national standing armies we announce to the world our warlike intentions.
Good Day ..
We are also engaged in humanity and its subset, our own social context.
Also, you said that the holdup victim clearly had violence on his mind by carrying that weapon. But, there is a difference between him and the 15 year old that held him up. He procured his weapon through legal means and was carrying it legally by having his concealed carry permit. Such people are not the type to mindlessly take life. It takes alot of effort to obtain a permit, even in states like Texas and Montana. Therefore, it stands to reason that these people are less likely to commit a hasty act with that weapon. There are high standards to obtain a concealed carry permit. Full background check, where even a few speeding tickets can disqualify you. So, yes, he has to live with the fact that he shot a 15 year old boy, but he did not do so recklessly.
Lastly, there is more to the kamma of the situation than just those two lives. With this hitting the news so hard, there will be some sort of drop in armed robberies, at least for a while. Every criminal in the area will now think twice about approaching someone they can't tell whether or not is carrying a weapon. Yes, he might have sacrificed his personal peace, but the community gains as a whole because criminals are now frightened of the people. So, even if you don't carry a weapon, dress and act like you do, because you are less likely to be a victim if criminals have a reason to fear you.
When I speak of unilateral disarmament, I mean a national policy, over and above the matter of an armed population. I also acknowledge that, from a purely 'mundane' point of view, this may appear idealistic. My point is that we have no right to expect peace when we go armed for war nor to preach morality when we are prepared to act immorally.
Coming as I do from a society where we have eschewed an armed population, I am puzzled by the idea but I recognise the right of foreign nations to make such decisions for themselves. We all reap the harvest that we sow.
The problem is, he didn't know he had even shot the kid until the boy fell down a yard or two away. He had fired off 3 shots quickly.
If you shoot at a person, you intend to kill them. Not harm them or scare them away. Kill. In this case, I'd rather be safe than sorry. I would have emptied the gun on the kid personally. I don't think this could ever be seen as overkill. Dead is dead.
I cannot 'side with' either person in this story, dear Bushinoki. Both appear to me to deserve our deepest sympathy. The event is tragic in the extreme and I am profoundly touched by the pain that will accompany the survivor for the rest of his life, for the parents and family of the dead youth and for society at large that appears to rejoice in a death.
Personally, when asked about the "right to bear arms", I take the view that, as with the "right to drive a motor vehicle", training and licensing would be the more responsible approach but I stress that I come from a very different socio-political context.
The funny thing about bullets is they have a mind of their own. Still one does not have to shoot with the hopes of killing.
This would be a complete abandonment of the buddha mind. Holding back one bullet may mean the difference between life and death in either direction. Ofcourse in a state of panic one could easily see an everyday person blasting away. This is why I myself find buddhism a useful practice since it developes a momement mind and so one can see more clearly and our actions become more surgical.
Recent research on meditation has suggested those that meditate can capture brief action better then those that don't meditate.
KOB what makes self defense in a buddhist sense is defending to preserve life not defending to kill or reach victory. Emptieing the gun blindly is not an indication of one in a buddha mind. Twenty years ago I would have emptied the gun .. today maybe I still would .. who knows .. but I would hope I would have more control and keep a clear mind and preserve as much life as possible.
The best we can get from this article is a chance to develope a higher mind and so if we find ourselves in simalar situation we have had at least a chance to think it through so perhaps make a more wiser actions in the future.
Good Day ...
Simon, you are right that training makes all the difference in the world. Licensing goes a little too far, because one of the main purposes of the right to keep and bear arms is to protect the people from an overly authoritarian government. However, orgs like the NRA do offer firearm safety classes. Meditation, and proper training do make all the difference in the world. Licensing would only hand power to the government I don't want them to have. But a mandatory safety card from a recognized org presented when purchasing a weapon is more than reasonable.
KOB,
I have to say that I find this sentiment of yours to be disturbing. I also find that the intention to kill is flat out the WRONG intention & is entirely unjustifiable in anything other than a vindictive point of view. The proper intention here is simply to stop the attack, since that would end the threat to oneself. If the attacker dies as a result of this, then it is an unfortunate consequence. Anything more comes from a disturbed mind. I really don't see much way around this. Even from the point of view of a hard materialist/humanist ethic. Bushinoke spelled this out very clearly, imo. I have taken martial arts as well & the way it is explained is that through proper training, only a minimal amount of damage will be necessary to disable the attacker.
There will, of course, be instances that major harm will be unavoidable in the defense of one's own life, but that should be the exception not the rule. This statement of yours demonstrates my point precisely in that with sufficient presence of mind & training, this teenager may have survived his gunshot wound & gone on to change his ways. I simply feel there could have been a better outcome to this unfortunate incident if the victim had been in. Perhaps it would have still been necessary to shoot him 3 times still, but I have some sincere doubts. Certainly though, if this man had a higher level of marksmanship, the need to simply 'unload' on the attacker would have been
I would like to point out to everyone that if you think my POV is siding with the attacker, that you are mistaken. The attacker was in the wrong in the first place and received the consequences of his actions. What I am saying is that the victim was not entirely justified in the killing, though I'm not trying to place blame as I can't say I would have been able to handle the situation better myself. Also, I do understand that, unless we can substantially reduce the ownership of guns by criminals and create a more proactive way to combat violent crimes the cutting off of legal ownership of firearms has some serious negative consequences. I am also aware that states which have enacted concealed carry laws have seen a drop in overall violent crime. Once again though, that does not mean we couldn't do better. Cutting off things such as the 'gun show loophole' & other avenues for the illegal acquisition of firearms is highly important. Additionally, state-sponsored programs which taught self-defense against attackers & continued marksmanship classes every year would be very desirable & beneficial. An untrained person with a weapon is a danger to themselves.
I hope my position on this is a little more clear.
metta
_/\_
Of course I avoid downtown Cleveland for obvious reasons as well.
I try to live by a simple code of ethics. Nothing fancy. "Don't do harm and don't get harmed." Inevitably, the two vows will conflict. And they have for me on occasions in the past. My position has always been one of defense. I have outsmarted bullies before and I think I aquired much of my intelligence by doing as such. I am a pacifist (if you can believe that) but I think it is authroitarian of a government to prohibit the organization of militia and the access to weaponry.*
My disdain for thug culture runs deep though. I have felt the fear inspired by gangs and criminals. Even though I had a weapon at the time (a club no less), I refused to use it when attacked by an unarmed thug once. I took the punches and survived. But had the brigand a gun instead, well I may have been more inclined to take a swing.
Whether an enlightened man of chivalry, or a barbaric jingoist, (I prefer the former :winkc:) I will not BS any of you.
*Thomas Jefferson believed and wrote that the government needed to be overthrown every 20 years in order to be a check to corruption in the Union. No such Revolution has occured since 1776.
Good Point.
Good Day ..
Now, as for the law, that's the reason we have self defense laws. You can't flood the streets with cops, one on every street corner. How would we pay the wages and benefits for so many cops. And what about rural areas? How do you cover several thousand square miles like that. Law enforcement is there for just that reason, to enforce existing laws. To rely on the government to protect you is the sheerest folly. In fact, there are court rulings that uphold law enforcement's main priority of catching criminals, not protecting civilians.
We clearly have different cultural approached to policing. Here in the UK, the role of the police is to uphold the law and to keep the Queen's peace. They are first and foremost defenders of the public. Their predecessors, the Bow Street Runners, were 'thief-takers' but the reforms by Sir Robert Peel introduced the new approach. This is why we have eschewed arming civilians, leading as we believe it does to vigilantism and the unlawful action of "taking the law into one's own hands".
Who is to say which culture is better? I know that I prefer to live with the right not to have guns pointed at me, even if I am about to commit a crime. This is particularly true when the crime is one which does not carry (even in the US) the death penalty.
Also, you have to remember the limitations of local/state police in the US. Redding Police cannot leave Shasta County without the permission of California Highway Patrol. CHP cannot leave the State of California without permission from the FBI. That's why the "posse" is one of the great traditions of the American West. It does border on vigilanteism, however, the posse is created by the county sheriff or local federal marshall, and under their oversight. Yes, America has had its' problems with vigilantes in the past, but that has also been the case in other nations as well.
It ultimately comes down to having to keep the peace ourselves. We have too much area for government law enforcement to effectively keep the peace themselves.
Ok, this post is a lot more reasonable & defensible. Perhaps your previous post came across more strongly than you actually meant. It seemed to me that you were putting forth an ideological acceptable position, rather than simply being honest about the way you would react in such a situation. I, myself, am uncertain as to how I would react in such a situation. Perhaps that is why I don't own a gun or plan on owning one in the near future. Then again, I live in a low crime area, so this really isn't much of an issue for me.
Nonetheless, I feel that there should be higher standards in training in order to obtain a permit. Personally, I don't think I'd feel comfortable at all with having a firearm for such purposes unless I had sufficiently trained my self in it's use. Uncertainty & unfamiliarity with a firearm is a contributing cause to overkill as well as to inhibiting one's ability to aim at areas that would stop an assailant but not necessarily kill them.
Simon,
In reference to your point, the police are basically a reactive form of law enforcement, though patrol & punitive measures carry some pro-active enforcement ability. As bushinoke pointed out, the logistics & cost make it virtually impossible for our police forces to be able to handle such a task. And because of the ease with which our criminals can obtain weapons, simply cutting off legal gun ownership would effectively empower such criminals. So we are left in a very unfortunate situation. We REALLY need to address this issue much more comprehensively. We also need work to cut off a lot of the root causes of violent crime, such as decriminalizing certain substances and seriously addressing poverty in order to cut out the criminal element's control over the more impoverished sections of society.
But this will demand a sustained & significant effort over a long period of time along with a considerable amount of capital. And honestly, I don't see the political pressure necessary to bring about such a thing. And those people in political offices who are supposedly 'tough on crime' seem to favor a more reactive approach rather than a preventative one. At least it seems that way to me.
metta
_/\_
One thing that I personally find tiresome about samsara, besides the aging and death of course, is the never-ending need for people to make excuses, explanations, and justifications for violence (including myself). People can find a way to justify anything, from the right to kill another human being to the right of another human being not to be killed. People can make excuses for anything, for the criminal trying to rob a person or store to the person or store-owner who kills said criminal. Who is right, who is wrong; who is justified, who is not; who has the better excuse, who has the weakest, and on and on.
What bothers me more than the specific situations and scenerios that we might draw upon in order to prove our arguments one way or the other is the reality of a world in which all of these things can and will happen. Over the entirety of recorded human history, there has never been a time when people as a whole have simply lived in harmony with one another—with or without weapons of some kind. That is truly amazingly to me. If we do not have them, we create them; and if we do have them, we eventually use them. I cannot wait until humanity proves me wrong, but I am not going to hold my breath.
Perhaps the young man was hungry and poor, stealing in order to survive. Perhaps the man who shot the young man was in serious danger of losing his own life, shooting the young man in a justifiable act of self defense. To me, regardless if we have a convincing and reasonable argument for each and every conflict where someone is intentionally killed, violence is a reality of life. Certainly there have been small pockets of society that have lived in peace with the world, but even in our "modern" society, we are still fighting to obtain peace, fighting to keep the peace, and fighting in the name of peace.
What is the nature of violence? Violence is certainly a part of our lives, so much so that it is glorified in art, entertainment, literature, et cetera. Violence is a part of our history as well. In nature, violence is apparent in the struggle for survivial. Even in religion, it seems that violence is the status quo. In biblical accounts, there was a war in heaven, of all places, between Michael and his angels and the Dragon and his angels. In the suttas, the heavenly beings know as devas are said to be continuously at war with the asuras. Violence in general, it would seem, appears to be a fact of existence in any form.
Sincerely,
Jason
Palzang
Someone else said something about being ready to die. I'm not ready to die. I believe that service to one's community or nation is the highest calling there is. And I'm not ready to stop serving the people yet. Even when I get out of the military, my life will be about serving people, even if I have to get rich to do it. When I have left a legacy of bettering the world around me, then I'm ready to die.
I think that you mean "ready to be dead", Fede. I am quite ready for that but my recent mild haeat attack showed me I have a way to go before being ready for dying!
I don't quite look at it that way ... in practice attachment is a tricky concept. I don't concern myself at all with being ready to die. That's an attachment in itself.
I seek to be fully alive.
"When one is fully alive there is no place for death to enter".
Good Day ...
I think you are quite right Simon - And I would have expressed myself more fully and succinctly, but I realised as I was posting, that I only had 30 seconds of on-line time left to me, as I was sitting in the library at the time!
The discussion on kamma has been moved to here.
Sincerely,
Leto II
The Greek word makarioi, translated as "Blessed" in the Authorized Version of The New Testament, means "HAPPY."
Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
Unhappy is the man who carries around a gun.
Concealed weapons laws are really insidious. I'd rather be an unarmed victim of a crime than someone who, despising others, accounts himself more worthy of life than others.
Only lawfully trained and licensed military or police personnel should be allowed to carry firearms. I don't think the framers of the constitution had concealed weapons in view in drawing up the second amendment to the U.S. constitution. Militias, the grounds for which the bill was added, don't rely on hiding their strength, but on showing it.
Palzang
BTW, what makes me better than any other citizen of this nation when it comes to carrying a firearm, besides the fact that I'm trained to fire an automatic machine gun?
From a Christian point of view, "self-defense" has become one of the most misunderstood, and badly used doctrine of the faith.
According to Thomas Aquinas, the use of force could only be justified if you were saving SOMEONE ELSE'S life. The normative behavior was to "turn the other cheek." If you were being attacked, it was better to resist non-violently, and perhaps be killed, than to take a life yourself. Of course this quickly devolved into what we see today; if i feel threatened, it is quite ok to let the guns go blazing.
John Howard Yoder pointed out that the problem with doctrines like the "just war" "self-defense" was they are never used to prevent violence, only to justify it. Can you name a war that was brought to a halt because one or more parties decided it was "unjust"?
So if I defend my life am I also not defending my family and so fighting to save others ...
"When one must do battle the soul must be the warrior".
This is what defines self defense.
Good Day ...
ummm. the fact that you are TRAINED to fire it? (Just a guess)
I live in Alaska, and am no stranger to gun rights. (I once did a presentation on assault rifles for our annual presbyterian gathering, and one of the native leaders came to me afterwards and asked, "Do you think that the rocket launcher we use to kill whales would be considered an assault rifle?")
I have carried a gun on more than one ocassion in my life, mostly to protect kids from bears. I have taken my kids to shooting ranges, so they will know what it feels like to shoot a .357 in a controlled environment.
But Bushinoki raises some interesting questions about the changing nature of firearms. Had the founding fathers known of drive by shootings, would they have entrenched gun ownership in the constitution? And to be honest, the current administration is doing a wonderful job of stripping our constitutional rights while AFFIRMING the second amendment.
In the short run, to go back to my first sentence, gun ownership should be similar to driving. You need a license to drive, you ought to have one to own a gun. You do have to have one to carry a concealed weapon (at least in Alaska you do) and I think it would be a wonderful idea for every gun owner to have some kind of certification that they know what they are doing when the pull the trigger, and more important, they know what they are doing when they are NOT firing the gun. (The head of the NRA up here lost a grandchild to firearms. His guns were not locked, the boy got stoned with some friends and played russian roulette. Tragic, and totally unneccessary.
I have found it extremely illuminating and am currently engaged on writing an article about the different presuppositions and their origins in cultural myths.
Nevertheless, as I review the various contributions, I notice that there is a missing element.
We have addressed the question of self-defence (on which there is disagreement) and the matter of defence of one's family, which could raise questions of patriarchy and self-importance. We have touched on the meaning of the Second Amendment, and the matter of vigilantism and the law. Intention has also been discussed.
What appears to me to be missing is the matter of proportionality. Because the story suggests that the potential victim fired the first shot, we cannot know if the attacker would have fired his weapon. This is a civil, not a war situation, so that it cannot be assumed that he would have done so. In addition, it has been a couple of centuries since robbery was punished by death. In this case, however, the potential victim decided that this was the punishment he would inflict.
I am far from certain of what the law might be in this person's neck of the woods but I have no doubt that, in a similar case in the UK, the killer would be charged with, at the least, manslaughter. He could bring arguments of self-defence but the fact remains that he used violence over and above that permitted by law and out of proportion to the threat of burglary, even when this is committed by an armed assailant.
So, my question to all those who think that the householder's actions were justified is this: should the law be changed to inflict the death penalty on all those who go armed to commit crimes?
Thanks very much, Artic-Stranger, for pointing out above:
Thanks, also, Bushinoki, for your pointing out the fact that firearms were much bigger back in the early days. However, I believe that the whole rationale of the second amendment is to make possible viable militias to stand up to the tyranny of a king — and that militias relied on showing their weapons, not hiding them. It's interesting that when the amendment was being debated, there were clauses introduced defining what a militia was and affirming the rights of religious pacifists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
And last, but certainly not least, good, dear PILGRIM, thanks for bringing up proportionality. (In that vein, would categorical capital punishment for all gun offenders generally, or in any other way, be proportional? [just asking]) To me, proportionality is all about Restraint, something we inculcate into our children but pay the press and celebrities to put aside almost entirely (and award certain politicians for doing also).
No, I don't think we should. I am against the death penalty as it does nothing to deter crime. However, this particular event was not a civilised trial. There were no courts or justices, or judges, or impartial juries to make careful decisions. This was a quick moment's choice.
Whether the potential robber would have fired the first shot or had he only an air-soft gun or an empty catridge, I think this is irrelevant. We can never know. The point is, he did in fact aim the gun (intent right there) and proceed to threaten the victim.
In self-defense classes, you are taught to act as if the assailant means to kill you. That the rapist means to kill you. You really can't afford to follow a course of action without presuming as much if you intend on living.
Had this been an ordinary civil dispute, my feelings may have been different. Had this been an arguement between neighbors that turned ugly, I would be forced to concede much of what I have written, and probably would not even argue this stance.
But this was in fact a declaration of war, at least in the most personal sense. You are threatened by an external force that promises that it will do harm on you if its demands are not met. Now you could hope that this force will stick to its promises if you do in fact meet its demands, but it can easily just find you only a liability and kill you afterward. The choice is really up to the individual at that point.
Some thoughts:
It is a sad, sad world we live in. I agree with KoB that people have a right to defend themselves, even if I disagree with the way in which they choose to do so. My personal beliefs should not be the basis for which these circumstances are judged. Nevertheless, what kind of world are we really a part of when people have to choose whether to defend themselves or let potentially violent and life-threatening situations take their course?
It is not much a choice for most people who have absolutely no religious convictions whatsoever about G_d, kamma, the possibility of an afterlife, or whatever. It should also be taken into consideration that at a certain level, self-defense is a primal and instinctual reaction that almost all organisms on this planet have in common—self-preservation. On what grounds, then, does one person stand upon to judge another person's actions?
What is right and what is wrong? The questions are endless, and the answers equally so. Do we, as organisms ourselves, judge another person's actions on religious grounds? Do we perhaps judge them upon a general consensus, such as a majority vote? Do we judge them on individual ethical standards? Do we judge them based on biological imperatives? Do our judgements apply to all living creatures, or do they apply to a select few?
When it comes to human reason, it all depends on the subjective viewpoint of the individual whether they find a particular action acceptable. Certain individuals will certainly hold people to religious mandates while others will choose to let their own personal code of ethics determine whether they find a particular action acceptable. Secular laws, on the other hand, are often based upon general consensus. But, which is the right one?
My feeling is that there is currently no universal framework, biological imperative, religious authority, ethical standard, or anything else that everyone can agree upon as applying to all living organisms equally, and so, such judgements are ultimately arbitrary. As such, there is no such thing as a concrete right or concrete wrong action; these are perceptions that we, as individuals, give as labels to certain actions in order to judge them.
That does not mean that there is no basis for making distinctions about a person's behavior, but it does means that there is no universal standard that we all can agree upon with which to do so. Not all people agree that evolution is correct, or even real. Not all people agree that kamma is correct, or even real. Not all people agree that G_d's laws are correct, or that G_d is even real. So, as judges, where should we proverbially stand?
Hopelessly lost,
Jason
That is a good idea, and in theory, I would agree. If people are going to be allowed to own firearms, why noy train them to use them responsibly? The problem that most people have with this, however, is the question of what happens if the government becomes too corrupt and powerful, abuses that power, and has to be abolished forcibly by its citizens? That would be problematic if the government was in charge of approving people for the use of firearms as well as handing them out.
Jason