To Kill Or Not To Kill...That Is The Question

[pickpocket]

Originally Posted by CDH

Pickpocket, I have read through all the posts in this thread, including re-reading my own, and I don't believe ANYONE is using the thought process you describe in your quote above.

Read again. More than one person has stated something to the effect of: I will shoot to stop the threat, if the person dies in the process, that is their responsibility, not mine.

Which fits the quote you pulled out to the letter. Maybe it's not their thought process, but the words they're using to explain their thought process certainly send that message.

When you sit there and argue INTENT with me, then you are ignoring one of the basic assumptions I laid out to guide the progression of this debate:

Originally Posted by Pickpocket

Ground Rule #1:
Any discussion in this thread on the subject of "killing" is to take place within the framework of psychological effect and/or preparedness, NOT legal intent. Any violations of this "rule" will most assuredly get this thread locked down quicker than a muslim virgin on prom night.

For you to argue INTENT at this point means that you are still trying to fight the battle against the Internet Rambos; you are still trying to convince people why your UN-desire to kill people makes you better than the people you are trying to protect yourself against.

Well...Ok then. There is no argument there.... you are arguing that the "Ground Rule" quoted above is valid...

My argument is based on a very simple premise: that the decision to DEFEND...the decision to STOP THE THREAT... inherently contains the possibility that a person will die.

So, by extension, in order to DEFEND yourself, in order to be willing to STOP THE THREAT, one must also be cognizant of the implied willingness to end one person's life in order to protect another.

This cannot be equivocated, any attempt to do so simply means that we are not agreed on the nature of self-defence nor the conditions that will surround a self-defense situation. And if we cannot agree on these things, then I must suggest that we go back and re-read our use-of-force statutes; which clearly delineate the conditions that must be met in order for us to be justified in using deadly force.

So, the framework of my argument is that our decision to be prepard to defend ourselves inherently contains some element of willingness to end another person's life because we place more value on our lives than on anothers. Because the possibilty exists that another person will die if we shoot them, and because we are not in a position to ensure that they will survive, then the whole risk must be assumed, not just part of it.


Immanuel Kant argued that it is not the results that matter - only the intent. However, purity of intent holds limited value when the results have undeniable moral consequence.
To argue this, I give your example of the WWII bombing of Japan back to you. Does the fact that the intent was to serve the greater good by stopping a war negate the undeniable moral consequence that hundreds of thousands of innocent people were killed? Not to suggest that it wasn't the right course of action, but that even pure motives carry consequence.

So, within the context of the original question: have we REALLY thought about this?

The fact that you and others continue to argue INTENT over moral reality suggests that we have not; while at the same time it suggests that perhaps some are beginning to get a bit uncomfortable with the logic.

[azurefly]

Thousands of Japanese citizens died in Hiroshima in a few moments of violence never before known to man. But our intent was not to kill those tens of thousands of people, but to stop a war that would have gone on to claim millions of lives.
The INTENT was not to kill even though everyone KNEW that would happen (and even though many Americans at the time truly believed that the Japanese "deserved" to die); the INTENT was to end a war, which it did.
That may be a pretty vicious example but I hope it finally makes the point.

I have to disagree. The intent was to kill thousands of Japanese and destroy a city or two in order to force them to lay down arms and surrender. If our intent was to simply "end the war," we could have surrendered, ourselves.

The intent was to show hey, you don't like losing thousands of your citizens, buildings, etc. to our military might? Then admit that you lose, we win. We most certainly did intend to end those thousands of lives, or else we would have bombed an uninhabited area as a show of force that had considerably less psychological impact on our enemies.


-azurefly

[CDH]

Great, let me make it official; I give up. I am clearly not qualified to be as good a writer as I need to be in order to explain things in such a way as to make myself understood.

I usually recognize merry-go-round threads when I see them, but this one got by me way too long before I realized that I really need to leave this for others to explore.
I know exactly where I'm coming from so there is nothing additional I can add here anyway.

Carter

[pickpocket]

I'm sorry you feel that way, Carter. This is not an argument about whether one or the other of us is right...it's a debate meant to provoke thought; and the good stuff was just getting started.
Truth be told, we never even got to a place where we could take opposing sides - you are still arguing that the intent to kill equates to murder; which really doesn't require any debate at all. No reasonable person would oppose that view, at least not within the context of this debate.

Hopefully we can continue this on a better day.

Stay sharp -

[ZeroJunk]

I guess I misunderstood the discussion.I was trying to imagine what goes on in ones mind the instant they realize that somebody is imminently going to kill them.Self preservation is an elemental instinct.Seems like a lot of this discussion is how one reconciles the emotions of the aftermath.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Does this help? In some FOF, where there is really no risk of killing someone - except through bizaare mishap, I have seen folks twice freeze and not pull the trigger in a situation as they later said they couldn't do it.

In that case, they were training for situations with the use of lethal force but the 'actual' use stopped them. I think Dave is on the money with his analysis that you have to accept that the stop tactic contains the inherent possibility of death and there is no way around it.

Yes, there is the subset that 'wants' to kill folks but I think the discussion is now above that bottom feeder level.

[pickpocket]

Originally Posted by ZeroJunk

I guess I misunderstood the discussion.I was trying to imagine what goes on in ones mind the instant they realize that somebody is imminently going to kill them.Self preservation is an elemental instinct.Seems like a lot of this discussion is how one reconciles the emotions of the aftermath.

The two are related somewhat in that both aspects are determined to some degree by training and mindset.

A large part of this discussion has centered around not what goes through one's mind during the instant they realize their life is in danger, but in the philosophical manner in which we look at self-defense.

If a person is reasonably sure that their life is in danger from BG and that person uses a handgun to shoot BG until BG is no longer a threat then their response is justifiable under the Law.

There is no argument up to this point; in fact it is here that the debate begins. Some have expressed the feeling that: If BG dies as a result of being shot then that is his fault, not mine.
The result is that the self-defense mindeset becomes defined as purely reactionary, wholly dependant upon external, uncontrollable factors where the resultant consequences are also wholly outside of one's control, and by extension outside of one's sphere of accountability.
Some people are comfortable using only what the Law has defined in terms of acceptable response to also explain their willingness to use deadly force: to stop the threat. They are only shooting to stop the threat, therefore they are unconsciously shifting responsibility for the possible death of the person they shoot to something or someone else.

In essense, it is my argument that this view sidesteps the issue of acknowledging the nature of our "self-defense mindset" - it is the moral equivalent of "Now see what you made me do?!?"

However, it is my belief that there is another unacknowledged element in our decision to be willing to use deadly force, whether justifiable or not. I argue that each of us that has determined ourselves capable of using deadly force to protect either our own life or the life of another has - at some level, to some degree - accepted that we are willing to kill someone in order to survive.
The logic is right there in the definition of "deadly force" itself: inherent likeliness of causing great bodily injury or death. We are willing to use deadly force, therefore by extension we are willing to cause great bodily injury or death.

So this is my argument: that in order to be willing to use deadly force in defense of self or others we must come to terms with the implied willingness to end a person's life in order to save a life. Those that do not come to terms with this relationship will be both mentally and morally unprepared to deal with the consequences of an SD shooting. Why? Because when it's all said and done, a choice that we made will still likely end up causing someone's death.
No matter how you look at it, the choice to pull the trigger belongs to us; and therefore the moral consequence becomes ours to live with.

To put it another way - deadly force is not our only option, even when things go horribly wrong. We could always allow the situation to develop no matter what happens to us, to raise no hand in violence no matter what violence is given to us or our loved ones. However, the Law allows us the opportunity to decide to use deadly force if we so choose...we are not required to use deadly force....it is a choice.
And so we choose to use deadly force rather than submit to violence.

Now remember, I am drawing a very distinct line between willingness and intent; though this seems to be the very hurdle that many people are having difficulty clearing.

[rezmedic54]

Pick is right if you decide that you are going to shoot someone then you have made up your mind in the fact that you are willing to take another persons life whether you shoot to stop or not. They may die so you have chosen to kill that person to save your own or another's life no two ways around it if your not will to take another life in defense of your own then sell your guns and call 911 and hope for the best.Whether your willing to admit it or not if you have a weapon for self-defense then you have chosen to take a life if need be. I think thats what he is saying I maybe wrong but maybe not. Be Safe Out There Kurt

[pickpocket]

I think thats what he is saying I maybe wrong but maybe not.

You got it, dude. That's exactly what I'm saying....you just got to the point quicker

[azurefly]

Isn't the major disagreement in the notion that some who are prepared to shoot in self defense opine that they would prefer that the defense kills the attacker, and others are content that their attacker lives on as long as his attack is halted?

My own feeling is that once an attacker has justified my use of deadly force, I will probably be in a mental state where I do not like him very much (come on -- he's trying to end my life!!), and will be very unlikely to care whether he lives or dies; and in fact, I may at that point prefer that he does not survive my defensive action.

There are moral, emotional, and even financial reasons for preferring that the attacker dies after defensive action is taken. Who wants to be sued by the guy? Who wants to be challenged in court, paying thousands of dollars for defense, because he now wants to claim he was just trying to ask for directions? Who wants him to be lurking out there with a vendetta against them or their family, when you already know he's a violent criminal?

This is about "at what point will the defender be satisfied?" Some here just want the threat ended; some are more indignant at being attacked and aren't so touchy-feely about the attacker, and also don't mind if they have to be the one who takes out humanity's garbage for it.


-azurefly

[Glenn E. Meyer]

There are moral, emotional, and even financial reasons for preferring that the attacker dies after defensive action is taken. Who wants to be sued by the guy? Who wants to be challenged in court, paying thousands of dollars for defense, because he now wants to claim he was just trying to ask for directions? Who wants him to be lurking out there with a vendetta against them or their family, when you already know he's a violent criminal?

1. What is the moral reason for preferring that someone dies? I don't get that unless you postulate vengenance as a moral reason. That's the only one I can think of.

2. Emotional - tell me the emotional reasons that you want someone to die. Perhaps you think it will be cathartic to you if they did something terrible. However, this is an empirical question and we have fairly data that most normal folks don't find it emotionally satisfying to kill someone. Many police and military, who are strong folks, aren't happy with killing.

3. Financial:

a. Their relatives can sue and have
b. Even if you kill him - do you think court costs go away? You will be faced with serious investigations and that is going to cost many thousands. 'Killing saves money' is incredibly naive.
c. Revenge - if you kill someone, that stops his or her revenge? However, they have families and acquaintances who can come after you. That has happened in righteous self-defense shoots. I drive by a gun shop that is now a beauty parlor because after a good shoot of a gang member, the owner had to flee.

Sorrry but this is a very naive answer and indicates little real knowledge of shooting aftermaths.

[jcoiii]

I'm going to step in with azure here for the sake of intellectual discussion.

The BG comes in, and I shoot him. BG falls to the ground, and for all intents and purposes, is neutralized. I do not fire anymore. Why should I care if he lives or dies? I probably wish he would die simply because I do not wish for people who commit these (and other types of) crimes to live. That's my moral decision.

However, I'm not going to walk over and put one in the guys head either. While part of me might wish that this guy was dead, I'm not going to murder him. In fact, I have some basic first aid training and will probably try and help him. This will not, however, stop me from thinking, in some part of my mind that people like this don't deserve to live.

Take, for instance, this news story that I saw today about the NY/PA police who are trying to catch this guy who broke out of prison and killed a state trooper. Part of me says that I wish, when they caught this guy, they'd just put one in his brain stem. However, that will never happen, nor would I do it myself if I were there. But I still think it.

[pax]

1. What is the moral reason for preferring that someone dies? I don't get that unless you postulate vengenance as a moral reason. That's the only one I can think of.

Glenn ~

Mine wasn't the original post, but I could take a stab at this one.

1) Because if the attacker dies, you know beyond all shadow of a doubt that he is NOT going to hurt or kill anyone else, ever again. If preventing harm to other innocents isn't a moral reason, what would be?

2) Because if the attacker dies, each of the attacker's victims are immediately freed from the otherwise-inevitable endless cycle of trial, appeal, sentencing, parole hearings, and the constant fear that the bogeyman will be set free to kill, rape, or maim again. Being set free from this cycle is far more just for the victims. The alternative is that the victims, through no fault of their own, be sentenced to spend the rest of their lives wondering if some soft-hearted parole board will turn their personal bogeyman loose to prey on society once again.

3) Don't under rate vengeance. It was the bedrock underneath most justice systems for millions of years, and human beings are hard-wired to demand it. Working against human nature is usually a losing proposition.

pax

[Glenn E. Meyer]

We have been people for millions of years, Pax. Civilization started about 8000 years ago. Even in ancient ones, there has been an emphasis on some for compensation rather than venegence. Depends on the specific group.

We work against human nature all the time, if you mean the more primitive instincts. Not being a sexist, brutal oppressive male towards women is working against human instincts according to the sociobiological view. However, we do it and are better for it than some places as in the Islamic world view of honor killing.

I understand the point that killing the person frees you from parole hearings, etc. However, it is a continuum. If you shoot the burglar who is stealing your TV and kill him or her, I think the consequences are much greater for you financially or emotionally than the positive benefits of taking a petty thief off the street by death.

Killing a brutal rapist caught in the act of attacking someone in your family besides stopping the crime may prevent future crimes and comebacks - if that happens much outside of Lifetime Movies.

Last, to go back to the vengeance model. Would that justified killing the BG after you disable him or her? If you find the criminal in the act, then tell them to stop and they do, or you wound them in a manner that disables them - should you finish them off? Why wait for a trial? If they are out on bond - find them and kill them.

Is vengeance only for the heat of the moment when you think you could get away with it?

Also, I still think that, as a psychologist, internet types underestimate the negative impact killing someone has on you. Killing the brutal rapist might have some mitigation. Killing the burglar may have lasting effects on you and your family. The police research demonstrates the officers even in righteous shootings have troubles. That's really pragmatic and Azurefly doesn't really know what he is talking about if thinking that a killing is uplifting.

Again, I stated before this doesn't mean that I am not accepting of the possibility that killing will occur if I act or that will deter me from using the force I need to effect a positive outcome.

[riverkeeper]

Here's what went thru my mind and I suspect (hope) will be going thru yours when/if attacked.

Several months ago I faced and backed down (with pepper spray and a hand on rosco in the jacket pocket) 2 BGs who tried a distract and pincer on me. #3 came in from behind running fast and down hill directly at me ... I picked him up at about 35 ft. He outweighed me by est 20-30 pounds and was about 20 to my 60 yrs ... down town after dark but well lit area.

While the revolver was coming out I automatically focused on his upper middle chest and INTENSLEY WANTED HIM TO STOP. The notion of killing him did not even occur to me then. He veered off 90 deg at about 20 ft just before the gun reached point. There is little doubt I would have shot at him at about 10-12 ft if he had continued. As he ran away I felt RELIEVED and lucky... no jury duty in the srteets that night. (Details left out to simplify)

THEY SAY about 1/3s of gunshot wounds end in death so we should understand that a plausible outcome of a SD shooting is death for the perp. If we have a hard time with that, consider non lethal alternatives ... do not clutter up your mind and limited time with distracting options you will not use.

The emotional and logical decision whether or not to shoot in a legitimate potentially lethal SD situation has been deeply considered and decided by me. The decision may involve killing someone to defend myself or my family ... that decision was not taken lightly.

[pickpocket]

Originally Posted by azurefly

This is about "at what point will the defender be satisfied?" Some here just want the threat ended; some are more indignant at being attacked and aren't so touchy-feely about the attacker, and also don't mind if they have to be the one who takes out humanity's garbage for it.

The law actually defines for us at which point the defender is satisfied, at least insofar as physical action is concerned. While there is a certain validity to your comment(s), remember that we are walking a VERY fine line between intent and willingness to kill; some of the things you suggest tilt slightly in the direction of INTENT - which is what we have to avoid for the sake of keeping this a legal and audience-appropriate discussion.

Originally Posted by azurefly

Isn't the major disagreement in the notion that some who are prepared to shoot in self defense opine that they would prefer that the defense kills the attacker, and others are content that their attacker lives on as long as his attack is halted?

The primary disagreement has nothing to do with whether or not we would prefer for an attacker to live or die, but whether or not have have fully accepted the probability that the attacker will die by our choice of action.
Preference is a fickle thing, and no matter which side of this you find yourself on - prefer BG lives, or prefer BG dies - if you ever do kill someone you will find yourself questioning the validity of your preferences.

This debate is not about preferences; it is about accepting that our actions - no matter how justified or protected by law - have very real consequences. It is about realizing that we must consciously identify and acknowledge our acceptance of the risk of those consequences as a fundamental component of our decision to remain prepared to protect ourselves.

Self defense is not an accident, nor is it a requirement - it is a choice. And like all choices that we make we must understand that the results are also ours to bear...and that includes the up-front acceptance that our decision to use deadly force means that we are at some level willing to end a person's life.

[Lurper]

Not to hijack an interesting thread but,

Also, I still think that, as a psychologist, internet types underestimate the negative impact killing someone has on you. Killing the brutal rapist might have some mitigation. Killing the burglar may have lasting effects on you and your family. The police research demonstrates the officers even in righteous shootings have troubles. That's really pragmatic and Azurefly doesn't really know what he is talking about if thinking that a killing is uplifting.

I find statements like this troubling. I have several friends who have killed people. I have been in three armed confrontations and in all of them the BG backed down. So while I cannot speak to what happens after you kill someone, I can to what happens after an armed confrontation.

I believe that we are socialized (by culture, the press, television, etc), to believe that we should feel guilty after taking another's life. However, most of my friends who have say otherwise. Some go as far as saying it was exhiliarting to survive mortal combat. In fairness, there are a few who say that it adversely effected them. These guys are just normal everyday guys (albeit most are L.E. or military). As for myself, I had no remorse or questions about my actions and do not believe that I would have felt guilty about killing any of the assailants had they not backed down. I just don't buy the idea that it is normal to feel guilty, sorry, etc for killing someone who would have killed you anymore than I buy the idea that it is wrong for me to feel good or exhilirated about killing the same individual.

So, my question is:
How much of this feeling of remorse over killing someone - even though they were trying to kill you - is a product of the socialization process?
and:
What if anything is wrong with feeling good about besting your opponent in mortal combat?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The causality of the results is of course interesting. All I can say is that emotional trauma after killing someone is showing up and can be found in past conflicts. In classes, instructors like Greg Hamilton stresses that it can happen. Police researchers, who have been there, have written extensively on the issue.

I think it is a risk to say that one thinks they won't be affected. The case reports indicate that very strong and able people have developed problems.

If it is socialization, it is still out there today and that's way I caution against folks who glibly (TOM CRUISE!) want to think they will be better off emotionally after an incident. Better to know the risks to deal with them.

PS - I think there is a tendency in some to think that having such problems is weakness - that might be some philosophical perspectives - but I think that is silly.

[tydephan]

We have traveled so far and have yet to really go anywhere. I feel like I've read the same thing over and over again (no flame intended). Furthermore, I may still be contributing to the merry-go-round with the comments below. If so, I sincerely apologize...

It seems that now we are speaking solely about accepting the personal consequences of taking the life of another.

I said in my earlier post that, in my humble opinion, someone forfeits their civil right to live when they enter my abode and/or present an imminent threat to me and/or my family. With that being said, I am not cold to the fact that this is a life-changing event for all those involved (and some that are not).

I fully understand and passionately dread the emotional consequences of taking another life, but I accept the responsibility of doing so. After all, despite the threat, the BG is a son/daughter to someone perhaps much more innocent than himself. Or he is the father to a daughter that has no idea that her daddy is scum. Nevertheless, my actions would be the cause of her not having a father.

Perhaps it is the callous-ness that some people exhibit while talking about a hypothetical self-defense situation where the BG is killed that is the point of contention among members. I realize that my first few posts were rather callous and naive, but that was due more to the words I used than the thoughts in my head.

I put a lot of thought into whether I felt capable of taking someone's life if a self-defense situation escalated to where deadly-force was legally warranted. I bought my first gun because I told myself that I was willing to take a life to defend my own. I pray every day that I am never forced into a situation where deadly force is warranted, because of the emotional consequences. However emotional consequences are better than the alternative...

[pickpocket]

Lurper -
Let me see if I can address a couple of your points.

I've never been in an SD situation that required the use of my handgun. However, I put in two combat tours in Iraq and carry my fair share of demons with me. So I feel marginally qualified to speak when it comes to the psychological effects of killing. There are those who are more qualified, and those who are less so. My opinions come directly from my own experience and those of people I know and served with; YMMV.

Many people prefer not to discuss whether or not they have killed someone. I myself get annoyed when asked. However, I think that this discussion rates an explanation that is not grounded in theory but rather raw experience.

Killing someone leaves a scar, however small. It changes you, however little. At the time it happens the effects go largely unnoticed - it is not until later when we start to sense that something about us is different, when we have time to process that the person we killed was just that: a person. That person, no matter the circumstances, had a mother, a father, possibly a wife, possibly children that depended on them... when you kill a person you assume responsibility for the unfinished business which that person will never attend to.
To deal with it, we don't dwell on it. We lock it away in a corner of our minds that we don't visit every day. I do not say this to make it sound as though these things haunt us every day, every waking moment. But occassionaly we take those moments out of their dusty corner and wipe them off and relive them. We remember that we are all human and that our lives can end in a split second - that the difference between life and death is but an eyelash. We take a short moment to question ourselves, and then we remember that what we live with is far better than the alternative. We remember that those whom we have killed had families, regardless of circumstance and however justified.

And then we put them away again, to reflect upon another day. Some people go through this cycle more than others - but the point is that it is a cycle and that we all do it. I have yet to encounter a single person who does not.

Killing someone changes you - and no one knows to what degree until it happens. Maybe not the next day or even the next week. Hell, it was over a year before I started to sense that something significant was different. Some Vietnam vets took more than a decade to realize what changed inside them. Men will tell their friends that they are unaffected in one breath and in the next they will fight down the names, faces, and places they carry with them to prevent it from showing.

Ending a person's life alters the course of yours - we're starting to see it now with all of the Iraq vets coming back with problems; PTSD being the least of them. Anyone who says killing someone doesn't affect them isn't being 100% honest with themselves.

Like I said, it's not like I think about this stuff all day every day...but it's always there just the same. I don't want this to sound like it's going to ruin you psychologically, because chances are that it won't. My whole point is that I carry those people with me and I know that I am a different person for having killed. Killing isn't glorious. Sometimes it must be done, sometimes it can't be avoided - but that doesn't mean that makes it better.

I do not shy away from the necessity of it, or the possibility of it. I do not regret any of my choices; but that doesn't make the dreams any less real.

[pickpocket]

Originally Posted by tydephan

We have traveled so far and have yet to really go anywhere. I feel like I've read the same thing over and over again

Such is the nature of a debate - points are repeated and approached from different angles until opposing views can reach some common ground. Unfortunately there's always this feeling of having done a lot of work but not moved very far when that common ground takes a while to reach

Originally Posted by tydephan

I put a lot of thought into whether I felt capable of taking someone's life if a self-defense situation escalated to where deadly-force was legally warranted. I bought my first gun because I told myself that I was willing to take a life to defend my own.

And that, my friend, is the crux of the issue. I think you have it

[Lurper]

Glenn,
I think there is enough evidence out there discrediting the idea as well. B.G. Burkett makes a case for several of these "syndromes" (PTSD for example) being created by phsycologists with agendas or vested intrests. Being a veteran and having been in tons of traumatic situations, I tend to agree with Burkett. I don't however belittle anyone who believes that they suffer from these afflictions, I just remain silent.

Tydephan,
My questions weren't so much about taking responsibilty, but about the after effects being "dictated" to us. To make it into a statement:
I don't believe that feeling guilt for killing someone who was trying to kill me is necessarily a "normal" reaction. I do believe that feeling exhilirated at surviving a mortal confrontation is okay. I also believe that many people have issues with taking another life because they are told that that is how they should feel. Too many times, psychologists tell people "you are going to feel this way" or that way or this will affect you for the rest of your life. Sadly, people believe it instead of assessing how they feel. Look at combat veterans, the vast majority live normal productive lives with no adverse affect, yet we are constantly led to believe by the media that we will have nightmares or be haunted by the faces of the dead on a regular basis. So, I believe a lot of the after shooting "trauma" is manufactured.

My buddy Roger told me that the biggest trauma he had after his shooting is that the department put him on leave for 10 days and wouldn't let him work.

[pickpocket]

Lurper -
I agree that much of what we "think" we should feel is the result of social conditioning and a handy byproduct of professionals who stand to benefit from the ever increasing list of "syndromes" and "illnesses" out there.
Much of the press and hype about what people should or should not feel is driven by other agendas.

However, I think it is unrealistic to completely discredit the argument that there is a psychological component that must still be dealth with on an individual basis. Whether socially engineered or not, people tend to have an aversion to ending another human life. There are degrees of guilt - and feeling 'guilty' does not automatically mean that we drink ourselves into oblivion every night and cry outselves to sleep; it does not mean that we wander lost in the streets looking for the soul that we lost. It simply means that we remember.

Let's face it, it just doesn't stand to reason that we shouldn't feel somewhat guilty by ending another person's life. If that were the case then we aren't much more civilized than we were two thousand years ago. But that doesn't mean that I'm going to believe that a person can't deal with the after-effects, either. There HAS to be a deterrent for killing people outside of legality, otherwise we'd all be doing it.

[tydephan]

Lurper,

I understand your point. It digests very nicely.

While I am not prepared to engage in a conversation regarding how society dictates emotional responses, I can tell you that I would presume after a shooting there would be a certain amount of exhiliration, mainly due to the natural imbalance of adrenaline due to the event. I certainly would not look at someone in disdain for feeling exhilirated for surviving.

I'm no expert, and I've never been involved in a deadly-force scenario. However I would speculate that a majority of people would exhibit a range of emotions from the times the event stops to perhaps decades after the event (much like pickpocket has described).

Because I am no expert and this is somewhat off-topic, I'll go no further with my comments.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Just two things:

1. Talked to a colleague who is a well trained anxiety disorder expert and quite happy with my interests - in fact we work together. The disorder is quite real and not a political construct but I'm not writing a lit review here. We see it in all kinds of folks and cross culturally and historically before we got into the gun world lefty-righty lunacy.

2. Burkett is quite dogmatic about PTSD and thinks some folks fake it. Perhaps a proportion does - however I think as said above, PTSD in veterans and others does happen.

3. Does it happen to everyone - no. A blanket disbelief is not really useful.

Done for the day - other things to do. Figure this all out by tomorrow - guys. I'm going home and try to figure out how to put my 1911 back together as it is giving me bad dreams.

The point was that some folks felt killing someone is emotionally beneficial. I don't view the evidence as compelling to try to justify killing on this level.

The reason is to prevent grievous bodily harm. I guess I will disagree that I think killing someone over my property is an emotionally good thing.

I also will repeat that ignoring the possibility of some emotional sequelae because of a right wing vs. left wing argument is very foolish. Burkett goes that way.