Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
We know that every competition in life is undecided, until all but the last contestant are dead. This is true in business, as well as politics/war. So, why do we carry this imposition that thou shalt not kill? Is it because governments are very cleverly reserving the right to be the last guy standing? And if so, then have we already accepted the fact of totalitarian government that is omnipotent and all controlling, by signing up to the thou shalt not kill principle?
We know that every competition in life is undecided, until all but the last contestant are dead. This is true in business, as well as politics/war. So, why do we carry this imposition that thou shalt not kill? Is it because governments are very cleverly reserving the right to be the last guy standing? And if so, then have we already accepted the fact of totalitarian government that is omnipotent and all controlling, by signing up to the thou shalt not kill principle?
Hi anotherlife.
I am an Agnostic but some things that Christianity teach might shine some light on your question (or shine some light on an answer to it.)
Jesus says in the Bible to do unto others as you would have done unto you. Would you want someone to kill you or your loved ones? The answers to those questions might answer your question.
And the Apostle Paul says that "Love is the fulfillment of the law...'for Love,' thou shalt not steal, kill, etc."...that too might shine some light on an answer to your question...
-
"Thou shalt not kill....."
Except to the sound of trumpets which shall be called "war".
We know that every competition in life is undecided, until all but the last contestant are dead. This is true in business, as well as politics/war. So, why do we carry this imposition that thou shalt not kill? Is it because governments are very cleverly reserving the right to be the last guy standing? And if so, then have we already accepted the fact of totalitarian government that is omnipotent and all controlling, by signing up to the thou shalt not kill principle?
Hi anotherlife.
I am an Agnostic but some things that Christianity teach might shine some light on your question (or shine some light on an answer to it.)
Jesus says in the Bible to do unto others as you would have done unto you. Would you want someone to kill you or your loved ones? The answers to those questions might answer your question.
And the Apostle Paul says that "Love is the fulfillment of the law...'for Love,' thou shalt not steal, kill, etc."...that too might shine some light on an answer to your question...
-
In terms of war, this interpretation would lead to a complete defeat, although exacts the heavenly promise. Does this apply in terms of war too?
"Thou shalt not kill....."
Except to the sound of trumpets which shall be called "war".
The Bible has many holly wars in it. I wonder how that works.
We know that every competition in life is undecided, until all but the last contestant are dead. This is true in business, as well as politics/war. So, why do we carry this imposition that thou shalt not kill? Is it because governments are very cleverly reserving the right to be the last guy standing? And if so, then have we already accepted the fact of totalitarian government that is omnipotent and all controlling, by signing up to the thou shalt not kill principle?
Hi anotherlife.
I am an Agnostic but some things that Christianity teach might shine some light on your question (or shine some light on an answer to it.)
Jesus says in the Bible to do unto others as you would have done unto you. Would you want someone to kill you or your loved ones? The answers to those questions might answer your question.
And the Apostle Paul says that "Love is the fulfillment of the law...'for Love,' thou shalt not steal, kill, etc."...that too might shine some light on an answer to your question...
-
In terms of war, this interpretation would lead to a complete defeat, although exacts the heavenly promise. Does this apply in terms of war too?
"Thou shalt not kill....."
Except to the sound of trumpets which shall be called "war".
The Bible has many holly wars in it. I wonder how that works.
---I taught my kids if you ever point a gun at another human being, pull the trigger, and don't stop pulling it till you're sure they're dead.
---I taught my kids if you ever point a gun at another human being, pull the trigger, and don't stop pulling it till you're sure they're dead.
That appears to be the MO of police departments.
Perhaps that's justified in many cases, but it is definitely an extreme policy in other cases, where shooting to disable would be more ethical, e.g., where a distant drunk person with a knife is not as dangerous of an opponent.
.
------I taught my kids if you ever point a gun at another human being, pull the trigger, and don't stop pulling it till you're sure they're dead.
That appears to be the MO of police departments.
Perhaps that's justified in many cases, but it is definitely an extreme policy in other cases, where shooting to disable would be more ethical, e.g., where a distant drunk person with a knife is not as dangerous of an opponent.
.
Have you ever bothered to take 3 seconds to think about how hard it is to hit a small target, and a disabling shot is a very small, always moving target. I'm guessing no.
If there's a threat you put it down.
------I taught my kids if you ever point a gun at another human being, pull the trigger, and don't stop pulling it till you're sure they're dead.
That appears to be the MO of police departments.
Perhaps that's justified in many cases, but it is definitely an extreme policy in other cases, where shooting to disable would be more ethical, e.g., where a distant drunk person with a knife is not as dangerous of an opponent.
.
Have you ever bothered to take 3 seconds to think about how hard it is to hit a small target, and a disabling shot is a very small, always moving target. I'm guessing no.
If there's a threat you put it down.
If one is a coward, then almost any situation is a "threat". Confidence from target practice should be a requirement for gun toting, so pulling the trigger "till you're sure they're dead" would not be necessary in many cases.
Perhaps some intelligence is also helpful to differentiate a real threat from a minor one, especially if the policeman's target is a 12 yr-old boy with a toy gun.
.
---------I taught my kids if you ever point a gun at another human being, pull the trigger, and don't stop pulling it till you're sure they're dead.
That appears to be the MO of police departments.
Perhaps that's justified in many cases, but it is definitely an extreme policy in other cases, where shooting to disable would be more ethical, e.g., where a distant drunk person with a knife is not as dangerous of an opponent.
.
Have you ever bothered to take 3 seconds to think about how hard it is to hit a small target, and a disabling shot is a very small, always moving target. I'm guessing no.
If there's a threat you put it down.
If one is a coward, then almost any situation is a "threat". Confidence from target practice should be a requirement for gun toting, so pulling the trigger "till you're sure they're dead" would not be necessary in many cases.
Perhaps some intelligence is also helpful to differentiate a real threat from a minor one, especially if the policeman's target is a 12 yr-old boy with a toy gun.
.
If you know it's a toy, yes. If it looks real and he starts to point it in your direction, ignoring the order to stop, you put him down, center of mass, eliminate the threat.
That's intelligence. You may be willing to risk your life in the chance you're right, that's not courage, that's stupidity.
It's really easy to Monday morning QB something like this. It's damn hard to kill someone, for most of us it takes a lot more courage to live with that burden.
And as far as necessary in many cases, if my kids have to pull a weapon..it's necessary to make sure that threat is dead. It's generally harder to kill someone than one shotting them.
---------I taught my kids if you ever point a gun at another human being, pull the trigger, and don't stop pulling it till you're sure they're dead.
That appears to be the MO of police departments.
Perhaps that's justified in many cases, but it is definitely an extreme policy in other cases, where shooting to disable would be more ethical, e.g., where a distant drunk person with a knife is not as dangerous of an opponent.
.
Have you ever bothered to take 3 seconds to think about how hard it is to hit a small target, and a disabling shot is a very small, always moving target. I'm guessing no.
If there's a threat you put it down.
If one is a coward, then almost any situation is a "threat". Confidence from target practice should be a requirement for gun toting, so pulling the trigger "till you're sure they're dead" would not be necessary in many cases.
Perhaps some intelligence is also helpful to differentiate a real threat from a minor one, especially if the policeman's target is a 12 yr-old boy with a toy gun.
.
If you know it's a toy, yes. If it looks real and he starts to point it in your direction, ignoring the order to stop, you put him down, center of mass, eliminate the threat.
That's intelligence. You may be willing to risk your life in the chance you're right, that's not courage, that's stupidity.
It's really easy to Monday morning QB something like this. It's damn hard to kill someone, for most of us it takes a lot more courage to live with that burden.
And as far as necessary in many cases, if my kids have to pull a weapon..it's necessary to make sure that threat is dead. It's generally harder to kill someone than one shotting them.
I certainly agree that we want to keep our kids safe. All normal parents feel that way. So, if your kid or my kid has to "make sure that threat is dead" to survive, so be it.
However, what if your kid is considered a "threat" just by holding a gun, and is killed by a policeman that has your strict viewpoint (perceives a "threat") ... Will you be ok with that?
All i'm saying is that some threat assessment by professionals (police,etc) is valuable to save innocent lives. After all, they are employed to protect citizens.
Citizen gun toters should be screened for competency too.
.
------------
That appears to be the MO of police departments.
Perhaps that's justified in many cases, but it is definitely an extreme policy in other cases, where shooting to disable would be more ethical, e.g., where a distant drunk person with a knife is not as dangerous of an opponent.
.
Have you ever bothered to take 3 seconds to think about how hard it is to hit a small target, and a disabling shot is a very small, always moving target. I'm guessing no.
If there's a threat you put it down.
If one is a coward, then almost any situation is a "threat". Confidence from target practice should be a requirement for gun toting, so pulling the trigger "till you're sure they're dead" would not be necessary in many cases.
Perhaps some intelligence is also helpful to differentiate a real threat from a minor one, especially if the policeman's target is a 12 yr-old boy with a toy gun.
.
If you know it's a toy, yes. If it looks real and he starts to point it in your direction, ignoring the order to stop, you put him down, center of mass, eliminate the threat.
That's intelligence. You may be willing to risk your life in the chance you're right, that's not courage, that's stupidity.
It's really easy to Monday morning QB something like this. It's damn hard to kill someone, for most of us it takes a lot more courage to live with that burden.
And as far as necessary in many cases, if my kids have to pull a weapon..it's necessary to make sure that threat is dead. It's generally harder to kill someone than one shotting them.
I certainly agree that we want to keep our kids safe. All normal parents feel that way. So, if your kid or my kid has to "make sure that threat is dead" to survive, so be it.
However, what if your kid is considered a "threat" just by holding a gun, and is killed by a policeman that has your strict viewpoint (perceives a "threat") ... Will you be ok with that?
All i'm saying is that some threat assessment by professionals (police,etc) is valuable to save innocent lives. After all, they are employed to protect citizens.
Citizen gun toters should be screened for competency too.
.
Yes, I will be ok with that. If a threat assessment has been performed BY said professional, then they are the person, and only they who are the correct person to decide what is the level of threat and how they should respond to it..
My kids have been trained how to react, so I don't worry about what will happen in such an instance. If something did, that would be my fault, for not training them better, and I'd have to live with it.
I, unlike you it seems am willing to live with the occasional accident, while trying to minimize them, am not willing to demonize what are for the most part good men and women doing a thankless job. Without them, where would you be?
---------Have you ever bothered to take 3 seconds to think about how hard it is to hit a small target, and a disabling shot is a very small, always moving target. I'm guessing no.
If there's a threat you put it down.
If one is a coward, then almost any situation is a "threat". Confidence from target practice should be a requirement for gun toting, so pulling the trigger "till you're sure they're dead" would not be necessary in many cases.
Perhaps some intelligence is also helpful to differentiate a real threat from a minor one, especially if the policeman's target is a 12 yr-old boy with a toy gun.
.
If you know it's a toy, yes. If it looks real and he starts to point it in your direction, ignoring the order to stop, you put him down, center of mass, eliminate the threat.
That's intelligence. You may be willing to risk your life in the chance you're right, that's not courage, that's stupidity.
It's really easy to Monday morning QB something like this. It's damn hard to kill someone, for most of us it takes a lot more courage to live with that burden.
And as far as necessary in many cases, if my kids have to pull a weapon..it's necessary to make sure that threat is dead. It's generally harder to kill someone than one shotting them.
I certainly agree that we want to keep our kids safe. All normal parents feel that way. So, if your kid or my kid has to "make sure that threat is dead" to survive, so be it.
However, what if your kid is considered a "threat" just by holding a gun, and is killed by a policeman that has your strict viewpoint (perceives a "threat") ... Will you be ok with that?
All i'm saying is that some threat assessment by professionals (police,etc) is valuable to save innocent lives. After all, they are employed to protect citizens.
Citizen gun toters should be screened for competency too.
.
Yes, I will be ok with that. If a threat assessment has been performed BY said professional, then they are the person, and only they who are the correct person to decide what is the level of threat and how they should respond to it..
My kids have been trained how to react, so I don't worry about what will happen in such an instance. If something did, that would be my fault, for not training them better, and I'd have to live with it.
I, unlike you it seems am willing to live with the occasional accident, while trying to minimize them, am not willing to demonize what are for the most part good men and women doing a thankless job. Without them, where would you be?
A note/clarification from me ...
I do NOT demonize the difficult "thankless" jobs that are competently performed by 95% of the police & other safety officers.
My concern is with the few incompetent or mentally unstable officers who are getting the negative press and forcing policy changes that should be common sense.
From what i observed in that Cleveland shooting of the 12-yr-old boy (Tamir Rice), the policeman's action AND his department's subsequent support was reprehensible.
In a San Francisco shooting of a knife-wielding young man under mental duress (Mario Woods), the logical outrage by the civilian community & illogical explanation by the police chief eventually prompted a change in that department's "use-of-force policy", which is a step toward a rational balance in protecting civilians as well as the officers who voluntarily accept their highly paid dangerous public job.
.
