Morality and Weapons

[DickHardman]

[DickHardman]

[DickHardman]

The Beltway sniper attacks took place during three weeks in October 2002 in the Mid-Atlantic United States. As ten people were killed and three others critically injured in and around Washington, D.C., in various locations throughout the Baltimore-Washington Metropolitan Area and along Interstate 95 in Virginia, it was widely speculated that a single sniper was using the Capital Beltway for travel, possibly in a white van or truck. It was later learned that the rampage was perpetrated by two men, John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo, driving a blue Chevrolet Caprice sedan, and had apparently begun the month before with murders and robbery in Louisiana, Alabama, and Georgia which had resulted in three deaths. An earlier spree for which the pair was responsible had killed victims in California, Arizona, and Texas, for a total of 16 deaths identified as of March 2007.

[Mike Brewer]

When there are so many bare handed systems one could learn that would keep you safe, should we be out there using firearms or blades?

I think that if there were even one empty-hand system out there that could be developed as simply and as reliably as firearms or blades, then there would be more of an ethical question. The trouble is, there is no such thing as an empty hand system that will equip you as well as a weapons system for life's most violent encounters.

It's an uncomfortable truth that people don't like to hear, much less accept. But in many ways, it's like the statement, "In a one-on-one fight, a pure grappler has an advantage over a pure striker." It's the truth, but it's uncomfortable and filled with "what-ifs." Equally true is that weapons were developed by the very same people that developed empty hand systems, and for the same reasons. Weapons did what hands and feet and elbows and knees could not, and it's always been that way. Weapons will make it easier to defend yourself against a wider variety of threats and with far less effort and training. If you're leaving the emotional aspect out of it, then it will be especially effective.

Ask yourself this hypothetical:

We'll take two people of equal height, weight, build, and experience. These will both be rank novices with little to no fighting background. We each have six months to train them to be effective fighters, and then we're going to put them in a situation in which they have to fight for their lives. They will fight against two assailants who may or may not be armed, and running away will not be an option. It will truly be anything goes. Your student gets training in kickboxing, MMA, BJJ, or whatever empty hand system you'd like. My student gets trained in pistol and edged weapons work. Who's your money on in the end?

To bring the point home, imagine it this way. It's still a fight to the finish, but I have to fight your student and you have to fight mine. How comfortable are you with that?

In the hypothetical scenario above, there are some real differences in attitude, mindset, and severity of use. But that's part of what makes weapons so useful. Firing a bullet is a commitment you can't take back. Deciding on that course of action puts you in a frame of mind that is just impossible to reach with empty-hand tools. If it is possible, it's damned difficult. The fact is, weapons prepare you better than any empty hand system ever could for the goal of defending your life and limb against life threatening assaults. When the rules are nil, the conditions all favor the bad guy, and it really is a matter of life and death, weapons are better.

The only moral or ethical question left after that is, "Is the right to self-preservation unethical?" and I don't think it's unethical at all.

[Garland]

Originally Posted by Mike Brewer

The only moral or ethical question left after that is, "Is the right to self-preservation unethical?" and I don't think it's unethical at all.

I've heard interesting philisophical debates on these types of ethical questions...using nothing but objective and analytical "logic" by itself would bring you to some surprising conclusions... (by logic I'm referring to utilitarian ethics...as it seems to embody the end goal of the best possible scenario for the most people, I however enjoy more...romantic notions of free agency, passion, and libertine antimorality to some extent...hopefully these thought games will show you why I feel that ethics are grossely unnatural.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plank_of_Carneades

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_survival_lottery

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifeboat_ethics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_...nd_Letting_Die

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere_addition_paradox

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violini..._experiment%29

have fun.

[Garland]

Originally Posted by Mike Brewer

Who's your money on in the end?

The person who gets to the other one first, irregardless of whatever training or if one of them has a weapon. Whoever is the "sharpest" in terms of foresight, quickest to act, with the worst intent. Whoever stops the action before it begins.

...

YouTube Video

[Mike Brewer]

In my opinion, that's the real danger of tying to analyze human beings (highly emotional and irrational beings) using systems of logic and reason as a basis of study. People and any analysis of them that's to be trusted must include allowances for seeming paradoxes. in other words, you have to accept that perhaps the "natural human instinct" is to irrationally put the group ahead of the self in some cases. You also have to allow for the notion that sometimes we just don't make a whole hell of a lot of sense. Which, by the way, is why people need good answers based in morals and ethics the instant they decide that morals and ethics are important to them.

I like to use gun laws as an example. Consider:

1. The Fifth Amendment makes it illegal to require someone to provide testimony against himself - the right to remain silent and refuse self-incrimination is guaranteed.
2. The purchase of guns requires the filling out of a form that asks the purchaser if he is a felon.
3. It is a felony to lie on a federal form of this type.

That means:

The crook is allowed to lie on the form, because to admit he is a felon is to incriminate himself in both the crime of buying the firearm and the crime of falsifying the document. Another way, he's allowed to own an illegal gun, because owning one legally would require two instances of self-incrimination.

Obviously, that's a crap argument and the guy is going to jail for having the gun in the first place, regardless of how he came to own it. However, it shows how the legal mechanisms are in direct opposition to one another.

Another common logical failure is what's called the liar's paradox. It's the one that says:

"This sentence is false"

Or, if you prefer to avoid self-reference (you formal logic bastard, you)

"The following sentence is false."
"The preceding sentence is true."

Can't work. You have to allow for those intangibles like the limitations of language (which is why logic spun right the hell out of the realm of argumentation - it's Aristotle-based root) and into "symbol logic" which frankly has almost no bearing on how people interact or perceive anything.

In terms of morals, they are self-fulfilling necessities. As soon as someone decides that they require a moral structure, they do. You can't reason them out of it. Much like God, it is a faith that they've chosen and accepted, often at the deepest level possible. Worse still, it's even more subjective than religion. Religions at least have common dogmas. Moral codes are almost entirely individual. All you can do in cases of moral dilemmas is to offer options and trust that the person asking will take or leave whatever they see fit.

[Garland]

Originally Posted by Mike Brewer

In my opinion, that's the real danger of tying to analyze human beings (highly emotional and irrational beings) using systems of logic and reason as a basis of study. People and any analysis of them that's to be trusted must include allowances for seeming paradoxes. in other words, you have to accept that perhaps the "natural human instinct" is to irrationally put the group ahead of the self in some cases. You also have to allow for the notion that sometimes we just don't make a whole hell of a lot of sense. Which, by the way, is why people need good answers based in morals and ethics the instant they decide that morals and ethics are important to them.

I like to use gun laws as an example. Consider:

1. The Fifth Amendment makes it illegal to require someone to provide testimony against himself - the right to remain silent and refuse self-incrimination is guaranteed.
2. The purchase of guns requires the filling out of a form that asks the purchaser if he is a felon.
3. It is a felony to lie on a federal form of this type.

That means:

The crook is allowed to lie on the form, because to admit he is a felon is to incriminate himself in both the crime of buying the firearm and the crime of falsifying the document. Another way, he's allowed to own an illegal gun, because owning one legally would require two instances of self-incrimination.

Obviously, that's a crap argument and the guy is going to jail for having the gun in the first place, regardless of how he came to own it. However, it shows how the legal mechanisms are in direct opposition to one another.

Another common logical failure is what's called the liar's paradox. It's the one that says:

"This sentence is false"

Or, if you prefer to avoid self-reference (you formal logic bastard, you)

"The following sentence is false."
"The preceding sentence is true."

Can't work. You have to allow for those intangibles like the limitations of language (which is why logic spun right the hell out of the realm of argumentation - it's Aristotle-based root) and into "symbol logic" which frankly has almost no bearing on how people interact or perceive anything.

In terms of morals, they are self-fulfilling necessities. As soon as someone decides that they require a moral structure, they do. You can't reason them out of it. Much like God, it is a faith that they've chosen and accepted, often at the deepest level possible. Worse still, it's even more subjective than religion. Religions at least have common dogmas. Moral codes are almost entirely individual. All you can do in cases of moral dilemmas is to offer options and trust that the person asking will take or leave whatever they see fit.

Ding ding ding...right on the money, as usual.

Oddly enough...I've been reading a book that kind of touches on linguistic determinism (how language creates the lenses we use, and the way in which we percieve the world) and how the word falls short of all physical truths. Of course, the book is a wee-bit on the Japanese side, and hence grasps onto all the "physical life is beautiful because of it's transcient nature" shit...but it's worth reading.

[Little Apple]

Ha ha ha! These are some great posts! To diverge slightly from the topic: Utilitarian Ethics is not the only system, and in any case it was developed for governing a large group of people. It was never meant to be used as a code for an individual in his personal moral situations. The fact that people keep trying to use it that way in no way means that that's what it's for.

Also: Correct me if I'm wrong here Mike, but doesn't the form in question actually ask if you are a convicted felon? If you are convicted then stating so on a form is not incriminating yourself. If you are in a gun shop and worried about legality, than you have probably already served your sentence.

Anyway, I gather that we've decided a couple things:

1) You must know yourself, and your weapon, so that you'll have some idea what it can do, and whether you actually are willing to carry it.

2) You need to be prepared to face every consequence of using any weapon you carry. This includes your own emotional backlash.

3) If you are trained in the weapon you choose to carry, you aren't that likely to be disarmed if you are actually using that weapon. (As opposed to holding it out a bit, and then cringing if you get rushed.)

4) Pepper spray is almost useless as a self defense tool.

5) Ridged systems of morality are not useful on a situational basis and language is difficult to communicate in.

Did I miss anything?

[Garland]

Originally Posted by Little Apple

Anyway, I gather that we've decided a couple things:

1) You must know yourself, and your weapon, so that you'll have some idea what it can do, and whether you actually are willing to carry it.

2) You need to be prepared to face every consequence of using any weapon you carry. This includes your own emotional backlash.

3) If you are trained in the weapon you choose to carry, you aren't that likely to be disarmed if you are actually using that weapon. (As opposed to holding it out a bit, and then cringing if you get rushed.)

4) Pepper spray is almost useless as a self defense tool.

5) Ridged systems of morality are not useful on a situational basis and language is difficult to communicate in.

Did I miss anything?

When you put it that way...we really have covered a great deal of ground here, huh?

and more slightly off topic stuff coming right up!

YouTube Video

[Odd-toed]

I know this may sound strange but what is the law on mace and other chemical sprays in the UK? I know we have rape alarms etc but the truth is as a woman I put no faith in these at all, the only one I have is in my car and the driving I do I have seen a lot of road rage and have had friends who have had people get out of the cars and try to hit them through the window, so I view it you come to my window I am going to use it in your face! (also I do like the one where you can spray the person’s face blue!) In a street situation I don’t think they are great, but willing to be open on this?

I think that DickHardman has a really good point, I have only had 3 situations in my life, all happened before I was training, 2 went very wrong and the 3rd one was when a woman in a bar decided that she did not like me, I immediately jumped to the defensive, hand was clenched and I was in her face back, my emotions where really going for it – I now know this to be the adrenalin dump, however I was with friends and my boyfriend and he was one who stepped in b/c what he could see and I could not was this woman’s friend had her hand around her bottle getting ready to use it. My fear now is that my reaction was not thought out and was very impulsive - if I carried anything like a knife would I use it before I should. Therefore I do NOT carry a knife to protect me!

I still stand by the fact that it’s your choice to carry a weapon, but you must also openly accept the responsibility of your actions in using it or introducing it into a situation, I think the best quote I have ever heard and one I stand by is “I would prefer to be tried by 12, than carried by 6”. I think that if you have a weapon on you it gives you more confidence, which is fine, at the end of the day its personal preference, if carrying a weapon makes you feel better then fine, but I think you need to ask yourself WHY.

[Mike Brewer]

Originally Posted by Little Apple

Ha ha ha! These are some great posts! To diverge slightly from the topic: Utilitarian Ethics is not the only system, and in any case it was developed for governing a large group of people. It was never meant to be used as a code for an individual in his personal moral situations. The fact that people keep trying to use it that way in no way means that that's what it's for.

Also: Correct me if I'm wrong here Mike, but doesn't the form in question actually ask if you are a convicted felon? If you are convicted then stating so on a form is not incriminating yourself. If you are in a gun shop and worried about legality, than you have probably already served your sentence.

Anyway, I gather that we've decided a couple things:

1) You must know yourself, and your weapon, so that you'll have some idea what it can do, and whether you actually are willing to carry it.

2) You need to be prepared to face every consequence of using any weapon you carry. This includes your own emotional backlash.

3) If you are trained in the weapon you choose to carry, you aren't that likely to be disarmed if you are actually using that weapon. (As opposed to holding it out a bit, and then cringing if you get rushed.)

4) Pepper spray is almost useless as a self defense tool.

5) Ridged systems of morality are not useful on a situational basis and language is difficult to communicate in.

Did I miss anything?

Sounds like you've hit the high points!

And yes, the form does ask about previous convictions - but it does so in order to establish whether or not one is currently committing a crime - trying to illegally purchase a gun. Since answering "yes" would incriminate the buyer in the crime of purchasing a firearm as a convicted felon, the argument is usually enough to spark some debate. And for the record, I know it's an idiotic argument (and that the law actually does cover the problem) but I use the example to point out that there are basically two types of people when it comes to "logic." Interestingly, though, it's not far off from the real world. The story we're discussing in another thread about the terrorists being tried in London contained a heated debate as to whether or not the terrorists' martyrdom videos could be admissable as evidence. Each video amounts to a taped confession, but they are also self-incriminating. Hmmmm...

There are those who try to come up with logical systems that structure things to determine what's true and what isn't. Then there are those whose sole purpose is to write paradoxes to piss the first group off. It's the yin and yang of the logical world, balancing each other in the same way programmers and hackers, realists and idealists, Mr. Arieson and Jubaji do.

Ideally, the balance - the system of opposing forces - makes both sides better, right? Moralists have critics who point out flaws, and then the moralists have to adapt and improve to cover the contradictions. Likewise, there's no refuge in logic and reason because there will always be someone out there to point out the paradoxes and contradictions.

All things considered, one of the very best answers for this (and most) situation is found in neo-classicalist economics. It's the idea that you can't construct a perfect system and the human factor will always do the thing you least expect, regardless of how little it makes sense.

[TTEscrima]

To all you old law dogs now just sitting in the shade, current pistolreos and other fervent Second Amendment believers: I would rather be your friend, but if you are not interested in that, I am prepared to be a capable and efficient enemy. This is the law: the purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental. As a wise man once said:
1. Don't pick a fight with an old man. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.
2. If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics SUCK!
3. I carry a gun(knife) because a cop is too heavy.
4. America is not at war. The U.S. Military is at war. America is at the Mall.
5. When seconds count, the cops are just minutes away.(shoot first, then call 911)
6. A reporter did a human interest piece on the Texas Rangers. The reporter recognized the Colt 1911 the Ranger was carrying and asked him"Why do you carry a .45?"The ranger responded,"Because they don't make a .46."
7. An armed man will kill an unarmed man with monotonous regularity.
8. An old sheriff was attending an awards dinner when a lady commented on his wearing a sidearm."Sheriff. I see you have your pistol. Are you expecting trouble?" "No Ma'am. If I were expecting trouble, I'd have brought my rifle"
9. Beware the man who only has one gun. He probably knows how to use it.
10. A "soccer mom" once asked me if I had a gun in the house to which I replied yes. She said "well I certainly hope It's not loaded." I replied "Of course it is." She then asked, "Are you afraid of some evildoer coming into your house and doing bad things?" My reply was, "No, not at all. I'm also not afraid of the house catching fire,but I have fire extinguishers and they are all loaded".
11. We had a nice old couple in Phoenix. Someone decided to break down their door one night. Like good citizens without a clue they called 911. They were only dead about twenty minutes when the cops arrived. If they had a gun they would be alive today and the bad guy(s) would be dead. The killer(s) were never caught.
12. Last summer a killer chased a man into a convenience store and shot him. Then he killed the clerk because he was a witness. The first victim lived. Had the clerk had a weapon, the bad guy would be dead and both victims would be alive.
13. At a business or a church, school or college, where guns are banned only the evil guys have guns and the "do-gooders" that prevent good people from defending themselves by carrying a weapon are not the victims often enough.
14. And why in the hell should I defend someone that won't defend themselves. The cops will clean up the bodies when they get there.
15. The Second Amendment is your right. Protect it or lose it.

http://www.jamesakeating.com/maajak1.html

[Little Apple]

Good name for your post.

[Mike Brewer]

God love you, TT. I tried to rep you again but I can't yet. I owe you one.