CDZ Can You Picture Yourself Taking Another Person's Life?

[PGreen]

As for me, I would not be able to hurt someone. Seriously. I could not possibly murder someone , because it would go completely against my moral standing. If you think the same, then why in 2013 - the latest year for which detailed statistics are available - there were 12,664 murders in the US. Of those, 8,583 were caused by firearms.

 

[Roadrunner]

As for me, I would not be able to hurt someone. Seriously. I could not possibly murder someone , because it would go completely against my moral standing. If you think the same, then why in 2013 - the latest year for which detailed statistics are available - there were 12,664 murders in the US. Of those, 8,583 were caused by firearms.

Murder and taking a life are not the same thing.

If I caught a person in my house, looting my stuff, I could kill him but it would not be murder.

It would not violate any moral precepts I have ever been taught.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

"Pacifists are cowards who want someone else to pick up their rifles."--George Orwell

 

[April]

I wouldn't murder someone in cold blood...but I will defend myself and my children to the death if need be.

 

[Toro]

Absolutely not. Never. No way. Under no circumstances. It's immoral.

Unless someone took all my scotch. Then yes.

 

[Darkwind]

Absolutely not. Never. No way. Under no circumstances. It's immoral.

Unless someone took all my scotch. Then yes.

You would actually wait for them to take it? Kudos on your self restraint.....

 

[April]

Absolutely not. Never. No way. Under no circumstances. It's immoral.

Unless someone took all my scotch. Then yes.

 

[Jesse Booth]

Only if it were to protect myself, someone close to me, or for my own entertainment.

 

[Toro]

Absolutely not. Never. No way. Under no circumstances. It's immoral.

Unless someone took all my scotch. Then yes.

You would actually wait for them to take it? Kudos on your self restraint.....

Of course if I saw them reaching in to take my Bunnahabhain 18, I'd fire away with reckless abandon.

I meant AFTER they took my scotch. Then I'd hunt them down to the ends of the earth.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

As for me, I would not be able to hurt someone. Seriously. I could not possibly murder someone , because it would go completely against my moral standing. If you think the same, then why in 2013 - the latest year for which detailed statistics are available - there were 12,664 murders in the US. Of those, 8,583 were caused by firearms.

Your poll says "take a life". It doesn't say "murder". Big difference.

As for me, I would not be able to hurt someone. Seriously. I could not possibly murder someone , because it would go completely against my moral standing. If you think the same, then why in 2013 - the latest year for which detailed statistics are available - there were 12,664 murders in the US. Of those, 8,583 were caused by firearms.

Murder and taking a life are not the same thing.

If I caught a person in my house, looting my stuff, I could kill him but it would not be murder.

It would not violate any moral precepts I have ever been taught.

You're wrong. Nothing is more immoral than valuing a "thing" over a life. I voted 'yes' in the poll because I have taken a life. It will haunt me until the day I die.

I know that there nothing worth more than a life.

 

[Roadrunner]

I wouldn't murder someone in cold blood...but I will defend myself and my children to the death if need be.

I wouldn't murder someone in hot blood.

I'd cool off and plan it, if I ever made up my mind they had to go.

 

[Roadrunner]

As for me, I would not be able to hurt someone. Seriously. I could not possibly murder someone , because it would go completely against my moral standing. If you think the same, then why in 2013 - the latest year for which detailed statistics are available - there were 12,664 murders in the US. Of those, 8,583 were caused by firearms.

Your poll says "take a life". It doesn't say "murder". Big difference.

As for me, I would not be able to hurt someone. Seriously. I could not possibly murder someone , because it would go completely against my moral standing. If you think the same, then why in 2013 - the latest year for which detailed statistics are available - there were 12,664 murders in the US. Of those, 8,583 were caused by firearms.

Murder and taking a life are not the same thing.

If I caught a person in my house, looting my stuff, I could kill him but it would not be murder.

It would not violate any moral precepts I have ever been taught.

You're wrong. Nothing is more immoral than valuing a "thing" over a life. I voted 'yes' in the poll because I have taken a life. It will haunt me until the day I die.

I know that there nothing worth more than a life.

It says "take a life" and then goes on to quote, but not link, murder statistics.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Absolutely not. Never. No way. Under no circumstances. It's immoral.

Unless someone took all my scotch. Then yes.

You would actually wait for them to take it? Kudos on your self restraint.....

Of course if I saw them reaching in to take my Bunnahabhain 18, I'd fire away with reckless abandon.

I meant AFTER they took my scotch. Then I'd hunt them down to the ends of the earth.

There is an easier answer to your situation than you might realize.

All you need to do is lay in a few cases of Old Smuggler, and position them closest to the doors. That way, when the Scotch thief strikes, he'll grab the first thing he sees, and you will rest safe in the knowledge that the punishment he receives for his crime will be meted out when he drinks it.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

There have been cases of people accidentally taking another life and I would not classify that as killing or murder - but as an accident. Things happen. Sometimes the person that dies ( I hesitate calling such a person a "victim") puts themselves in harms way and had they not been there they would still be alive.
I think when a person is overcome with grief over an accident it is a very tell tale sign that they are not a murderer and would never in a million years picture themselves killing an animal much less a human. ( in my mind THAT is the victim!) There should be a distinction made here because I believe the lines are a bit blurry! Every story is different. The news is full of stories that would prove my point.

 

[hjmick]

As for me, I would not be able to hurt someone. Seriously. I could not possibly murder someone , because it would go completely against my moral standing. If you think the same, then why in 2013 - the latest year for which detailed statistics are available - there were 12,664 murders in the US. Of those, 8,583 were caused by firearms.

Why did you feel the need to mention statistics about murders committed with guns? Do you somehow believe that those murders would not have been committed if guns were banned? Why haven't you mentioned the fact that homicides committed with guns has been on the decline for the last 22 years? Why no mention of the fact that, as a percentage of all violent crime committed, firearm crimes run between 6-8%? ( Gun Violence National Institute of Justice ) You also fail to mention that the majority of these murders committed by gun were acts performed by individuals with criminal records, more often than not, violent records. You never mention that these same criminals who commit these murders with these guns are prevented, by law, from possessing guns...

Perhaps worst of all, you try to equate taking a life with murder when the reality is, they are two different things. When will you be honest about your ant-gun bias?


Could I take a life? If I truly felt that the safety and well being of me or any of my loved ones was in jeopardy, in a heartbeat and without a second thought.

Could I commit murder? The answer to that is an unequivocal no.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

As for me, I would not be able to hurt someone. Seriously. I could not possibly murder someone , because it would go completely against my moral standing. If you think the same, then why in 2013 - the latest year for which detailed statistics are available - there were 12,664 murders in the US. Of those, 8,583 were caused by firearms.

Why did you feel the need to mention statistics about murders committed with guns? Do you somehow believe that those murders would not have been committed if guns were banned? Why haven't you mentioned the fact that homicides committed with guns has been on the decline for the last 22 years? Why no mention of the fact that, as a percentage of all violent crime committed, firearm crimes run between 6-8%? ( Gun Violence National Institute of Justice ) You also fail to mention that the majority of these murders committed by gun were acts performed by individuals with criminal records, more often than not, violent records. You never mention that these same criminals who commit these murders with these guns are prevented, by law, from possessing guns...

Perhaps worst of all, you try to equate taking a life with murder when the reality is, they are two different things. When will you be honest about your ant-gun bias?


Could I take a life? If I truly felt that the safety and well being of me or any of my loved ones was in jeopardy, in a heartbeat and without a second thought.

Could I commit murder? The answer to that is an unequivocal no.

No one, except you, said anything about "banning guns" and that's not what I took this thread to be about.

Nonetheless, there is no doubt that many killings would not happen if the killer did not have a gun. There is also no doubt that people reach for a gun to settle disputes more often these days.

The proliferation of guns, the ridiculous afraid-to-leave-home-without-one-attitude, is a symptom of a sad and terrible cancer in the US.

 

[hjmick]

As for me, I would not be able to hurt someone. Seriously. I could not possibly murder someone , because it would go completely against my moral standing. If you think the same, then why in 2013 - the latest year for which detailed statistics are available - there were 12,664 murders in the US. Of those, 8,583 were caused by firearms.

Why did you feel the need to mention statistics about murders committed with guns? Do you somehow believe that those murders would not have been committed if guns were banned? Why haven't you mentioned the fact that homicides committed with guns has been on the decline for the last 22 years? Why no mention of the fact that, as a percentage of all violent crime committed, firearm crimes run between 6-8%? ( Gun Violence National Institute of Justice ) You also fail to mention that the majority of these murders committed by gun were acts performed by individuals with criminal records, more often than not, violent records. You never mention that these same criminals who commit these murders with these guns are prevented, by law, from possessing guns...

Perhaps worst of all, you try to equate taking a life with murder when the reality is, they are two different things. When will you be honest about your ant-gun bias?


Could I take a life? If I truly felt that the safety and well being of me or any of my loved ones was in jeopardy, in a heartbeat and without a second thought.

Could I commit murder? The answer to that is an unequivocal no.

No one, except you, said anything about "banning guns" and that's not what I took this thread to be about.

This isn't PG's first thread. When one considers the changing question from "taking a life" to "murder" and then throw in the statistics about murders committed with guns, it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to extrapolate where PG comes down on the subject. Certainly in favor of much stricter gun laws. Please note, however, that my mentioning a ban on guns was done in the form a of a question. I did not suggest this was PG's stance or ultimate goal, though if it were, I would not be surprised.

Nonetheless, there is no doubt that many killings would not happen if the killer did not have a gun. There is also no doubt that people reach for a gun to settle disputes more often these days.

And how would you propose we keep guns from those who are already not legally supposed to be in in possession of a firearm? Because that's exactly what we're talking about. Criminals: drug dealers, gang bangers, career criminals who are, by law, not allowed to be in possession of a firearm. Criminals who do not walk in to a gun store to legally purchase their guns. They turn to other means, theft, black market, whatever. You say that "There is also no doubt that people reach for a gun to settle disputes more often these days" and yet everything shows that homicides committed with guns has been on the decline for the last 22 years. Which is it? Because you can't have it both ways.

The proliferation of guns, the ridiculous afraid-to-leave-home-without-one-attitude, is a symptom of a sad and terrible cancer in the US.

The proliferation of guns. Among criminals? Law abiding folk? Who? If one is a law abiding citizen, I couldn't care less how many guns you have. If you are a citizen with a criminal record, one is too many.

The ridiculous afraid-to-leave-home-without-one-attitude? Among criminals? Law abiding folk? Who? If one is a law abiding citizen and chooses to carry within the restrictions of your state and local laws, I couldn't care less. If you are a citizen with a criminal record, you should not be in possession of a firearm. But we all know how that goes...

As for it being a "sad and terrible cancer in the U.S.," when you consider the number of legal gun owners who actually carry, the number in miniscule... Now, when you consider the number of bad actors who are legally prohibited from gun ownership yet own and carry... Well, the numbers should probably scare us all...

 

[Moonglow]

Absolutely not. Never. No way. Under no circumstances. It's immoral.

Unless someone took all my scotch. Then yes.

I would too if they touched my budz....

 

[Lipush]

As for me, I would not be able to hurt someone. Seriously. I could not possibly murder someone , because it would go completely against my moral standing. If you think the same, then why in 2013 - the latest year for which detailed statistics are available - there were 12,664 murders in the US. Of those, 8,583 were caused by firearms.

That's not what you asked. Question was, "can you picture yourself taking another person's life", not "are you capable of murder". Not every life taking is murder.

My family is the thing I cherish most in this world. If someone was to try and hurt them or take their lives, I'd probably take theirs, in case other solution isn't possible. That's the simplest truth.

Most people in the world will kill for their children. That's also a simple truth.

I believe 99% of people can take lives under extreme circumstances.

 

[Ellipsis]

As for me, I would not be able to hurt someone. Seriously. I could not possibly murder someone , because it would go completely against my moral standing. If you think the same, then why in 2013 - the latest year for which detailed statistics are available - there were 12,664 murders in the US. Of those, 8,583 were caused by firearms.

A person who's a threat, yeah.