USA – Discussions about the role of guns in society often founder under the weight of dueling statistics thrown out by both sides.
I’d like to avoid the statistical food fight and base this article solely on the ethics of armed self-defense.
How much do you value your life?
Modern America has a strong pacifist streak that originated among some of our Christian denominations and spread to non-religious people, most notably during the 1960s. It is now associated with the liberal side of the political spectrum and with those who support strict gun control.
It is easy to find people who say they would never use potentially lethal force against another person, even to save their own lives from a criminal assault. Under this principle, the life of a violent sociopath is more valuable than theirs. Each person has the right to place a value on their own life, so it may seem difficult to argue against this way of thinking. But let’s pose some serious questions and see where this line of reasoning takes us.
Do you have an obligation to your loved ones?
If you won’t save your own life by using lethal force, what about your spouse, children or co-workers? If you allow yourself to be killed by a violent attacker, what effect will this have on those who depend on you? If you are responsible for supporting them and you are killed, the results will be devastating.
Let’s say you are not killed, but suffer a brain injury that leaves you unable to work, or you are abused in ways that leave you unable to work due to lifelong psychological issues. In a way, this is worse than death, as you are now a burden on those you felt obliged to provide for.
Giving up your life for your beliefs is one thing, but making people you care about suffer for those beliefs is something much more serious.
More
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
6 comments:
We have recently discussed this at our house. Our Christian school curriculum includes the doctrine of non-resistance.
I have a concealed carry permit. I often carry when out in urban areas, especially with the threat level as it is now. I am ex-military.
As we discussed this issue, I asked my son this:
"Let's say we're out in a crowded restaurant for Sunday lunch. A jihadist (or some mental case) comes into the restaurant and starts shooting.
"I am armed. I have the capacity to stop him. The doctrine of non-resistance says I should not resist his attack. But there are 150 other men, women and children in his line of fire.
"If I can stop him and perhaps save dozens of lives, should I do it?"
I think each one of us has to answer that question for themselves, but my answer is this-- if I can somehow stop him without killing him (unlikely), that is the preferred solution, but my main objective needs to be stopping him.
This is a question we all need to think about and answer for ourselves right now, because we will likely face these kinds of circumstances in the near future. We need to decide ahead of time how we will respond.
There are no athesist in a fox hole with shells and bombs exploding all around you within feet!
I seriously doubt any of these people would just stand there and let another person do what they will to them without fighting back at some point!
If you haven't thought it out already, 9:29, you might well just freeze up-- shock, fear, confusion.. it all happens pretty quickly.
Even if you (and hopefully some others) just rush the attacker, it's good to have a planned response. No time to think about it then.
.45 acp everyday.
I have killed to protect myself and family, didn't bother me at all. I also don't loose any sleep over killing the young creep.
I have woods behind my house and that is where the body will be disposed of. I will not call any cops or wahbulance. more than likely I would get into more trouble than the one I needed to kill, especially in this communist state of marys land.
Post a Comment