As I was reading this thread, I was wondering why parents who have been to places where bad things happen to innocent children in their own yards very quickly (more so than in rural South Dakota, say…) are willing to doom their children because of the childs instinctive turn to their parents when things go bad by refusing to have a weapon *(not just a firearm, a weapon) which would maybe cause the death of someone attacking their child?
The statements of intent of, " I will suffer anything before I will kill another human." makes me wonder why the are applauded for these attitudes.
All cits and polls and satistics I have seen put that point as false for years now. But, once again, I did not say ‘guns’ and is not about guns, is abuit the decision to not kill another far any reason and the refusal to have any means to do so in the house. nor the will to use them. If I convince myself there is no reason, once that reason shows up in real life, I can not change quickly enought to do anything… YMMV.
When people are in dangerous places, if the parent has stated the. “I won’t kill for any reason.” and then when things go wrong right in front of the house in the street or … whever, the child will turn to the parent for help and the parent has mentally put themselves in a no win box because they refuse to have a [weapon that will kill another human, (I did not say just guns, please read above.) The parents are saying weapon, not just gun. but I digress… The parent is stating the intent that there is no reason to kill. So when the parent keeps no weapons around, and the child turns to the parent for help, even if the parent changes their mind, they are defenseless. The child is doomed. IMO
The miss spelling above is shameful, had a fire in the room at the same time and lost track and did not proof read… Fire is out, no damage…not that that would help all the things wrong in the spelling and grammar above but…, but just splainin. LOL
Every single person is an individual & separate case. No two people or reasons are the same for not owning a killing weapon.
In my case, a member of my immediate family tried to commit suicide with a gun we had in the house. So, we gave, and still give, the person love & support. And, we got rid of the gun.
However, we have several Pepper Gas Sprayers around the house, & I’m shopping around for a Stun Gun. We also keep a nightstick, & a spiked mace that a local blacksmith made. Yes, a real Middle-Ages-Style iron mace. Much more effective than, say, a .22.
Well, anything can be used as a weapon…but what are you talking about when you’re saying “refusing to have a weapon” except a firearm? Do you mean, refusing to have knives? Swords? Crossbows? Rocket launchers?
The statement, “I will not ever kill another human for any reason and for that reason I keep no weapons around.”
This is NOT guns, it is about the conditioning of the mind that there is no reason to ever kill another human. Well, IMO, we are not even close yet although it is a good thing to work for. I just am shocked the parents feel that their children are not worth killing to defend, that the police or some other service ( who are not ever there when needed, they are not supposed to live with you) is going to. They will actually practice, with repletion, everywhere, the mantra, “I will never kill.”
I am not saying they should do should kill… But… Why this insistence that they won’t? Really huh. If so, then I am sorry for their children. The basic instinct to turn to the parent for protection will get them (the children)killed because these parents have so conditioned themselves to non-action or totally ineffective action that they and their children will go down. I guess if enough do it, the bad people in the world will be shamed into doing good. < ------ sarcasm for those impaired…
I have no children. In all likelyhood I never will.
I don’t carry any lethal weapon because I don’t want to be a killer- Some jerk who chooses to assault me can make me a victim, but never a killer.
Honestly, those of us who answeredthe original thread already explained ourselves. If you want to carry a gun, fine… I choose not to.
The punks weren’t afraid of the gun, so the homeowner was forced to use it. But a real Middle-Ages-Style iron mace needs no demonstrations.
Apoligies to Neil Stephenson.
For home defence, nothing tops Mssrs Winchester, Remington, and Mossberg. With low-power ‘home defence’ loads, over penetration is not an issue, and the mere sound of a 12-ga being racked in the still of the night is enough to scare off all but the most determined. Triple-ought takes care of the rest.
-Irritants such as ‘pepper spray’ affect different people differently, and some not at all.
Also, you are spraying indoors, and it is safe to assume that you do not have MOPP-3 gear on. Wouldn’t it be great to blind yourself when a intruder is in your home?
-A spiked mace means dick-all to the firearm equipped intruder. Ditto for nightsticks, only more so. (Most PD’s no longer carry them.)
Like the earlier post about knives etc… Yeah, a ‘mace’ might give a feller pause.
Well, I can think of manny situations where not having ‘something’ but more importantly, the willingness to use it, be it your hand, foot, knife, mace, pepper spray, is what I’m talking about. I am talking about those who say “There is nothing that can make me kill a human being.” You said last resort. Why fuss at me? Were are on the same page I think.
How manny times doe it take for a person to understand, I am not talking about guns. I am talking about refusing to ever kill. :smack:
So what is it that I do not agree with you on? If I had a child that was suicidal and was caught trying to self-destruct with a stun gun or pepper spray or blind themselves with same. I would change something. No argument. You are willing to fight. But if you can not see an situation where it could get extreme enough to need to kill or react in such a way that death is a good possibility and you vowed to never do that so you stop short and let the child come to serious harm. Then and only then am I wondering what you are thinking of.
I have heard manny people make that claim.
** I am sorry I linked to the thread I did. **
I could have explained I suppose. That thread brought it to my attention and in order to no [hijack] that thread I started a new one. I am not dreaming that people say this thing of nothing can make them kill a human being. Fine for them. I got no problem. But I do think they need to really think it through when the decide to bring children in to today’s world. The child has no choice. If a person makes that choice, I can accept that, it is not mine. I can not understand it. But when they publicly sate it and tell me that to kill for any reason is wrong. Well, if I am in the mood, I will respond. They opened the door.
So, who will claim that there is no situation where risking killing the perp would be necessary to save their child? And if there was a situation, that they would not do so because they will not take the chance of killing a human being?
I’m not one of those people (see my post in the other thread),but everyone doesn’t share your beliefs and saying that they therefore shouldn’t have children is going a bit far. Physical life is not the most important thing to everyone, and I’m not referring only to religious beliefs. I also can’t think of a situation where killing the perp is at the same the only way to save the kid, has a good chance of saving the kid, and a low risk of killing the kid, although there are probably many where killing the perp is the only way to save both myself and the kid.
Two examples of the sort of thing I mean-
-When I carried for my job, part of our training was watching “Shoot/ Don’t shoot” scenarios. When one came up where shooting the perp would involve risking hitting a kid just walking out of an apartment into the line of fire, I said “don’t shoot”. Every person in the class jumped on me, saying “Your kids won’t have a mother”. I said I’d rather have my kids be without a mother than have one who killed a kid to save herself and I meant it. Perhaps those people would rather their children lost a parent while saving the child than have one who killed someone.
-While I don’t have any moral or philosophical problem with killing an aggressor to eliminate a threat to me or my child (or anyone else for that matter), I do have a problem with killing one innocent person to save another. So if someone puts a gun to my head or my child’s and orders me to kill you GusNSpot, I would be wrong to do so, even if it’s necessary to save me or my child.
I realize that if I were to find myself in any of these situations, I might not act according to my beliefs.But that would only mean that I didn’t live up to them, not that I don’t hold them.
Yepper, this is what I was wanting to know. Get opinions on etc. I agree with most everything you said. We always have a choice.
One nit-pic…
Where did I say that or imply that? The only thing I said was I felt sorry for the kids and the fact that the parent had doomed them. I also said that if they had thought that through and would stand on it, that while I disagreed, it was not mine. If I have forgotten something, let me know. I don’t think I said that…
One thing I was trying to bring out was that these kinds of things need to be thought out in advance, when they are happening is a real bad time to try to decide what you really believe and from what I had seen, some were kneejerking in their reactions without thought. :: shrug
I’m not sure who’s gonna do what here, but I’ll tell ya straight! You come bustin in my place at night, threatening me and mine. There will be no questions asked, no calm rationalizations, I’m not waiting to see if you have a change of heart, etc.
Your ass is in trouble. Bad luck buddy, I’m a light sleeper and I’ve got a Terrier in the house that doesn’t miss a thing, Neither does my doublebarrel sawed off 12g. 3" mag.00buck at close range. I won’t waste time pondering whether the lives of my wife and children are worth protecting.
P.S. I’m not the only one who feels this way! So, next time one of you guys are doing a break in somewhere. Remember, you’ve been warned.
If you had read the gaybashing thread that was linked to in the thread you linked to… you might see how many of us who answered the second thread have been assaulted. This is not some lightly held opinion.
I mentioned in the gaybashing thread that I was attacked when I was in high school, No one who was supposed to be in charge would help me and I was forced to defend myself. If you can’t accept my choice, that’s your problem. I have a feeling that those answering the question have a lot more real life experience with this shit than you do, and we don’t all indulge stupid John Wayne fantasies.
I couldn’t live with myself if I killed another human being. I would rather die than try to go on living, knowing I took someone else’s life.
I have no children. If I had children, my feelings regarding how far I would go to guarentee their safety may be different. I cannot say what lengths I would or would not go to in order to protect children that I don’t have.
Perhaps your question “Why would a parent doom a child to violent death rather than kill an attacker?” is a little melodramatic, but in the spirit of furthering understanding I’ll attempt to answer it. I feel that it’s wrong to decide that someone else has no right to their life, and to take it from them. It’s the wrongest possible thing you can do. An attacker who is trying to kill children is doing that very wrong thing. A parent who kills the attacker so their child can live is also doing that very wrong thing.
I strongly disapprove of people who arm themselves in order to protect themselves. It feels wrong to me. IMO, your attitude of “It’s immoral to refuse to defend your children to someone else’s death” is incomprehensible and offensive. Tell you what: You take your guns and sit over there, and I’ll take my opinions and sit over here, and let’s stop passing judgement on each other from this point on.
