First of all, the link is NOT 'the ethics of self-defense" or even “the ethics of defensive firepower”. The title is “The Ethics of Firepower” – you are the one who introduced self-defense as a justification for the use of firearms. And I wouldn’t dispute that at all.
You need a set of these if you want to do that with any accuracy.
The armies’ possessions of guns changed the ethics of the situation…how?
How does the presence of a gun affect the ethics?.
Ethics from the Barrel of a Gun.
Not, ‘we have guns. Let’s think about how to use them ethically.’
Nope. ‘We have the guns - therefore we dictate the ethics.’
Boyo’s contention that the title is oxymoronic stands.
This seems a rather odd discussion, in some ways. Isn’t it obvious that the presence of power confers an increased obligation to carefully consider ethics? To the extent that ‘power’ confers an increased range of choices, it also confers an obligation to consider the outcome of those choices to ensure justice.
Remember the phrase “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely?” The point is that if you have the power to do something, you then must consider whether you should do that thing or not.
If I have the power to stop someone from robbing, raping, or killing me, by unleashing lethal force (e.g., perhaps with a firearm) then I have an additional obligation to consider whether I should. If I do not have that power, then any such consideration is purely academic.
My ethics say that it is acceptable to unleash lethal force to prevent raping or killing, but not robbing. The law - at least in most states - agrees with that assessment. And for the record, I’m not so sure that Martin Luther would have disagreed.
No oxymorons here…
But…but…post #4!
I really meant to check back into this thread earlier, but I’ll just say it now: Nyah nyah!
Well, I misspoke anyway - Argent was sort of right, in that there was apparently no malicious intent. You were completely right, apparently.
Well, if I were a Republican and I’d want to divide and conquer, I’d choose gays and blacks. Blacks are already over-represented in their opposition to gay marriage.
{Didn’t see Nicki’s post}
Follow-up to the original: Mr. Salem has apologized to the Pink Pistols group via email for his poor judgment (apparently either it was his choice or he is falling on his sword for someone lower down), and a very (very) long apology from someone higher up in the organization.
There was a lot of internal kerfuffle, most of it after Mr. Salem had already withdrawn the idea of shooting at MLK photos. I suspect that a lot of these people had not read the original email with any attention to detail.
So, yes, choice a) careless (or poor judgment) rather than malice of any kind seems to be the consensus among all concerned. I am glad, as a new member, that this was the outcome.
Roddy
In the Pit, someone posted in the Pit in an attempt to head off further public fallout from what was, at best, an incredibly poor decision on the part of someone within their organization, after it was reported in the Pit. Pardon me if I, in the Pit, don’t go out of my way to avoid mocking their post structure. In the Pit. Did I mention that we’re in the Pit, you whiny sissy?
ur rite lol!!! 
They were an outsider, though. It’s considered bad form to jump on their backs and slit their throat until after you’ve lured them to a false sense of security.
I’d re-think my membership.
That place is enough to give gun owners a bad name.
Well Nicki,
While I think you did the right thing to get MLK removed from the target, I think you are also being a bit unfair to Raoul.
What is so special about MLK that he needs protecting more than the other targets mentioned? Why is it ok to shoot at Elvis and The Beatles but not MLK?
Quoting from an earlier post…
"Elvis Presley was born on January 8th, 1935 in Tupelo, Mississippi. He was a popular, successful, and influential musician and actor. His music is still very popular today, and is called the King of Rock and Roll, or “The King”, by many of his admirers. Elvis Presley died on August 16th, 1977 at age 42 years in Memphis, Tennessee.
**We’ll commemorate the birthday of Elvis Presley with a target portraying this man **who is acknowledged to be one of the most important figures of 20th-century popular culture.
The phonograph record album entitled Yellow Submarine, by the popular band The Beatles, was released in January of 1969. We commemorate the release of this album with a target portraying the Yellow Submarine, based on the album jacket artwork."
There’s also a bit more bad taste to be had when you remember that John Lennon was shot to death, too…
Maybe they could print up a target with Elvis and Robert Goutlet and a TV in the middle?
I still can’t figure out why (some of) you think that shooting a picture of someone stems from the desire to shoot the subject of the picture. What does shooting a picture of Elvis have to do with one’s opinions of Elvis?
Have any of you ever been to a shooting range? Not once have I ever seen someone look at their target and go “man I wish that were a real person” or even evaluate the shot group as if it were on a real human being. When you look at a target, you try to hit the center of it. You don’t try to “kill” the target. It’s about accuracy, not lethality.
They’re looking at a picture. They’re also trying to put accurate holes into it. BFD, people. I can’t believe this thread is still going even after the club came in here and tried to explain it to you. They even apologized!
As an avid shooter, just let me say: You are a moron if you think that shooting at a picture of a person is in any way complimentary to that person.
You can’t really be that stupid, can you?
I have, and saw guys shooting at one of those life-sized targets - a silhouette of a woman. Naturally, they shot her in the tits and groin.
A responsible shooting range, like the one I go to, doesn’t allow that kind of bullshit. You can’t bring in human shaped targets to begin with, and you can’t act obnoxious or immature at all, or you’ll be asked to leave. But I guess there are all kinds.
I prefer them fresh and startled.