Wednesday, February 18, 2009

The Second Amendment, Life, And Death

| |

An argument ensued in the forums over an article written by the Examiner expressing the need to bear arms and the injustice of jailing a person attempting to protect his family from a robber breaking into his house with a firearm. I found the arguments both insightful and entertaining - for both the duality of man always becomes apparent when it comes to matters such as life and death.

It all started by a simple opinion from a would-be defender of human life:

The problem with guns is that while they may prevent crime, they quickly turn non-lethal crimes into potentially lethal outcomes. The punk who just broke into your house to steal for drug money does not deserve to die, nor does the guy who uses a gun to hold up a liquor store, or the guy who mugs you on the street. They all deserve punishment, but death is not an appropriate outcome. Universal gun possession makes it so that all crime now faces a real threat of death. While this may lower the likelihood of some crimes, it is merely traded off for the potential of worse outcomes that - importantly - will probably not be statistically codified itself as crime.

We have great examples of low-crime countries that have high gun ownership, mid-gun ownership, and 0 gun ownership. Maybe it is not about the guns, it is about the people - and then the question becomes, are American's the right sort of people to have unfettered access to guns.
Immediately, a fiery backlash from the Digg community ensued:
"The punk who just broke into your house to steal for drug money does not deserve to die,"

Yes he does. Can you tell the difference between someone breaking into your house to rape you or rob don't know until after the fact.

"nor does the guy who uses a gun to hold up a liquor store, or the guy who mugs you on the street."

Yes, they do. They initiated an act of violence and in the liquor store case, he was ready to kill you if need be.
Followed by an emotional stance about life, ethics, and an equation regarding how stuff literally equates to your life:
"Using deadly force in protection of property is never justified legally"

ITS ALWAYS justified.

this boggles my mind when people say its JUST possessions

Possessions are my LIFE. Literally and FACTUALLY.

My first car cost me $4500 plus registration inspection and insurance. about $5500 for that first year.

Its not so much a possession as it is 34 WEEKS OF MY VERY LIFE. (this was back when I was 19)

If you steal my car your not stealing my car.

your LITERALLY AND FACTUALLY STEALING 34 WEEKS OF MY VERY LIFE that I spent to PAY for that god damned car.

Thats around 8 MONTHS OF MY LIFE. Of My Blood and SWEAT working my ASS OF just so I could have that god damned car.

HOW DARE you belittle 34 weeks of my LIFE.

I am sorry but MY LIFE means something to me. I will DEFEND MY LIFE with deadly force if need be.

You say your life is not worth that car.

I say your analogy is flawed.

I say my car is worth more than that crooks life.

NOW I will not go out of my way to kill someone. I HOPE I won't hesitate if the need arises. I HOPE the need will never arise.

But I damned well know I WILL protect my "possessions" with any and all needed force if I am compelled to.

Theft is right up there with MURDER no where near as bad mind you but ITS UP THERE.

you steal my car you MURDERED 34 weeks of my life.

POOF GONE. those 34 weeks meant NOTHING they are meaningless now. So are the next 34 weeks as I work my ass off to buy another one.

I am INSULTED that my LIFE means so little to you that you think I should not be able to DEFEND IT.

that you think the life of a CRIMINAL is worth more than a portion of MY LIFE.



Post a Comment

Popular Posts