|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
View Poll Results: Does an Armed Citizen have a Moral/Ethical Duty to Retreat (complete safety) | |||
Yep, at all times | 30 | 13.89% | |
Nope, Never | 92 | 42.59% | |
Yep, but only on the street, not in the Home/Business | 63 | 29.17% | |
I'm not ansering because I dont want to seem either wimpy or bloodthirsty | 15 | 6.94% | |
I'd rather have pic of you and Spiff iwearing spandex loincloths lard wrestling in a baby pool. | 16 | 7.41% | |
Voters: 216. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
June 23, 2009, 06:48 PM | #426 | |
Junior member
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,172
|
Quote:
WildhuhAlaska ™ |
|
June 23, 2009, 06:49 PM | #427 | |||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Quote:
1) The BG either doesn't have a weapon or doesn't have a distance weapon. This is implied by the "retreat with safety" caveat. 2)No one else in in danger. This is plainly stated. Retreat with complete safety to you and others. 3)The type of crime is not relevant, except that it is obviously not a personal injury crime because that would exclude being able to retreat with safety to self AND others. There are no variables that are unaccounted for. You are in a situation wherein you have the option to either: 1)Shoot someone who has presented you with a situation wherein it is LEGAL to shoot them. 2)Retreat safely. Pick one. Shoot or leave. It's really is a Yes/No, A/B type question. Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
|||
June 23, 2009, 06:51 PM | #428 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Quote:
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
|
June 23, 2009, 08:21 PM | #429 | |
Junior member
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,172
|
Spaceballs huh....Gee, there is something on par with Also Sprach Zarathustra and the great philosophers of our time
Quote:
On the other hand does not morality imply the last clear chance? WildletspassbydarkhelmetifwecanAlaska ™ |
|
June 23, 2009, 09:52 PM | #430 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Eastern, TN
Posts: 1,236
|
Quote:
This is probably the most "to the point" comment on this topic thus far ! Bravo Sir ! You have summed up, in a sentence, what it took me a quarter of a page to write. With your permission, I would like to add this to my signature line ? Well Said.
__________________
WITHOUT Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech. Silence Dogood Does not morality imply the last clear chance? - WildAlaska - |
|
June 23, 2009, 10:42 PM | #431 | |
Junior member
Join Date: February 27, 2006
Location: Great Pacific Northwest
Posts: 11,515
|
Quote:
|
|
June 23, 2009, 10:53 PM | #432 | |||||
Senior Member
Join Date: July 31, 2008
Posts: 295
|
Sorry,
I'll remember not to post any jokes to lighten things.
As to your points, Alaska: Quote:
Ok, Captain Semantics, Quote:
Also Peetza, did you like read the OP? None of your points are discussed. There is no mention of weapon, no mention of shooting, and no mention of others. Of course, I don't have the secret decoder ring that you get at 1000 posts, so maybee I'm missing something. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Remington Nylon 66 .22LR - Squirrels Beware Browning BAR Safari II .270 Win - Whitetails Beware Sig Sauer P229 .40 S+W - Burglars Beware Hi Standard Supermatic Citation .22LR - Tincans Beware |
|||||
June 23, 2009, 11:06 PM | #433 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 31, 2008
Posts: 295
|
I have to disagree PBP
Quote:
As to whose morality, America has already answered that question. Jehova, the Judeo-Christian God is our standard. This is implicit in our founding documents. If you don't like that, too bad. I didn't decide, Madison, Washington, Jefferson, and the boys did. Our Constitution is a document that explicitly recognizes the natural law of the created world, given by the Creator. Most of our problems as a nation stem from how we have distanced ourselves from the founding principles of this nation. In fact, I think I've read about the fall of a nation after they distanced themselves from and ignored their Creator. It was some big, old book, not sure where.
__________________
Remington Nylon 66 .22LR - Squirrels Beware Browning BAR Safari II .270 Win - Whitetails Beware Sig Sauer P229 .40 S+W - Burglars Beware Hi Standard Supermatic Citation .22LR - Tincans Beware |
|
June 23, 2009, 11:12 PM | #434 | ||
Junior member
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,172
|
Quote:
Quote:
WildwhatagreatdebateAlaska TM |
||
June 23, 2009, 11:14 PM | #435 | |
Junior member
Join Date: February 27, 2006
Location: Great Pacific Northwest
Posts: 11,515
|
Quote:
All of these things are described as immoral by certain groups also. Morals are not concrete. They are based on your own personal opinions, culture, religion, mindset, demeanor, etc. Many people would consider killing someone, even if they were holding knife to you young childs throat "immoral." Does that make it so? Or are there varying degrees in every circumstance...which by definition would make morality fluid. |
|
June 23, 2009, 11:22 PM | #436 | |
Junior member
Join Date: February 27, 2006
Location: Great Pacific Northwest
Posts: 11,515
|
Quote:
|
|
June 23, 2009, 11:24 PM | #437 | |
Junior member
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,172
|
Quote:
JC moral codes that would look askance at you and I getting married (if you were cuter) have naught to do with the basic fact of life...are we not men? Not to chase other men, that is the law......(I love HG Wells) WildandiamtryingtoavoidtheethicalquandryposedbytheunmentionableissuewhichiamwellawareofAlaska TM Wow...I just thought of the ethics of cannibalism.....naw....... |
|
June 24, 2009, 12:47 AM | #438 | |
Junior member
Join Date: February 27, 2006
Location: Great Pacific Northwest
Posts: 11,515
|
Quote:
I know exactly how I feel about this topic but I have made it very clear that I can see the other side of the aisle's point also...and a lot of places in between. For either view point to try and pretend they somehow have the moral certainty is a bit presumptuous IMHO. |
|
June 24, 2009, 06:18 AM | #439 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 6, 2009
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 761
|
Although I believe that there is a concrete moral standard in all things, it's absurd to imagine that everyone will believe or accept those standards. That's just my belief system, I believe it's right(or else why would I believe it) but others believe it's wrong. I can imagine that every possible thing that most people would accept as being immoral(yes, even the basic things) has been accepted practice somewhere sometime.
Even the people that I associate with, who share my beliefs don't come to the same conclusions. And my concrete standards, which I still believe exist, I don't always know the right way to apply them so my conclusions change. So even a person like me who believes in concrete moral standards can't always have moral certainty. I do believe there is liberty of conscience (in many things, not all) whereby a person makes a misjudgment (that they believe is right) and they are blameless. Quote:
Philsophical musing button off...hope I didn't ramble too much.
__________________
"I assert that nothing ever comes to pass without a cause." Jonathan Edwards Last edited by stargazer65; June 24, 2009 at 08:28 AM. Reason: musing |
|
June 24, 2009, 07:43 AM | #440 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 31, 2008
Posts: 295
|
This nation does have an objective moral standard. It is the Christian standard. If you don't accept that, the whole thing goes byebye. You don't have to be a Christian, but citizens of this nation must accept the Christian moral standard. Our rights flow from God, preexisting any government. This is the only nation where that is true. Our rights exist ONLY inasmuch as God exists. Without that differentiation, we are no different than anyone else.
As Madison said, this Constitution is fit only to govern a moral and religious people. It will suit no other. That's a paraphrase, but gets his point across. Off to work, bye.
__________________
Remington Nylon 66 .22LR - Squirrels Beware Browning BAR Safari II .270 Win - Whitetails Beware Sig Sauer P229 .40 S+W - Burglars Beware Hi Standard Supermatic Citation .22LR - Tincans Beware |
June 24, 2009, 08:28 AM | #441 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 23, 2009
Location: Oklahoma City
Posts: 101
|
Just as no man (outside law enforcement) has any duty to defend others from a threat; neither does any man have a duty to retreat from a threat. Each man has his own limit of that to which he will or will not be subjugated. It is simply a matter of honor, and each man must decide for himself that which is honorable.
__________________
Qui non proficit deficit |
June 24, 2009, 08:52 AM | #442 | |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
So, let each man choose whether to retreat, but that does not mean he should use deadly force if retreat is possible. Murder would not be honorable. |
|
June 24, 2009, 09:05 AM | #443 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 3, 2008
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 479
|
Quote:
__________________
-- Sparks AKA J.M. Johnston |
|
June 24, 2009, 09:06 AM | #444 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 6, 2009
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 761
|
Quote:
Maybe the OP should specify a specific set of beliefs. But I suppose that would spoil WildAlaska's fun watching people squirm.
__________________
"I assert that nothing ever comes to pass without a cause." Jonathan Edwards Last edited by stargazer65; June 24, 2009 at 09:15 AM. |
|
June 24, 2009, 09:08 AM | #445 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 23, 2009
Location: Oklahoma City
Posts: 101
|
Nor did I imply it would be!
But each man must decide for himself what is or is not worth shedding blood over.
__________________
Qui non proficit deficit |
June 24, 2009, 09:22 AM | #446 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Whether morals flow from God or from some cultural and evolutionary interaction isn't really relevant to this thread. Nor is stating that we must accept some religious viewpoint - so let's not drift there.
Let's stay on the OP question. Moral vs. honorable is another interesting debate. Honor is sometimes a reflexive sense of personal challenge. Retreating is a challenge to one's self image. Is it honorable to be taken prisoner? The Japanese didn't think so. So honor is not perfectly correlated with moral.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
June 24, 2009, 09:28 AM | #447 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 8, 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,787
|
Quote:
You know way more law than me, but somehow I think we are leaving something out here, my friend. Last edited by TailGator; June 24, 2009 at 10:08 AM. |
|
June 24, 2009, 09:40 AM | #448 | |||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Quote:
"Complete safety" sort of, a little bit, implies that the BG can not hurt you. Can not hurt you implies no weapons, or at least no weapons that can reach you while you retreat. We must apply a little common sense to the scenario. If we do not then the question is meaningless. OP: "Would you retreat if you could do so safely?" Response: "Well, not if the guy has a gun." Everyone else: "The OP said safely." Response: "Well, what if he has a rocket launcher?" Everyone else "Well now, that wouldn't be safe would it." Response: "Well, what if my daughters near him." Everyone else "Well, that wouldn't be a safe retreat then would it. The OP said "safely"." Response: "Well, I didn't see any mention of him not being armed or having my daughter near him." A little ridiculous don't you think? Complete safety means COMPLETE SAFETY. Anyone involved in SD discussion or legal matters knows that complete safety ALWAYS includes all innocent people and implies that the BG does not have the means to cause damage to the innocents during said retreat. Now, can you just answer the question? Is there or is there not a moral duty to retreat when possible? It is a YES/NO question. Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley Last edited by Brian Pfleuger; June 24, 2009 at 10:17 AM. Reason: Grammar, Clarity, Spelling |
|||
June 24, 2009, 09:42 AM | #449 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 6, 2009
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 761
|
Quote:
__________________
"I assert that nothing ever comes to pass without a cause." Jonathan Edwards |
|
June 24, 2009, 09:42 AM | #450 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 23, 2009
Location: Oklahoma City
Posts: 101
|
In our state making illegal entry DOES constitute a crime. And under the states 'make my day law' you are allowed to asume two things: first, they are capable of causing you harm and second, they intend on causing you harm. So it appears that states greatly vary in their approach to allowing someone to defend themselves. Therefore, it would also seem that what is legal vs. what is honorable will also change dramatically based on geographic location. Perhaps it's the burden of the threat of eminant danger that affects one's choice.
__________________
Qui non proficit deficit |
Tags |
moral duty , morality |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|