Your views on self-defense, killing, and weapons

In My Humble Opinion
41

As someone who’s pretty anti-gun, I voted for all the seemingly pro-gun statements in the poll. Maybe explaining it may help understanding, I dunno, but it is interesting.

People DO have an individual (not collective) right of self-defense

The poll didn’t really capture the grey area between this and the next choice which was that people don’t have an individual right to self-defense. Because of course you can defend yourself, you can and should defend yourself with anything you have available and anything you can grab. I’m much closer to the side of people having an individual right of self-defense than blanketly saying people should not having one, but simply yelling “self-defense!” is not an excuse for the government to make available anything that you personally deem necessary to your self-defense

On rare occasions, killing someone IS the right thing to do

Killing someone IS NEVER the right thing to do

I voted for the first because some people just need killing. Bad people. Dangerous people. Martians. But the poll makes a harsh black/white statement with the latter and gives a more nuanced choice in the former. “On rare occasions…” is not the opposite to “Killing someone is never right”, the opposite of that is “Killing someone is always right”. I don’t know if you did that on purpose or if it was an error on your part but if the choices are between Stalin and Gandhi, of course Gandhi is going to win. A more balanced poll would be between Robert McNamara and Colin Powell

People HAVE A right to possess deadly weapons

This is a gun debate, or a spin-off, so why would you say “deadly weapons” instead of something more specific like guns, or even just handgun? I’m against any abridging of the right to own knives, ice picks, swords, brass knuckles, warhammers, bow and arrows, and guillotines. You can take my ice pick when you pry it from my already cold hands because I’ve been chipping at a block of ice all week trying to turn it into a penguin. But I don’t think individuals have the right to possess handguns. Maybe I should have assumed that of your poll, but then would anyone else have assumed I’m just talking about guns and not accuse me of trying to ban their Swiss army knife?
I can sum up a good deal of my views on self-defense easily that pertains to the gun debate: “You have a right to defend yourself but you do not have the right to have the best possible defense based on your views of what that is. Sometimes, you just have to be less safe so that collectively, society can be more safe. You have the right to defend yourself using what is legal, not what you wish is legal”

So yeah maybe guns make you feel more safe, but if they’re illegal, you still have the right to self-defense, just not with guns. Use a taser. One’s rights are not inexcusably abridged by not being allowed to own anything they can imagine

42

This is a badly constructed poll. I’m strongly in favor of tighter gun control regulations and would not shed a tear if we adopted gun controls along the lines of the UK, Canada, etc. But it would be a pretty fringe idea that people do not have a right to defend themselves, or the right to possess deadly weapons – as our laws are written, clearly they do. And the absolute language used about killing someone: I’d like to go on record as having a generally “no killing” lifestyle, but even I can come up with some extreme me-or-them scenario which would justify such a thing. Dumb poll.

43

I’m so confused by the responses here.

There’s substantial consensus that you do have the right to defend yourself and that sometimes it is right to kill someone.

But owning deadly weapons (which the OP’s text narrows to guns) is not OK? So you can kill people with a knife - we all agree that’s OK. But guns are verboten, despite the fact that plenty of people use them to go deer hunting or target shooting? :smack:

I guess I’ll just leave it there because anything more would have to be taken to the Pit.

44

I am amazed that so many smart people have such tunnel vision on the inhumanity of humans on a world scale. They live in an very small part of the world where those with guns have made it possible for them to live mostly without personal fear of harm.

They seem to think that their good intentions & example will change Somalia to Switzerland in ten years … Or something…

Pick a country, an hard country to mess with due to physical things, say Australia.
Give them the magic pill that makes them one & all refuse to use a gun, any gun. No active defense unless they are personally going to come to life or death harm, not hurt, life or death.

How long would this country exist without help from people who have & use guns?

An interesting study would be the %age of men to women between the ages of 25 to death, without children.who favor no hand guns period.

An interesting study would be the %age of men to women between the ages of 25 to death, with children.who favor no hand guns period.

I feel very many people are wearing blinders concerning natural behavior.

Not this country nor any country is that civilized. Even the Swiss Guards will kill to save the Pope. ( what is used is immaterial )

As an old, broke down unhealthy human, I am at a GREAT disadvantage against those much younger than I that would wish me harm. Those type have not been removed from this country much less any other country yet so there is a non-zero chance that I will encounter one. Why do I have to be made an easy target because others are willing to be?

The poll is designed to get the wanted answers for a person who has no shade of grey.

Bad poll, bad…

45

When you picked Australia as your example, did you realize they effectively banned guns in 1996 after a spat of mass shootings? And for the past 20 years, gun related deaths in Australia dropped 50% and stayed there?

46

I don’t see why that’s difficult to process. I’ll answer because I’m one of those people. Yes, you should have the right to defend yourself by killing someone else, but I don’t want you doing it with a gun which has a great potential to harm innocents accidentally or be used on innocents purposefully. Just because a gun would be better in some specific situation doesn’t mean you get to use it, you simply have to make do with what’s available.

As for hunting or target shooting, that’s not even the stated purpose of this thread, which is self-defense, so I’m not sure why you’d bring that up at all

47

I don’t understand why in this context a knife is not seen as a deadly weapon. People have been killing each other with knives throughout history.
[/QUOTE]

Actually, it is possible to own guns in Australia, but instead of the American system where you’re allowed to own guns until someone can give a reason to disqualify you, in Australia you first have to justify why you feel the need to own one.

48

I’d be concerned that the poll’s instructions may have caused some confusion:

49

What if that’s all you have available?

Maybe you should be charged with possession of an illegal weapon. But I don’t think defending yourself with an illegal weapon should invalidate the defense.

50

That particular poll option just asked about the “right to possess deadly weapons.” It simply asks whether you should be allowed to own one. It doesn’t say anything about the use of the guns. It’s your assumption that guns are relevant to self-defense.

And I guess that answers the question of why 90% of people say its alright to kill someone but only 76% are OK with gun ownership. To me, guns, knives and axes are all tools that have their own uses apart from whether they could be used to kill a person. It appears that some poll respondents only think of guns in the context of killing people.

51

No one is answering that question in a vacuum, everyone knows it’s a poll about possessing guns and killing in self defense. It’s in the thread title and the wording of the poll itself. The poll is 100% about guns in the context of killing people.

52

I’m one of the few who answered “no” to the right to self defense and right to own deadly weapons, and found the questions useful in spelling out the philosophical differences.

My take:
I have a right to be defended, and to bodily autonomy. The particular means to uphold that right is a political choice, not a right.

Where I live (Australia and the UK) I am defended by granting a right to use armed force, in particular guns, to the government. If I was in a situation where I had to defend myself, I would already feel that I had been let down by that government. In those societies, I have a derived right not to have to defend myself.

If I was in the US, I imagine I’d feel very different. A lot of people in the US feel a need to be able to defend themselves. It’s a chicken-and-egg problem. By giving citizens a right to carry weapons and defend themselves aggressively, the government is incapable of defending its citizens. As a result, self defense is a necessary means to upholding bodily autonomy, to the point where they see self defense as a separate right.

Similarly with deadly weapons, it’s the government’s job to control hazardous equipment and materials of all forms. Based on the expressed will of the people, they make tradeoffs between hazard and utility. They ban things that are useless and dangerous (e.g. handguns), and allow useful dangerous things under regulation (knives and home insulation). My only right is to have them follow a sensible process in making these decisions on my behalf. It wouldn’t work if everyone made the choice for themselves - we’d all be subject to the decision of the least risk averse.

53

CNN, Bawahahaha

Anywho, check the death from violent crime & the number of violent crimes, not just the ones where guns are used. Use the Aussi numbers…

IIRC, the number has gone up since the gun ban. They know the peeps don’t have a gun to hand close so all those other things, clubs, knives, etc., work just fine and kill just as good. And they are a civilized country compared to most.

But, that has nothing to do with anything I was talking about.
No guns = no military = no defense.

I know that in many peoples world view that they think people are basically good.

The no gun crowd do not want no guns, they do want the government to do their killing for them because they don’t want to be responsible for themselves IMO.

I chose Australia because there be oceans to cross to attack them, built in moat so to speak. Now, you want guns banned or you just want the government to have them and all citizens to be educated out of being willing to kill other humans? Who is going to be in the military to save you from all them peeps that don’t think like you do?
They done drank the Kooaid. They are no longer willing to use guns or to kill. You say I can’t use a gun to defend myself or family but you want me to go fight with guns to keep you safe??? :smack:

Sam Elliot talks about special people like that.

54

In cases where someone uses an illegal weapon for a justified self-defense, I’m willing to give people a pass or a suspended sentence as long as I feel it doesn’t encourage others to possess illegal weapons. I’m not heartless that I’d jail someone for defending themselves, but the weapons charge is there because its better for society to not have those around. As long as such weapons are rare, illegal, and discouraged, I’m not willing to come down too hard on people trying to save themselves. But if they try to use it to justify deregulation of guns, then I’m throwing the book at them.

Lumpy specifically mentioned guns in the first post. Most people know of the debate and his typical participation in them. Its completely obvious that he’s referring to guns

55

I’m really impressed with the poll results here. I expected them, especially the last two questions, to be the nearly the opposite.

56

As of now the pattern holds, absolutely overwhelming favor for the first two items (right to self defence, circumstantial necessity of deadly force) to the point dissent is negligible, and on the one about actual ownership of weapons still an overwhelming majority “for” but a noticeably smaller number bothering to answer (and notice there is no question that was answered one way or the other by everyone who voted in the poll).
GusNSpot, your hypothetical about an entire nation being turned individually absolutely pacifistic is an interesting thought exercise, but what all does it have to do with this discussion? IRL we know that the mass of the populace not being privately armed does not somehow mean a nation somehow becomes unable to muster a competent armed force.

57

Just want to bring FWD what I consider the hypocrisy and selfishness of those who want to remove the most effective means for me to defend myself & family and also what others need to protect them. ( the gun banners )

Also, they asked for views. That is my view.

Other threads wander all over the place but most gun threads always seem to have those who want just a very narrow reply to the exact OP. They are usually pushing an agenda and those who are like minded get all wonkie if a question or a bit of drift happens.

Saw this out on the net today: Paraphrased:
It is not weapons, it is 7+ Billion people on the planet and some are just batshit crazy.

Sam Elliot speaks to those that want to put the tech back in the box or want prohibition. That never works. The oldest bad things that have been outlawed, murder, prostitution, stealing, how is that going? :smiley:

58

Second reply:

So now you have two generations of no gun culture, EVERY
ONE has been taught that it is bad and now we need an army willing to die, kill etc. to save ourselves. Just how effective would be an ARMY of conscripts, no one would volunteer to go kill humans. How long would it take to train them to be effective?

OK, you made 1 million 81-20 year old in to killers and now the survivors ( injured ones too ) have to come back and just stand quietly & let the citizens who disagreed with the war who will love to give those that did the fighting for them as much disrespect and make them suffer
suffer the delight from those who want to continue to rend in mocking & insulting and do all they can to further ruin their saviors lives.

I don’t think that there are enough people to destroy that willingness to be responsible for their own selves in everyone…

I could be wrong. I’m old, I care less & less with each passing day. You enjoy getting what you wish for.

59

Pull the other one, it has bells on. Not everyone on the Dope lives in that kind of place.

60

I think his point is that if we achieved what some people consider an ideal- an entire population indoctrinated from infancy to regard guns as the eevils and to be viscerally repulsed by violence, then where exactly would our warrior caste of soldiers and police come from; cloned in vats?

Here’s an interesting essay; it’s anti-gun control but written from a far-left viewpoint rather than a far-right. It’s bitterly critical of what it calls pseudo-pacifists who expect others to do their dirty work for them:

BTW: I see a common link between gun rights advocates on both ends of the political spectrum: an abiding distrust of government/the status quo.