The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

SamNavy · July 10, 2013, 11:24 AM

I'm an arts major, please try to read through what I'm actually saying and arrive at what I'm meaning to say.

I've got a thread going on another forum where a buddy is advocating that having the "right to self defense" when combined with "the right to use lethal force" combined with "using a gun", is a defacto "right to kill".

He's using the argument that "right to murder"(illegal) is not the same as "right to kill"(legal).

Him: Using a gun in self defense and having that person die means you legally killed somebody, this is a "right to kill".

Me: Legally using lethal force in self-defense that results in the unintentional consequence of death, is not the same as saying "you have the right to kill".

What is the common or uncommon ground that we're missing here. I'm pretty sure this isn't just semantics... can anybody put some legaleze to my and/or his thoughts.

July 10, 2013, 11:24 AM	#1
SamNavy Senior Member Join Date: August 28, 2011 Location: Virginia Beach, VA Posts: 433	Kill vs. Murder vs. "Rights" I'm an arts major, please try to read through what I'm actually saying and arrive at what I'm meaning to say. I've got a thread going on another forum where a buddy is advocating that having the "right to self defense" when combined with "the right to use lethal force" combined with "using a gun", is a defacto "right to kill". He's using the argument that "right to murder"(illegal) is not the same as "right to kill"(legal). Him: Using a gun in self defense and having that person die means you legally killed somebody, this is a "right to kill". Me: Legally using lethal force in self-defense that results in the unintentional consequence of death, is not the same as saying "you have the right to kill". What is the common or uncommon ground that we're missing here. I'm pretty sure this isn't just semantics... can anybody put some legaleze to my and/or his thoughts.