Topic: Florida Shooting Echos Trayvon Martin Case, but this time a conviction?

[Oniya]

But unless I am missing your point you are saying it is murder regardless. It may be a justified murder, but it is still murder. 

I think that it might be useful in clarifying this if I drop some information about the difference between 'murder' and 'homicide' here.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/homicide

Although the term homicide is sometimes used synonymously with murder, homicide is broader in scope than murder. Murder is a form of criminal homicide; other forms of homicide might not constitute criminal acts. [...]  Typically, the circumstances surrounding a killing determine whether it is criminal. The intent of the killer usually determines whether a criminal homicide is classified as murder or Manslaughter and at what degree.

[Valthazar]

I think you just need to tie it back to gun control and how the fact that guns relate directly to incidents of gun-violence is not a matter for legislation especially when there's a strong and nearly universal moral principle that we can all we appeal to: "It is wrong to kill people.

No, I don't think this is a strong and nearly universal moral principle we can all agree to.  If someone were to threaten my family with a knife, gun, or other weapon, I would have no hesitations using lethal force, and certainly no guilt.  It seems like I am not the only one, which is why it seems like you are making far too many assumptions about our shared 'morality.'

There was a news story about a man from Texas last year who shot and killed another man that was sexually assaulting his 5-year-old daughter.  You really want a father like him to be behind bars?  I'm grateful that the Texas state law had a clause where deadly force is authorized and justified in order to stop an aggravated sexual assault.

edit: Not shot, beat up.  My mistake

In addition, I disagree with the concept of pushing more gun laws on handguns with the rationale of attempting to reduce the number of suicides.  The much more obvious solution would be devote that same administrative energy and monetary investment into mental health resources for troubled individuals.

[Zakharra]

See, but that's not a moral justification. Or at least, you're not appealing to any particular moral standard. You're just asserting you're right to defend your property in line with what a 19th century homesteader might when faced with outlaws or highwaymen.

Why don't you describe for me, the ideal circumstances you think a person would be justified in taking someone else's life, and why?

Moral justification wouldn't even come into the equation. Physically threaten my family and property and I'll do my best to scrag the one who is doing it. I fail to see what morals have to do with defending home and family.

 What circumstances? I thought I more or less stated those already, but here they are more clearly; physical threats to yourself, your family, home/land/property; armed robbery, home invaders, someone trying to kill you or someone else, rapists, pretty much anyone using the threat of physical force to do something illegal. If someone is willing to use force to rob/rape/assault someone, they had better be ready to die because I believe in the old adage; if you draw a gun, you'd better be prepared to kill. I extend this to any weapon. I hope I never have to do that, but at the same time I hope I can kill to defend my family. Their safety comes first and any invader/assaulter loses their right to breath air.

 

The difference is that archaic weapons are just that: archaic. They are not in common usage, production, and back when they were, it was commonplace for cities to enforce bans on wearing of weapons by all except the city-guard. Hell, the crossbow was so deadly and effective in it's day and age, there was a Pope who excommunicated anyone caught using it! More pertinent to our day and age, the point remains that vehicles are much more closely regulated and licensed than guns, and moreover their is no method of firearm continuing education.

I agree that their are plenty of misguided and ineffectual firearms laws out there, but that does not preclude the effective regulation of firearms. Just look at Japan, who at one point made effective use of flintlock firearms to the degree that you had trench warfare resembling what would not occur in Europe until the Napoleonic wars. The Japanese nobility were so afraid of the prospect of a firearm armed peasantry and what it meant to their continued power that they effectively disarmed the entire country to the point that when americans arrived a century or two later, everyone was walking around with swords again.

The reason we legislate legal gun ownership is a tighter system of legal precepts is harder for criminals to abuse. It's easier to track how they get their guns, and thus who is committing the crimes and then preventing them getting back into the hands of criminals.

 This doesn't mean they aren't methods that can be used. Archaic or not, they are effective, as is stepping in front of a train, hanging yourself, taking pills, or as the one poster said, breathing on carbon monoxide, or any other of a hundred ways, guns just make it a little easier and faster. Vehicles also kill a LOT more people than guns do, licensed or not. People drive drunk or drugged and kill people and its the drivers that are held at fault. Not the vehicles.

 There's a difference between effective gun laws and over regulation of gun laws. The balance is one that's not easy to get, but it seems like with each incident with a gun, instead of calls to enforce current gun regulations,s there is almost always calls for -more- gun regulations and laws. More gun laws is not the answer. more effective enforcement of current gun laws is more needed. And some gun laws are asinine (some of the magazine restriction laws among others).

 As far as I know guns were banned in Japan when the one using them consolidated his power and clamped down so no one could threaten him or his supporters. They had what they wanted and were not about to let anyone else take it from them so all guns where banned.

[Retribution]

Thanks Oniya though I feel dense for not thinking of Justifiable Homicide. The link does an excellent job of describing the differing intricacies of the law.

[chaoslord29]

No, I don't think this is a strong and nearly universal moral principle we can all agree to.  If someone were to threaten my family with a knife, gun, or other weapon, I would have no hesitations using lethal force, and certainly no guilt.  It seems like I am not the only one, which is why it seems like you are making far too many assumptions about our shared 'morality.'

There was a news story about a man from Texas last year who shot and killed another man that was sexually assaulting his 5-year-old daughter.  You really want a father like him to be behind bars?  I'm grateful that the Texas state law had a clause where deadly force is authorized and justified in order to stop an aggravated sexual assault.

In addition, I disagree with the concept of pushing more gun laws on handguns with the rationale of attempting to reduce the number of suicides.  The much more obvious solution would be devote that same administrative energy and monetary investment into mental health resources for troubled individuals.

Okay, the tell me what moral principle you're applying that makes it okay for you to kill people sometimes but not others, and for other people to kill others at other times?

Is it strictly on a case by case basis? Only when you're life is reasonably threatened? Only when you believe it to be threatened?

What I'm getting at is that there is a fundamental reason why it's wrong to kill people in the first place, and that said principle is not in fact consistent with self-defense. If you're appealing to a different principle though, by all means, share and explain.

Also, stop making it sound like I want to lock people up. That guy from Texas was fully within his rights to protect his daughter, given that her rights were clearly being violated by someone else and she was without means of protecting herself. All I'm saying is that self-defense doesn't entirely justify lethal force, even if it is the most expedient solution in a given situation. I wouldn't expect him to try and reason with the pedophile, nor would I expect him to go to prison for killing the man. I do see it as important however to remember that while he had good intentions, his actions resulted in the death of another, and that he has to take moral responsibility for that. That doesn't mean jail time, it's between him and whatever ethical grounds he subscribes to, but not taking responsibility or any kind of thinking that the other man 'needed killing' is destructive in the long run to himself and to society.

While I'm all for additional resources being devoted to mental health resources, such systems are ultimately reactive and it would be even more oppressive and invasive into people's lives to enforce anything like federally mandatory mental health screening (not to mention the expense, and myriad of other issues it would present). It's my more expedient to enforce a certain degree of separation between access to a firearm and immediate risk of suicide.

I think that it might be useful in clarifying this if I drop some information about the difference between 'murder' and 'homicide' here.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/homicide

I also appreciate the distinction, but most of what I'm arguing is that while there is good reason for their to be a legal distinction, there is little to no basis for a moral distinction and that has entirely different ramifications and implications for both individuals involved and legislation. I'm not saying we should start convicting everyone of murder who kills someone in self-defense, I'm just saying that if the reason for making a distinction is purely political, there's every reason it might be "tuned" to reflect a better standard of morality.

Moral justification wouldn't even come into the equation. Physically threaten my family and property and I'll do my best to scrag the one who is doing it. I fail to see what morals have to do with defending home and family.

 What circumstances? I thought I more or less stated those already, but here they are more clearly; physical threats to yourself, your family, home/land/property; armed robbery, home invaders, someone trying to kill you or someone else, rapists, pretty much anyone using the threat of physical force to do something illegal. If someone is willing to use force to rob/rape/assault someone, they had better be ready to die because I believe in the old adage; if you draw a gun, you'd better be prepared to kill. I extend this to any weapon. I hope I never have to do that, but at the same time I hope I can kill to defend my family. Their safety comes first and any invader/assaulter loses their right to breath air. 

What you seem to be saying is that killing is a totally amoral action for you, under those or any circumstance or any other where you feel that your person or property is being threatened with the intent of violence. Do I have that right?

This doesn't mean they aren't methods that can be used. Archaic or not, they are effective, as is stepping in front of a train, hanging yourself, taking pills, or as the one poster said, breathing on carbon monoxide, or any other of a hundred ways, guns just make it a little easier and faster. Vehicles also kill a LOT more people than guns do, licensed or not. People drive drunk or drugged and kill people and its the drivers that are held at fault. Not the vehicles.

There's a difference between effective gun laws and over regulation of gun laws. The balance is one that's not easy to get, but it seems like with each incident with a gun, instead of calls to enforce current gun regulations,s there is almost always calls for -more- gun regulations and laws. More gun laws is not the answer. more effective enforcement of current gun laws is more needed. And some gun laws are asinine (some of the magazine restriction laws among others).

 As far as I know guns were banned in Japan when the one using them consolidated his power and clamped down so no one could threaten him or his supporters. They had what they wanted and were not about to let anyone else take it from them so all guns where banned.

The laws we have are being exercised ineffectually because it is such a partisan issue. I blame both sides, the gun lobby for their hardline stance with the second amendment, and the regulatory side for not actually acting in the best interest of the public and instead grandstanding and showboating. I'm calling for an overhaul of the system, not additional regulation. More effective enforcement of current gun laws will do nothing because the laws on the books were written to make politicians look good, not actually fix any problems.

[Valthazar]

What I'm getting at is that there is a fundamental reason why it's wrong to kill people in the first place, and that said principle is not in fact consistent with self-defense. If you're appealing to a different principle though, by all means, share and explain.  ... I do see it as important however to remember that while he had good intentions, his actions resulted in the death of another, and that he has to take moral responsibility for that.

So then it's clear that you are pushing your moral views onto all of us.  If you want to talk about gun control, I'm very interested, but please keep your personal beliefs out of this.

It is when my life, or the lives of those near and dear to me is in immediate danger, that I have no qualms using deadly force.  If you don't want to kill people in self-defense, then don't do it.  But don't tell me how to react if someone is pointing a gun at me.  You live your life with your morals, and I will live my life with mine.

All I'm saying is that self-defense doesn't entirely justify lethal force, even if it is the most expedient solution in a given situation.

All of us know this is what you are saying - that shooting in self-defense is okay, but not to cause the death of individual.  If that's your moral philosophy, then that's great, you should live your life by that.  But it clearly doesn't reflect the moral views of many others - not in this thread, nor in many places in the US.  Texas' law justifying deadly force in that situation is clearly supported by many constituents there.

While I'm all for additional resources being devoted to mental health resources, such systems are ultimately reactive and it would be even more oppressive and invasive into people's lives to enforce anything like federally mandatory mental health screening (not to mention the expense, and myriad of other issues it would present). It's my more expedient to enforce a certain degree of separation between access to a firearm and immediate risk of suicide.

So many things are inaccurate in this statement.  Mental health resources are not purely reactive, and I never suggested federally mandated mental health screenings.  Please look into the financial aspect of gun control before making baseless claims like this. 

What exactly are you planning to do?  Imagine this situation: A guy jumps through every single hoop you manage to put in place, and owns a handgun, but is an idiot, and doesn't keep it in his safe.  His teenage son is depressed and gets his gun and shoots himself.

What are you proposing?

[Kythia]

There was a news story about a man from Texas last year who shot and killed another man that was sexually assaulting his 5-year-old daughter.  You really want a father like him to be behind bars?  I'm grateful that the Texas state law had a clause where deadly force is authorized and justified in order to stop an aggravated sexual assault.

See, it's funny.  All I can do is stare at that paragraph in shock and say "Yes!  Of course I do!  He fucking shot someone"  I understand your point, Valthazar, and frankly I think our views our so divergent that we can't really discuss this.  Just struck me as odd exactly how differently w see this.

[chaoslord29]

So then it's clear that you are pushing your moral views onto all of us.  If you want to talk about gun control, I'm very interested, but please keep your personal beliefs out of this.

It is when my life, or the lives of those near and dear to me is in immediate danger, that I have no qualms using deadly force.  If you don't want to kill people in self-defense, then don't do it.  But don't tell me how to react if someone is pointing a gun at me.  You live your life with your morals, and I will live my life with mine.

I'm not saying we all have to hold ourselves to my moral standard, just that it's important that there be a moral standard which we can all agree on. Otherwise, morality would be relative wouldn't it? I mean, how you exercise your morality certainly effects me, especially when it involves killing other people. What if one of those people is a relative of friend of mine and the situation isn't as cut-and-dry as your flight or fight response would have you believe. We can't just all live our lives with our own morals and let other people live there's with different ones because invariably they will come into conflict. Besides, if your ethical beliefs are founded on a logical basis which anyone can understand, it should be easy to convince me of your position, right?

All of us know this is what you are saying - that shooting in self-defense is okay, but not to cause the death of individual.  If that's your moral philosophy, then that's great, you should live your life by that.  But it clearly doesn't reflect the moral views of many others - not in this thread, nor in many places in the US.  Texas' law justifying deadly force in that situation is clearly supported by many constituents there.

Well first off, the case in question is about Florida, but just because many people believe it's right and agree with it, doesn't make it "justice".  A majority decision does not make something 'good' or 'right' or 'just' it just leads to abuses of power by said majority. That's ultimately what we're talking about here, and Justice is the product of not just yours or my moral beliefs, but of a standard which best satisfies both of them and which defuses conflict between differing belief systems. The "Stand-your-ground" laws do just the opposite.

So many things are inaccurate in this statement.  Mental health resources are not purely reactive, and I never suggested federally mandated mental health screenings.  Please look into the financial aspect of gun control before making baseless claims like this. 

What exactly are you planning to do?  Imagine this situation: A guy jumps through every single hoop you manage to put in place, and owns a handgun, but is an idiot, and doesn't keep it in his safe.  His teenage son is depressed and gets his gun and shoots himself.

What are you proposing?

Mental health resources are even at the best of times only available to people who are willing to seek the out or have already demonstrated some kind of verifiable mental health problem (as identified by a psychiatrist and often a court). That's reactive. You can't just walk around on the street and identify potential suicide victims or anti-social tendencies, and you certainly can't invade people's privacy to do so, which is why I deem them 'reactive', they can't do anything until a problem is recognizable, or to put it another way, they can't do anything to 'head of' the problem before it starts.

You've certainly managed to identify part of the problem though. You can't idiot-proof a gun, and invariably there will be situations that could only be prevented if the person had never owned or had access to a gun in the first place. Given that's not what I'm about to argue for, being a gun-owner myself, what I'm proposing is that those hoops exist because idiots have harder time jumping through them (or at least, they should). Not impossible, mind you, and I don't think there should be a financial burden either, since those would both violate the second amendment. Mandatory re-licensing however and continuing education are a great place to start though. Hell, compulsory service would be a big boon, but that's politically unfeasible in the US. Overall though, I would love to just see a smarter, more savvy citizenry across the board, but that's a cultural and education issue, not a gun-control issue.

[Torch]

There was a news story about a man from Texas last year who shot and killed another man that was sexually assaulting his 5-year-old daughter. 

In the story you linked the father apparently killed the suspect with blows to the head. The suspect wasn't shot.

Just wanted to clear that up.

[Retribution]

See, it's funny.  All I can do is stare at that paragraph in shock and say "Yes!  Of course I do!  He fucking shot someone"  I understand your point, Valthazar, and frankly I think our views our so divergent that we can't really discuss this.  Just struck me as odd exactly how differently w see this.

Actually if you read the article Val made a mistake he killed the guy with his bare hands when he punched him about the head when he found him raping his five year old daughter. I wish the man would run for president I sure as hell would vote for him.

And when I look at your point of view on it Kythia a cannot begin to explain my shock and horror that anyone could have that sort of thought process. Or maybe I am in awe I honestly do not know how to describe my feelings on this, but you are right. I know the post is directed at Val but you and I could not have a discussion on this.

[chaoslord29]

In the story you linked the father apparently killed the suspect with blows to the head. The suspect wasn't shot.

Just wanted to clear that up.

Well would you look at that. Guess you caught me Valthazar, I was willing to take you at your word that the article you posted was just as you described haha.

Actually if you read the article Val made a mistake he killed the guy with his bare hands when he punched him about the head when he found him raping his five year old daughter. I wish the man would run for president I sure as hell would vote for him.

And when I look at your point of view on it Kythia a cannot begin to explain my shock and horror that anyone could have that sort of thought process. Or maybe I am in awe I honestly do not know how to describe my feelings on this, but you are right. I know the post is directed at Val but you and I could not have a discussion on this.

Made a mistake? Or caught me a in a clever trap showing I didn't actually read the article? Oh well, suffice to say I'm willing to entertain for sake of argument there's a similar situation somewhere out there involving a firearm.

I won't go so far as Kythia, but I do think he should be facing murder charges. Just no, you know have to spend any time in jail, because what he did is what anyone else following just about any moral standard would have done in the same circumstances. Even for all my speculation and philosophy, you won't catch me saying anything except that I would beat the man senseless, then plug him full of lead. Though I like to think that I would have the presence of mind to see to my daughter some time in between, that also means I'd have the chance to retrieve a larger caliber weapon, and if I'm already taking the time to call an ambulance and look after my daughter, I guess I might as well go the whole nine-yards and make the rapist look me in the eyes before I execute him.

Again though, I'd probably plead guilty to the killing him once the police arrived, and expect due leniency given the outrageously horrendous circumstances. It might be putting a fine point on things, but it strikes me as the most amenable solution, rather than the somewhat problematic "stand-your-ground" laws. If you kill someone, even in self-defense, take responsibility for your actions, plead guilty, apologize to any other parties who might have been wronged. It just makes sense to me, especially if you have nothing to hide.

Though, hold on, does Texas have mandatory sentencing for murder charges? Oh wait, I can get the death penalty too depending on my plea . . . Well, if that isn't a conflict of interests I don't know what is xD

[Valthazar]

Sorry for the misinterpretation of the news article.

I'm not saying we all have to hold ourselves to my moral standard, just that it's important that there be a moral standard which we can all agree on. Otherwise, morality would be relative wouldn't it? I mean, how you exercise your morality certainly effects me, especially when it involves killing other people.

That is because morality is relative.  There are those who feel abortion is acceptable, and those who feel abortion is a sin.  Are you suggesting that one of these perspectives of morality is wrong, while the other is right?  It all depends on the individual, and neither group has the right to push their sense of morality onto the other, just as your view of morality on self-defense is equally as justifiable as those of many posters here.

Besides, if your ethical beliefs are founded on a logical basis which anyone can understand, it should be easy to convince me of your position, right?

I am not trying to convince you of my position.  Please live your life by your own sense of morality, and whatever allows you to sleep peacefully at night.  Rather than having an intelligent discussion about gun control, it is becoming increasingly clear that you are attempting to push your individual sense of morality onto others here.

Justice is the product of not just yours or my moral beliefs, but of a standard which best satisfies both of them and which defuses conflict between differing belief systems. The "Stand-your-ground" laws do just the opposite.

Currently, according to stand-your-ground, if you don't want to lethally shoot someone in self-defense, you don't have to.  If I feel the need to, in self-defense, I am permitted to.  How is that not permitting both of us to exercise our unique moral stance on the issue?

What you are attempting to do, by pushing for this 'universal standard of morality' is no different than those who are pro-life attempting to push their views of morality on the rest of the population.

Like I said earlier, I find it really hard to believe that you have done academic and professional research on this issue, because you are taking such an idealistic view of gun control.

Are you aware of the growing and thriving black market for firearms?  The impending concerns of gun control legislation is already fueling a perfect storm in the black market sale of firearms.  Honestly, even I know first hand of people who are stock-piling ammunition and AKs for the sole purpose of making illegal profit from selling them once gun control is in place.

[Retribution]

And on another note while I cannot draw direct comparisons or come even close to calling this scientific in many places state mental hospitals have been closed on a large scale. We no longer have a tendency to keep the criminally insane institutionalized. A subject I know a little about since my late grandmother spent her career working with the criminally insane in a mental health facility. In short it costs too much and is considered to disregard the rights of those with mental illness.

But now we have people who I feel are obviously disturbed walking into crowded places and gunning down people. But apparently the firearm is the issue. That is very bitterly ironic.

[consortium11]

In short, my stance is that murder in self defense is every bit as reprehensible as murder (aggravated, premeditated, or otherwise).

Setting aside the loaded language (murder is a legal term, if someone could satisfy the criteria needed to use a full self-defence defence then it wouldn't be murder, thus making "murder in self-defence" somewhat of a oxymoron), I still find this view somewhat confusing.

Do you really see no moral difference in the acts between say a battered wife who after years of abuse, wipes the blood away from the beating she received earlier that day, grabs a knife and stabs her abuser in her sleep and the abuser who batters his wife for years and eventually kills her? Both are generally seen as murder (although a "battered wife syndrome" partial defence has been allowed in recent years)? A physically weak woman (hell, or man) trapped under a much stronger assailant who is attempting to murder and/or rape them, manages to grab a nearby weapon (gun, knife or improvised) and kill their assailant and the assailant who murders them? Someone who see's a gunman shooting at people and tackles them before punching them as they struggle leading to their death... or the gunman shooting at people?

That seems a rather strange view to me and I'd like to see it expanded.

[chaoslord29]

Sorry for the misinterpretation of the news article.

That is because morality is relative.  There are those who feel abortion is acceptable, and those who feel abortion is a sin.  Are you suggesting that one of these perspectives of morality is wrong, while the other is right?  It all depends on the individual, and neither group has the right to push their sense of morality onto the other, just as your view of morality on self-defense is equally as justifiable as those of many posters here.

Oh, you're a moral relativist. That explains a lot.

You know that's a wholly untenable position right? If morality is relative, then as long as you can justify any action to yourself under any more standard you make up on the spot, you are justifiable in your actions? There's no grounds for any kind of application of law and order except is what is most politically expedient. There's no human rights except those every human makes up for themselves, and the bill of rights doesn't mean a damn thing other than it's what the government is telling you that you have to abide by because a bunch of rich white men wrote it that way however many years ago.

I am not trying to convince you of my position.  Please live your life by your own sense of morality, and whatever allows you to sleep peacefully at night.  Rather than having an intelligent discussion about gun control, it is becoming increasingly clear that you are attempting to push your individual sense of morality onto others here.

It just so happens that I am trying to have an intelligent discussion, just that I'm trying to have it about standards of morality. If you're a moral relativist, I understand why that might confuse you, but I was a political science and philosophy major, and meta-ethical discussion is a point of great interest to me. I can assure you that it's fully possible to have intelligent discussion on the basis of conflicting moral standards and even rectify them through the use of logic and reason. In fact, through such discussion, you'll find that the overwhelming conclusion of the academic community is that moral relativism provides no grounds for debate and is therefore self-defeating, and ultimately an expression of nihilism.

Currently, according to stand-your-ground, if you don't want to lethally shoot someone in self-defense, you don't have to.  If I feel the need to, in self-defense, I am permitted to.  How is that not permitting both of us to exercise our unique moral stance on the issue?

What you are attempting to do, by pushing for this 'universal standard of morality' is no different than those who are pro-life attempting to push their views of morality on the rest of the population.

Like I said earlier, I find it really hard to believe that you have done academic and professional research on this issue, because you are taking such an idealistic view of gun control.

Are you aware of the growing and thriving black market for firearms?  The impending concerns of gun control legislation is already fueling a perfect storm in the black market sale of firearms.  Honestly, even I know first hand of people who are stock-piling ammunition and AKs for the sole purpose of making illegal profit from selling them once gun control is in place.

Simple, because if you shoot someone under a "Stand-your-ground" context and it's one they don't agree with, then you have seriously violated their moral beliefs and will see no kind of recourse. The whole live and let live policy, only works as long as everyone is willing to play by the same rules anyway. Why is it okay for you to apply your personal standard of live and let live, but not okay for say, a sociopath to do the same? Or say, I stumble drunkenly into your home having lost my glasses, plastered all to hell and belligerent besides. Under your moral standard, and "stand-your-ground" you have every right to shoot and kill me, but according to my moral standard, I deserve consideration, and leniency. Except because you're probably going to kill me, your moral standard now reigns supreme simply by virtue of the fact that you had the gun (even though you probably could have just knocked me out in my drunken stupor and called the police without having to kill me). Under those circumstances, it's tantamount to a might-makes-right moral philosophy, which I'm sure you'll agree is totally untenable.

My academic and professional stance (not just for gun control) is that it is important that be hold ourselves and more importantly, agree upon ethical absolutes and ideals, because even though they are, practically speaking, impossible to attain, if we hold ourselves to any lesser standard, then the only real standard we have to obey is that of what is most expedient and practical to enforce, which leads to abuses of majority power and certain cases of the ends justifying the means.

My position is that even though we must, by necessity take action according to what is most practical, we must still recognize moral standards in order to maintain a coherent and morally rigorous society.

[Valthazar]

I have raised many pertinent issues regarding the growing black market for weapons given impending gun control, and the impossibility of ensuring that people are maintaining their weapons with utmost safety.  Retribution also made some good points regarding the lack of mental health funding at the state level, which you have not responded to.

While I understand that meta-ethical discussion is of great interest to you, please consider the empirical fallout of this very 'academic' moral discussion you are seeking.

I am not a philosopher, but I am also not naive to the fact that different cultures and different perspectives have different concepts of morality on such matters.  Would you take things seriously if someone similar to you from India started advocating that it is a sin to eat meat?

[chaoslord29]

I have raised many pertinent issues regarding the growing black market for weapons given impending gun control, and the impossibility of ensuring that people are maintaining their weapons with utmost safety.  Retribution also made some good points regarding the lack of mental health funding at the state level, which you have not responded to.

While I understand that meta-ethical discussion is of great interest to you, please consider the empirical fallout of this very 'academic' moral discussion you are seeking.

I am not a philosopher, but I am also not naive to the fact that different cultures and different perspectives have different concepts of morality on such matters.  Would you take things seriously if someone similar to you from India started advocating that it is a sin to eat meat?

I will address them thusly, but thank you for not ignoring my own metaethical arguments completely.

I did agree that I would like to see increased funding for mental health, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a responsive form of institution and proactive maintenance of mental health starts with good education, and parenting, both of which I'm sure we're all in favor of, but are agreed it's equally hard to legislate (particular the latter, since we can't very well license folks to have kids).

In regard to the growing black market for gun control, I point out that deregulation will not fix the problem, and that what is tantamount to a black market will persist just as readily under a lack of regulation. Compared to the the illegal market for drugs, it's much easier to crack down on a firearms black market, because not just everyone can grow bullets and automatic weapons in their back yard. Confiscate firearms obtained in law enforcement raids and do not just sell them back (hell, sell them abroad for that matter). Make straw sales and gun trading a safe and legal alternative, just like cars and focus on relicensing and continuing education. Whatever you do, don't ban automatic weapons because that's not only stupid but counterproductive. At any rate, the problems of black markets and people continuing to practice unsafe firearm usage persist whether we regulate or not, but regulation is at least a step in the right direction where as a lack of regulation is just resignation to the ensuing death and mayhem which may very well spiral out of control. Is it better to piss on a fire knowing you can't put it out completely or just let the whole forest burn to the ground?

It's not naivete that fuels my upholding of moral absolutes, but a strong foundation in logic that echoes back through the ages in all spheres of political and ethical thought and practice. I would take someone from India seriously who came to me with the idea that it is morally wrong to consume meat, and in fact I have done just that engaging with debates with vegetarians in this country, out of context of religion. Would you like to hear the arguments and lines of reasoning I appeal to or is that too much of a tangent?

[Iniquitous]

Also, stop making it sound like I want to lock people up. That guy from Texas was fully within his rights to protect his daughter, given that her rights were clearly being violated by someone else and she was without means of protecting herself. All I'm saying is that self-defense doesn't entirely justify lethal force, even if it is the most expedient solution in a given situation. I wouldn't expect him to try and reason with the pedophile, nor would I expect him to go to prison for killing the man. I do see it as important however to remember that while he had good intentions, his actions resulted in the death of another, and that he has to take moral responsibility for that. That doesn't mean jail time, it's between him and whatever ethical grounds he subscribes to, but not taking responsibility or any kind of thinking that the other man 'needed killing' is destructive in the long run to himself and to society.

Excuse me what?

She is being physically raped... HURT... and all you can come up with is her rights were being violated? Dude got off lucky by being beat to death in my opinion. If it had been me walking to see one of my children being raped the cops would have arrived to the sight of the man tortured to death with his genitalia in his mouth. And I wouldn't lose a wink of sleep over it.

Sorry you don't think anyone should be killed but there are some things that warrant death. Harm my children, threaten me or my family, break into my house... I will kill you.

And again, any gun safety class I have ever been to says the same thing: If you are going to pull the gun, aim to kill. If you are incapable of doing that, sell your gun. It is not an instrument to induce fear. It is an instrument to protect yourself, your family and your property.

***More coming after work***

[chaoslord29]

Excuse me what?

She is being physically raped... HURT... and all you can come up with is her rights were being violated? Dude got off lucky by being beat to death in my opinion. If it had been me walking to see one of my children being raped the cops would have arrived to the sight of the man tortured to death with his genitalia in his mouth. And I wouldn't lose a wink of sleep over it.

Sorry you don't think anyone should be killed but there are some things that warrant death. Harm my children, threaten me or my family, break into my house... I will kill you.

And again, any gun safety class I have ever been to says the same thing: If you are going to pull the gun, aim to kill. If you are incapable of doing that, sell your gun. It is not an instrument to induce fear. It is an instrument to protect yourself, your family and your property.

***More coming after work***

Read my post more fully. I admitted I likely would have killed the man in question myself, and can even admit to a certain amount of satisfaction at the idea of making him look me in the eye while executing him, and only after I had first seen to it that my daughter is cared for as well as circumstances allow.

Whatever satisfaction you or I might have in exacting torture and death as vengeance however is not morally justifiable. What is good and right and just is seeing to it that the daughter is properly tended to, and has every opportunity to recover from such a horrendous experience (as much as can be).

[Iniquitous]

Shit. I would hand my child the weapon and let him/her get their justice.

[Valthazar]

Compared to the the illegal market for drugs, it's much easier to crack down on a firearms black market, because not just everyone can grow bullets and automatic weapons in their back yard.

No one here is advocating 'deregulation' of weapons - only that we should actually enforce the existing laws properly before creating new ones.

Again, I am not sure how you claim to have done research on gun-related issues when you make some of these statements.  Have you ever been to a gun show?  Do you realize how easy it is to buy guns right now?  While politicians in DC talk about gun control, AKs, ARs, and ammo are flying off the tables at these gun shows - no background checks needed whatsoever.

I know people who are viewing guns as investments.  They go to these gun shows, stock-pile a few assault rifles, with the intention of selling it at a premium in a few years to random people when the gun control laws are much more restrictive.  Every time Piers Morgan talks about how unnecessary it is to have war weapons at home, these guys are laughing at the profits they'll get a few years from now.  But who do you think is going to illegally purchase guns at that point?  No way to have background checks then.  It certainly won't be us law abiding citizens, because if we want to buy guns at that point, we'll have extensive background checks necessary and other hoops to jump through (as per your suggestions).  It will be gangs and other criminally-minded individuals who get these guns on the rising black market.

If you don't believe me, just watch whenever gun control is in the news, the stocks for Smith & Wesson, Ruger, Alliant, etc. will all spike up.  There's a huge black market brewing, and the buyers will be criminals.

[consortium11]

Oh, you're a moral relativist. That explains a lot.

You know that's a wholly untenable position right? If morality is relative, then as long as you can justify any action to yourself under any more standard you make up on the spot, you are justifiable in your actions?

That's a pretty one-sided view of moral relativism. I'd suggest that most moral relativist positions instead take an anthropological view on morality; that morality is not necessarily absolute and universal but instead may differ depending on the practices, convictions or traditions of a person (or group of persons). Therefore moral relativism does allow an action to be "wrong"... it simply doesn't apply that such an action will be "wrong" for all agents (or group of agents) who find themselves in that situation.

(On a side note, there is nothing intrinsic about moral objectivism vs relativism that makes one more secure than the other. A moral objectivist may well change the basis on how he decides what is objectively right or wrong; a hedonist who becomes a Kantian for example.)

[Iniquitous]

Now that I am home and able to sit and compose a proper post…

Why don’t you describe for me, the ideal circumstances you think a person would be justified in taking someone else’s life, and why?

1. Assault with the intent to kill
     You can argue this one if you want, but if I am in fear of my life then I believe that the person is assaulting me with the intention of killing me. You can argue heat of the moment if you want (two drunks get in a fight outside of a bar, one clearly gets the upper hand and has his opponent down but he continues to wail on him in a drunken rage - the intention is there… to kill. Abusive spouse lays into his/her spouse. Instead of stopping after the usual few hits, they keep going to the point the spouse is desperate to protect their life - intention is to kill.) but the fact is after a certain point the other person has crossed that line and the rage is in control and the intention is to kill, not hurt.

2. Breaking and entering
     You come into my personal abode without my express permission then I have the right to shoot (A - see below) you. You have become a threat to me, to my family, to my peace of mind.

3. Rape.
     If I tell you no and you try to rape me, I am going to shoot to kill you. No ifs, no ands, no buts. (B - see below)

4. Physically/sexually harming one of my family members.
     If I catch you in such a situation - be it my children or one of my other family members, I will kill you. (C - see below)


A. Again - any gun safety instructor will tell you that if you are going to pull a gun then you better be prepared to use it and you do not shoot to wound. If you pull the gun and you hesitate, you set yourself up for your assailant to take your weapon from you and use it on you. If you pull the gun and you shoot to wound then you set yourself up for a whole host of problems - first and foremost being that you did not wound your assailant enough to stop them from getting the gun out of your hands and, you guessed it, using it on you. Second, you are then liable to be sued in a court of law. This is why a gun is NOT an instrument to put fear into your assailant. It is an instrument to stop the assailant from doing you or your family harm …and the best way to ensure that that assailant isn’t going to keep coming is to shoot to kill.

B. I’ve been raped. I know what it is like to be stripped of every bit of my self worth, my dignity and my pride. I, to this day, remember the taste of fear in my mouth because I was unarmed and they weren’t. I remember the helpless feeling. I am not a victim and I will never be in that position again. Ever.

C. See A.

Now then, the why of your question.

Because it is my right to protect my life and the life of my family. It is my right to protect my property. Because the moment someone crosses that line and becomes an assailant, they forfeit their right for me to consider their life. It is me or them - and every single time I am going to choose me (or my family). That is what self defense is.

And finally - as to why I said I would put a gun in my children’s hands and let them get their justice.

I do not want my children to be victims. In a scenario where one has been raped/sexually abused they have already been stripped of their sense of security, their self worth, their dignity and pride. They are, from that moment, damaged and fear will consume them. Fear that the person who did it to them will do it again. By placing the gun in their hands and letting them get their justice, they are ensured that the person who did such to them will never do it again. By letting them get their justice they are getting a measure of control back in their lives. By letting them get their justice they are learning that they are not a victim just waiting for the next assailant.

I was that victim for a long time. I cowered, I was terrified, I let it control my life to the point I married an abusive alcoholic that terrorized my life for over ten years. It took me a very long time to get to the point that I am not a victim and I’ll be damned if I ever let either of my children go through something like that.

[Zakharra]

What you seem to be saying is that killing is a totally amoral action for you, under those or any circumstance or any other where you feel that your person or property is being threatened with the intent of violence. Do I have that right?

The laws we have are being exercised ineffectually because it is such a partisan issue. I blame both sides, the gun lobby for their hardline stance with the second amendment, and the regulatory side for not actually acting in the best interest of the public and instead grandstanding and showboating. I'm calling for an overhaul of the system, not additional regulation. More effective enforcement of current gun laws will do nothing because the laws on the books were written to make politicians look good, not actually fix any problems.

 Morality isn't an issue when it comes to the defense of my home and family.  As Val said, when they are threatened, lethal force will be used to defend them. Why is that a moral problem?


 I agree that the laws are ineffective. It's a screw up on several sides. The gun lobby has legitimate complaints about the gun control people who would take away every one's guns if they could, all in the name of gun safety. So given a side to chose, I'm more inclined to go with the gun lobby who will at least fight for Constitutional rights.

 

You know that's a wholly untenable position right? If morality is relative, then as long as you can justify any action to yourself under any more standard you make up on the spot, you are justifiable in your actions? There's no grounds for any kind of application of law and order except is what is most politically expedient. There's no human rights except those every human makes up for themselves, and the bill of rights doesn't mean a damn thing other than it's what the government is telling you that you have to abide by because a bunch of rich white men wrote it that way however many years ago.
/quote]

 The thing is, many morals run into problems with the law. Morals cannot be the sole determiner of what is right and what isn't, especially when morals are different for every person.

[consortium11]

Morality isn't an issue when it comes to the defense of my home and family.  As Val said, when they are threatened, lethal force will be used to defend them. Why is that a moral problem?

As a first point, I think it's worth noting the nuance in chaoslord's argument. It's in essence that killing is always a moral wrong and that should be kept in mind... but not that there aren't also morally right reasons that may lead someone to kill. In his view those reasons don't impact on the morality of the killing itself. It's a moral value theory which either separates out the moral acts (and thus their values) or views moral value as being non-transitive.

At the risk of over-simplifying or putting words in chaoslord's mouth, it comes across to me as a theory that views killing as a last resort and even then a necessary evil; circumstances may dictate that it is reasonable or even necessary but it is still an evil.

That somewhat plays into my point/response where I can see a moral problem with killing in defence of the home. Stepping away from a deep metaphysical argument for a moment I don't think that too many people would have an issue when someone breaks into your home and makes you fear for your life. But if someone breaks into the home and is then in the process of running away when they are, to use the gun example which prevails in this discussion, shot? I can certainly see the moral issues where in a situation where someone is in no fear of personal harm (let alone in fear of their life) and the intruder is retreating (but still within the home), and the person kills the intruder. Yet would that not count as defence of the home? What if they were retreating but with some of the person's property?

Morals cannot be the sole determiner of what is right and what isn't, especially when morals are different for every person.

But isn't that the entire point of morals? To determine what is right or wrong?