Ethics of gun ownership

[Dan.Linehan]

How does everyone feel about the ethics of owning a gun (or guns) for self-defense?

[carenkh]

Ah, man. There was a shooting on my street the other night, so my first thought is: NO! No, no, no. There was an argument, and I really don't believe the shooter meant to kill the other person. I could hear everything, and called 911. The killer had immediate regret.

BUT - I think, if you're a responsible person who doesn't drink to excess or use other drugs, and you take gun classes once a year, and learn all you can, keep the gun safe, etc.... It's not something *I* will do, but I can see why someone would. You are making a statement: Who I am, my life, is more important than someone who would try to harm me.

It's tricky, because I also think by owning a gun, you're perpetuating the need for guns, and ammunition, and I don't like the energy of those things. It feels like the gun would be making up for a perceived lack: I'm not enough by myself, I need this metal thing that can kill instantly.

Those are my immediate thoughts.

[Apollia]

I'm in favor of gun ownership for self-defense. It would probably make criminals more afraid to attack random people or burglarize random homes if most people had guns.

A country with a lot of interesting customs and laws related to guns is Switzerland: The Swiss & Guns - Proven Success! I haven't read that whole page yet, but, I've been aware of this for some time:

While many shoot for sport, all males aged 20 to 42 are required by militia system regulation to keep rifles and/or pistols at home.

When I first heard that about Switzerland, it made me think, "Wow, the government of Switzerland is probably rather trustworthy if it insists that many of its citizens be armed, since that makes the citizens theoretically able to rebel against the government and resist any severe oppression more effectively than a disarmed populace. Therefore, I'm guessing Switzerland most likely isn't an oppressive country, since an oppressive country would be afraid of its citizens rebelling and would want to disarm them or have much stricter gun control, like Nazi Germany."

A quote from that page:

There may be various reasons why the Nazis did not invade Switzerland, but one of those reasons is that every Swiss man had a rifle at home. For this we have no better record than the Nazi invasion plans, which stated that, because of the Swiss shooting skills, Switzerland would be difficult to conquer and pacify. European countries occupied by the Nazis had strict gun controls before the war, and the registration lists facilitated confiscation of firearms and the execution of their owners.

On the other hand, being required to do mandatory military service and to own a gun even if you don't want to isn't so great. Still, it might be preferable to being forbidden from owning guns.

Best wishes,
Apollia

[Andrew Brunelle]

It is a fact that more people die in America in proportion to the amount of guns in the population. But there is always the case of self-defense. There may be some very, very rare circumstances where you would need a gun for self-defense, but some areas have a higher risk factor for violence and break-ins.

I would suggest putting a sign on your door stating: "We have a gun." Even if you don't have a gun, I think the criminal would be less likely to break into your house. On the street, you need to have a permit to carry a gun, and only certain people are allowed to get this permit in some states. I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable carrying around a loaded gun, but if you feel it is necessary for self-defense, just don't use it in self-offense.

A gun makes it too easy to kill someone else, on purpose or by accident, but the choice is ultimatey up to you.

[funchy]

Gun ownership only works if you know how to confidently use the weapon, you don't hesitate, you keep it handy, and you know the laws.

Know the law: did you know in some states you're ok shooting an intruder inside your home, but the moment he runs out the door, you can't shoot him? You need to be very familiar with your own state's laws. Pulling the trigger might send you to prison, even if you felt it was self-defense.

Just owning a gun isn't enough to keep away the bad guys, and some people are more likely to get burglarized if word gets out they have a few guns. Thieves love stolen guns: now the can commit future crimes without it being tied to a weapon registered to them.

I am cynical when it comes to the average American. They'll buy something and never get trained to use it. Or they won't think about where to safely lock it away from the kids while still keeping is accessible for emergencies. All I can say is if you buy one, you must commit to the time & expense of training. And you have to look inside yourself and decide if you really could point it at another human and make a split-second decision to pull the trigger?

I don't own one. I probably should since I'm in a rural area (the rare but possible rabid animal), but I don't have the time right now to learn how to use one efficiently.

[Brutha]

How many people successfully use a gun for self defense each year in the US?

At the same time you are in greater danger of dying when someone who breaks into your house thinks that you might kill him.
Starting a discussion about what kind of fate makes someone so desperate to break into others houses is probably safer.
Unconditional love can completely take someone out of his mental map if you have enough focus and persuasion skill.
It not something that people who break into houses are used to feel and keeping up a mental map that they indeed are robbing you while you don't play alone and play victim is hard mental work.
The kind of people who rob other peoples homes are not used to doing hard mental work.

Giving someone else the power to control your mental state is a choice. I don't think that it's effective.

Therefore, I'm guessing Switzerland most likely isn't an oppressive country, since an oppressive country would be afraid of its citizens rebelling and would want to disarm them or have much stricter gun control

Most politicians don't think further than the next elections and don't think that it's a realistic danger that citizens begin to rebel. Politicians who erode liberties tend to be rather close mined.
Violent resistance or the thread of violent resistance even tends to motivate politicians to take more liberties away.

I however don't think that people who own a gun are somehow bad. I also don't think that smokers are unethical because they smoke.

I think that having a discussion about a topic like guns about ethics instead about effectiveness deludes it.

It similar to the discussion about military spending. By discussion about the ethics of military spending you draw attention away from the fact that it's horribly inefficiently spend money.

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Originally Posted by funchy

Know the law: did you know in some states you're ok shooting an intruder inside your home, but the moment he runs out the door, you can't shoot him? You need to be very familiar with your own state's laws. Pulling the trigger might send you to prison, even if you felt it was self-defense.

Here in Texas, you can follow him home and shoot him on his front lawn and there will be a congratulatory parade in your honor.

You know, if anyone else made a joke like that about Texas, I'd probably probably shoot them with the rifle I was issued at birth.

Ok, ok, I'm done.

I don't think I have a good serious answer. I hate guns on the one hand, and I'm intrigued by them on the other. I think it would be fun to shoot at targets and stuff. And it can certainly offer extra protection in some situations. If I could magically make all guns disappear I would. But I wouldn't at this point take guns out of the hands of decent people who use and store them responsibly. I am in favor of laws regarding the purchase and use of guns, but I haven't formulated the extent of what I'd like those laws to be.

My random thoughts. Good question.

[Holistic Star]

I'm glad it isn't an option where I live.

[cookie5]

I thank we have gun laws here. I think it is sad that kids can get a hold of these guns and not really know the true impact and some instances occur out of kids mucking about and the weapon goes off. I wonder what the impact of gun laws in the U.S would have as it is so prolific and to me unfortunate that there is a need to keep a weapon yet it breeds fear to so many so out they go to buy a weapon and I can understand that. However on intruder comments. Lets say an intruder comes in you self defend his shot yet cracks his head on your coffee table and as a result of this has many complications regardless to the gun wound. He can then sue you? Ummm? So the justice in it all on all angles.

[jeff3]

Is it ethical to own/use a gun for self defense?

Yes, to protect yourself or others from imminent danger.

Self preservation is hardwired into us and that typically extends to our family as well, I doubt anyone will argue that point. I doubt very many would argue that we have the right to protect ourselves. The question then becomes is it OK to seek advantage over an attacker and then, to what extreme is that advantage ethical. If someone bigger than you is wailing on your children, would it be ethical for you pick up a rock?, as baseball bat?, or a gun? The best tool for the job is a gun.

The only reason this is a question has nothing to do with the question asked, but, instead, it's really about guns in general. They are destructive devices and many people find it disconcerting that there is actually a need for them to exist. I own a few, but don't keep one accessible for defense purposes because I just "trust" that I'll be kept safe. I own guns for the same reason some people have golf clubs, I enjoy them as a hobby. I have a full size safe they are kept in to keep them out of inexperienced hands.

Just as a side note, more people are killed and die from alcohol related deaths and illnesses by far in the US, but I just don't hear a lot squawking about banning ETOH, just the evil guns. The critical factor in all these things is "human behavior", not inanimate objects.

[RT Wolf]

The question is sorta loaded. It's not asking specifically what the status of gun ownership, should be, but whether it should be allowed for self defense. Perhaps its just me, but I'm less interested in having guns around for self defense than, say, how many guns are used to kill people period and how they affect everything else. If 2% of kills in America involve a gun and are in self defense, that's a ♥♥♥♥♥♥ reason to keep guns around, if the other 98% are murders and rampant gun ownership encourages it.

Edit: The pun was not intended in the first sentence.

PS The issue of "if you ban guns, only the criminals will have them" is weird, cause its sorta chicken and egg and you can't really figure out causation.

You can come out with all sorts of anecdotal or specific evidence (IE Nazis and Switzerland), but the question is broader than that and doesn't necessarily apply to the current situation.

[jeff3]

Originally Posted by RT Wolf

The question is sorta loaded. It's not asking specifically what the status of gun ownership, should be, but whether it should be allowed for self defense. Perhaps its just me, but I'm less interested in having guns around for self defense than, say, how many guns are used to kill people period and how they affect everything else. If 2% of kills in America involve a gun and are in self defense, that's a ♥♥♥♥♥♥ reason to keep guns around, if the other 98% are murders and rampant gun ownership encourages it.

Edit: The pun was not intended in the first sentence.

PS The issue of "if you ban guns, only the criminals will have them" is weird, cause its sorta chicken and egg and you can't really figure out causation.

You can come out with all sorts of anecdotal or specific evidence (IE Nazis and Switzerland), but the question is broader than that and doesn't necessarily apply to the current situation.

How do you feel about automobiles? More people are killed by auto's than guns many times over, maybe that whole ease of transportation thing is a lousy reason to keep them around. Really, it's just a convenience to be able to drive from one place to another instead of bike or walk.

As for the ....only criminals will have guns, that's pretty common sense to me, there are over 250 million guns in the USA, if they were all made illegal at midnight tonight, the only people with guns would be criminals. That's not the real point of the statement though, criminals that would use a gun in a crime are not going to follow any rules, certainly not give up their advantage, which would incidentally become an even greater advantage when the sheep are disarmed.

I've read they are contemplating outlawing knives over a certain length in Britain because now that firearms have been almost completely outlawed, those pesky humans are using the next thing they can find.

I think many people miss the whole point of gun ownership as a right in the USA, it was designed to prevent a tyrannical govt from pushing whatever agenda they wish on the people. Many think this has no place or practicality in todays "civilized" world but some think differently. I feel very sure we would have far less freedom and liberty if all the guns were turned in 50 years ago.

Some think it "nonspiritual" or unenlightened to defend oneself but my bet is that it just takes different levels of threat to activate the response to fight back. Hold anyone under water long enough and they WILL kill you to get up. Some people just choose to be more proactive about it than others.

Taking away choices is a poor way to govern, punish behavior not possibility. I once spoke with a man who did time on a county work farm in the 30's for killing someone. He said they worked their asses off and occasionally someone would get whipped for breaking some rule. He also said that if you got out, you did not want to go back, that it was actually a deterrent. Pain causes people to change.

[floslib]

Originally Posted by RT Wolf

PS The issue of "if you ban guns, only the criminals will have them" is weird, cause its sorta chicken and egg and you can't really figure out causation.

Well, it's true. If you ban guns, only the criminals will have them. Law abiding citizens, by definition, couldn't have them. I don't see how this line of thought is weird.

There will, for the foreseeable future, always be people willing to illegally buy and sell weapons. As such, we'd be handicapping the law abiding citizens by banning guns, since they would no longer have access to them. As has been mentioned already, guns are incredibly deadly when used properly. If only the criminals have them, how would innocents defend themselves? Somehow, I don't think hand-to-hand self-defense classes will do the trick against a gun.

I certainly think gun owners need to be responsible with their guns, understand how to use them and know how to keep them safe. But that's a very different issue from banning them or restricting their use too heavily.

[Brutha]

The question is sorta loaded. It's not asking specifically what the status of gun ownership, should be, but whether it should be allowed for self defense.

The question isn't at all about how the law should look like.

Most people think that lying is unethical. That doesn't mean that those people think that there should be a law that puts a fine on lying.

I've read they are contemplating outlawing knives over a certain length in Britain because now that firearms have been almost completely outlawed, those pesky humans are using the next thing they can find.

Fortunately knives aren't as deadly as guns.

I think many people miss the whole point of gun ownership as a right in the USA, it was designed to prevent a tyrannical govt from pushing whatever agenda they wish on the people.

I don't think that the Bush administration thought about the issue of American going to the streets with their guns at all when they took away civil liberties.

On the other hand they did use terrorist attack (the usage of certain weapons) to justify their politics.

If some militia would start killing politicians because of illegal wiretapping, they would be treated as terrorists and the right wing people would use it as justification that they need to destroy additional liberties to keep peace.

If only the criminals have them, how would innocents defend themselves?

How much innocents defend themselves per year with weapons anyway?

[jeff3]

Originally Posted by Brutha

How much innocents defend themselves per year with weapons anyway?

If you consider that the probability of a gun being in the house reduces the likelihood of forced entry into an occupied home I'd say the amount of people defended would be staggering. It is a statistical fact that is always downplayed that areas with tighter laws on personal ownership have higher crime rates. DC is a prime example, highest murder rate for years, ban on handguns for years, what were the murders committed with? handguns of course. There have been some areas in the south where gun ownership was required by law, they also have very low rates of violent crime and home burglaries are almost non-existent. I'll look for the sources on that as I'm sure someone will ask.

I do feel that if you own a gun you are responsible for securing it and maintaining it properly to prevent misuse or accidents, it really is a huge responsibility and should be treated as such. Some people are simply not comfortable with the idea of their fellow citizens exercising their right to defend themselves and are personally not willing to take responsibility for themselves, for them there is always 911 and that 20 minute wait.

[Holistic Star]

Originally Posted by jeff3

Just as a side note, more people are killed and die from alcohol related deaths and illnesses by far in the US, but I just don't hear a lot squawking about banning ETOH, just the evil guns. The critical factor in all these things is "human behavior", not inanimate objects.

The point here is choice. If you drink yourself to death then you have some control over that and many, many points along the way where you can stop your behaviour and turn it around. On the other hand if I choose to shot you, then there's not a lot you can do about it.

[jeff3]

Originally Posted by Brutha

I don't think that the Bush administration thought about the issue of American going to the streets with their guns at all when they took away civil liberties.

On the other hand they did use terrorist attack (the usage of certain weapons) to justify their politics.

If some militia would start killing politicians because of illegal wiretapping, they would be treated as terrorists and the right wing people would use it as justification that they need to destroy additional liberties to keep peace.

Govt has become huge and obtrusive and under the new administration will become even more-so, it's the way of the Democrat to micromanage, it's also why 90% of politicians who go after guns are Democrats, they want dependency because it assigns control.They also fear those who champion independence and personal freedom. I believe that gun ownership is a deterrent and that it prevents that "straw that breaks the camels back" from being put in place.

[Holistic Star]

I see it completely differently Jeff. I feel a personal freedom knowing that I can leave my house and walk down the street knowing it highly unlikely that anyone I see will own a gun.

In the whole time I have lived in the place I do now, in what is considered a fairly high crime area, next to an estate that openly deals drugs, there have been only 2 shootings in 15 years both of which were gang related.


I suppose it is based on the way you interpret freedom. You have freedom to own a gun, I have freedom from people owning guns. Given the choice I choose freedom from.

[Brutha]

If you consider that the probability of a gun being in the house reduces the likelihood of forced entry into an occupied home I'd say the amount of people defended would be staggering. It is a statistical fact that is always downplayed that areas with tighter laws on personal ownership have higher crime rates.

The person who breaks into the house doesn't know whether there will be a weapon inside it, so it's unlikely that the weapon would have a direct effect.

That effect would have nothing to do with personal responsibility. You pay money for a gun and raise the overall gun level therefore deterrence in your neighborhood.
That effect has nothing directly to do with innocents defending themselves.
The innocent doesn't have to own a gun to profit from the effect.

Gun laws are usually made to combat high crime rates. As a result a region with high crime rates is more likely to enact stricter gun laws.
To establish somehow causality you have to look at different things.

Maybe some crimes like breaking into houses should be more effected by guns that are stored at home than being robbed on the street.
Therefore a higher number of guns should change the balance breakins and robbings.

Those effects are however not big enough to be measured and quantified.

Just as a side note, more people are killed and die from alcohol related deaths and illnesses by far in the US, but I just don't hear a lot squawking about banning ETOH,

Banning it the last time didn't work out well and people learned their lesson.
On the other hand you have politicians that try to ban smoking because it kills people.

[RT Wolf]

flosib, its not meant literally. It's a slogan used to basically say, "we've gotta have them cause the criminals have them", except the criminals may have them because "we've" got them. It's an arms race, basically, like the cold war, except deadlier ironically, because actual people are dying.

Brutha, you are correct, I confused the ethics with the legality of it. Living where I live now, I will not get a gun to protect myself, as there is no need. I don't think its an ethical question though, its just what works better for what rather than whether its right or wrong.

jeff3, You've made a complicated argument. The first paragraph is a false analogy.

The second paragraph hinges on banning guns outright overnight. That will be completely ineffective and that's a straw man argument. Tougher gun control laws have to be to the first step and go on from there if that's the goal.

For the fourth paragraph, I'd probably argue that the face of tyranny has changed. If a government agency taps your phone calls or hacking your computer, can you hold up a gun to the phone to stop it from doing so? I fear physical harm or coersion a lot less these days, which can be prevented with a gun, than I do violations of my privacy.

About choice: the key issue you've mentioned there is taking away choice. The action of having that choice taken away, not necessarily not having choice anymore. People hate preceiving that their "right" to choose has been taken away. It's called reactance theory. However, there's plenty of choices that have been taken away from you. The choice to run around naked, for example. In some places, the choice to commit suicide. We've just gotten used to it. That's the same principle I apply to a lot of things: people reject things emotionally that they can learn to accept after the fact. Read Stumbling on Happiness to get a better idea of this sort of thing.

I wasn't really taking a stand in my previous post. However, here it is: I'm not for outright gun bans, but much stricter gun control laws in the States. I'm not sure why I care, cause I'm in Canada and we've got stricter gun control laws so I'm pretty happy and safe here. It's too damn cold to be fighting each other. Overall though, I think there's enough robust data out there that I believe we should be looking at it to inform policy decisions, as I referred to the "If 2% etc" bit.

Most importantly: I agree with Brutha, we need data.

[jeff3]

Originally Posted by Holistic Star

The point here is choice. If you drink yourself to death then you have some control over that and many, many points along the way where you can stop your behaviour and turn it around. On the other hand if I choose to shot you, then there's not a lot you can do about it.

What if you choose to get drunk and drive, then run me over. Do I have a choice? DUI kills way more people than guns every year and it's certainly not limited to the driver. Gun accidents in the home are truly tragic and almost all could be prevented by common sense, it's a human failing, not the act of an inanimate object.

My oldest daughter was right in the thick of one of the big school shootings, three of her friends were killed, one of the girls had spent the night at our house within the week, it was one of the worst days of my life life and did cause some careful reflection on my feelings about guns. I've been around them all my life, own more than most, used to hunt a lot and still target shoot as a hobby. The shooting changed all that and I could see how some would jump on the "ban them" bandwagon but the reality is that two boys broke into a relatives house, stole unsecured weapons, went to the school, pulled a fire alarm and acted out hostility that had been brewing for some time by targeting girls who had 'snubbed' them. No males were shot.

Instead of blaming the guns I place the blame on several places, first on the boys as they clearly knew what they were doing, then on the owner of the weapons for not securing them (they were in a glass fronted cabinet). Those two parties were culpable, the gun manufacturers, point of sale and the guns themselves, in this case, all did exactly what they were supposed to do.

The only change that I made was to buy a real full-sized secure gun safe to ensure that weapons in my possession stayed in my possession.

[jeff3]

Originally Posted by Holistic Star

I see it completely differently Jeff. I feel a personal freedom knowing that I can leave my house and walk down the street knowing it highly unlikely that anyone I see will own a gun.

In the whole time I have lived in the place I do now, in what is considered a fairly high crime area, next to an estate that openly deals drugs, there have been only 2 shootings in 15 years both of which were gang related.


I suppose it is based on the way you interpret freedom. You have freedom to own a gun, I have freedom from people owning guns. Given the choice I choose freedom from.

The point you are missing is that me or any other law-abiding citizen owning or carrying a gun is no threat to you, if you feel threatened it's out of ignorance about the implications of me being armed. Are you afraid of the armed police-man? There's a very good chance that I'm more qualified to carry a gun than him, it's you're perception of him that is different. The people I know who CCW (concealed carry) are very competent individuals and contrary to popular belief they do have to jump through several hoops to get the permit, you don't just show up and shell out the cash.

The people causing the problems are criminals, if we treated them like criminals instead of catering to them a lot of these problems would resolve themselves.

[Brutha]

I don't think its an ethical question though, its just what works better for what rather than whether its right or wrong.

For some people it's a ethical question when people die.
Killing another person and having to live with the knowledge that you are responsible that some kids have no dad anymore isn't easy, even when you think that you acted within the law in self defense.

[RT Wolf]

Depends on your definition of ethics. I've removed the concept of ethics while I figure out what the hell ethics means to me and I'm going pretty much to pragmatism/universal utilatarianism while I do. I'm also reframing it as a "goal oriented" process rather than an emotional one. So, for the "goal" of not having people die needlessly, gun ownership laws can be changed.

"Killing another person and having to live with the knowledge that you are responsible that some kids have no dad anymore isn't easy, even when you think that you acted within the law in self defense."

That clarifies what your original question is about. If I was in a situation where I was put in personal danger by a man who had children, compassion for those children would not prevent me from protecting myself. I would probably try my best not to kill the father, but if I did, I would feel somewhat responsible for those kids and try to help them out in some way. Don't take my word on this, like I said, I'm still trying to figure out this whole ethics business.

[Holistic Star]

Originally Posted by jeff3

The point you are missing is that me or any other law-abiding citizen owning or carrying a gun is no threat to you, if you feel threatened it's out of ignorance about the implications of me being armed. Are you afraid of the armed police-man? There's a very good chance that I'm more qualified to carry a gun than him, it's you're perception of him that is different. The people I know who CCW (concealed carry) are very competent individuals and contrary to popular belief they do have to jump through several hoops to get the permit, you don't just show up and shell out the cash.

Really, so no-one has ever got caught in the cross fire of someone using a legally obtained gun acting in self defence?

I can only recall one time of seeing an armed policeman I was with some friends at an airport and we walked passed 2 armed policemen in the corridor and we all just stopped talking. As they walked away we all commented that just seeing guns made us feel nervous.

The Dunblaine shootings in Scotland where a man walked in and shot 16 4-5 year olds and their teacher were done with a legally owned gun. I'm sure he went through several loops to obtain his guns too. Just because you are responsible, doesn't mean to say all people are.

I don't know the statistics comparing gun crime to drunk driving but just because one thing is harmful it doesn't mean we should accept it or do other things that are also harmful.

Anyway I can't see guns being made legal where I live any time soon, so it's really an intellectual debate for me.

I'm sorry for your daughter and her friends.

[jeff3]

Originally Posted by RT Wolf

flosib, its not meant literally. It's a slogan used to basically say, "we've gotta have them cause the criminals have them", except the criminals may have them because "we've" got them. It's an arms race, basically, like the cold war, except deadlier ironically, because actual people are dying.


Most importantly: I agree with Brutha, we need data.

We cannot change the fact that over 250 million guns are in our country, so the first argument is realistic, they are not going away. People keep guns for usually one of two reasons, the first is that they are used for recreation, hunting, skeet/trap, target shooting. Secondly, they provide a sense of security. Either reason is legitimate. Hunting/shooting is deeply ingrained in the heritage of this country, particularly in the south. While some, particularly in this forum, may think it "backward" or make it a conservative vs liberal argument, the truth is that millions of citizens in this country own guns because they want too, they like having them for one or both of the two reason mentioned and we are not giving that up just because it offends someones sensibilities or makes them uncomfortable. Because some may think it's progressive or enlightened or just plain smarter to do away with them does not make them correct.....that's their opinion, I respect that.

The data is there, I'll dig some up, but basically it will prove that guns in the hands of law abiding citizens does reduce crime, particularly home invasion crimes.

Also, it is a fact, straight from the mouths of criminals (I know that sounds ridiculous) that the fear of a gun in a home plays a part in choosing victims. An interesting study may be done on DC since they recently had their ban overturned by the supreme court. A ban has been in effect for years and the recent change will provide interesting data that I'm very sure will support my position, it always does. Their are studies in Florida as well that support the "guns reduce crime" position. You have to remember when looking at this, that you must consider criminals already have or will continue to acquire weapons regardless of the law, the thing that changes with gun laws is law-abiding citizens are either given or denied access to guns.

I'm all for qualifying people, much like with a drivers license, making instruction mandatory as well as having legal and ethical considerations being addressed, all testing would need to be standardized to prevent discrimination.

[Brutha]

Depends on your definition of ethics. I've removed the concept of ethics while I figure out what the hell ethics means to me and I'm going pretty much to pragmatism/universal utilatarianism while I do.

I'm not really a fan of ethics either, I however think that you can discuss whether you want to see a decision as ethical.

If I was in a situation where I was put in personal danger by a man who had children, compassion for those children would not prevent me from protecting myself.

If someone comes into your home you have no knowledge about whether a man has children.
In the real world you have to make decisions without full knowledge.

There question is whether you want to put yourself into a situation where you have to make that choice between killing another person and letting that person live, which happens to be a big decision with consequences.

When you see a friend lying you might judge him badly because he lies.
If you come to the conclusion that it's an unethical decision to buy a gun for that purpose that might also effect how you see your friend when he buys a gun.

You might even like a friend when he buys a gun because he altruisticly creates a deterrence effect that also protects yourself but costs him money. At least if you buy the argument that guns have such a deterrence effect.

While some, particularly in this forum, may think it "backward" or make it a conservative vs liberal argument,

You started talking about how democrats see issue differently and are somehow bad because they don't like guns. Nobody else made a conservative vs liberal argument in this thread.

[Holistic Star]

Originally Posted by jeff3

the truth is that millions of citizens in this country own guns because they want too, they like having them for one or both of the two reason mentioned and we are not giving that up just because it offends someones sensibilities or makes them uncomfortable.

A lot a people take drugs because the want to, because they like the effects it has on them and don't see why it should be illegal to put a substance in their own body because it offends others or makes others uncomfortable.

So by your reasoning you should be in favour of legalising all drugs because lots of people want to do them. Am I right?

[jeff3]

Originally Posted by Brutha

For some people it's a ethical question when people die.
Killing another person and having to live with the knowledge that you are responsible that some kids have no dad anymore isn't easy, even when you think that you acted within the law in self defense.

You would be assuming responsibility that is not yours, claiming it when it belongs to someone else. Your feeling of sympathy for the children causes you to incorrectly assume the blame. This is easy to figure out, remove the kids from the equation, now who's responsible? Add the kids back, your actions do not change.

[jeff3]

Originally Posted by Holistic Star

A lot a people take drugs because the want to, because they like the effects it has on them and don't see why it should be illegal to put a substance in their own body because it offends others or makes others uncomfortable.

So by your reasoning you should be in favour of legalising all drugs because lots of people want to do them. Am I right?

Actually yes, it's none of my business what you do with your own body or consciousness, if you drive while doing it (which is analogous to using a gun irresponsibly) it becomes the peoples business. I could apply the same argument to just about anything that one group or another dislikes.


It really is that simple.