The morality of carrying a weapon for self defense

[goomba]

The morality of carrying a weapon for self defense

In one way or another I have been armed since I was old enough to have my own .22 rifle. When I was of age I applied for and received a carry permit, and have held one most of my years since then. Truth be told, permit or not I have always had a weapon near me.
Since I grew up with weapons as tools, the morality of being armed was never raised as an issue. You had a chain saw to cut wood, and you had a firearm to defend yourself. You learned to use the chainsaw safely because you would need the skill as a capable adult. For the same reason you learned to shoot well and safely keep a weapon, as defending oneself is what a capable adult does. Personal responsibility demands one be able to do what’s needed, and be able to use the tools to meet that need. Anything less is a failure to oneself, ones loved ones, and ones community.

Later, in adult years, as introspection grew and answers to life’s questions were sought, I faced the issue of self defense. After carrying a weapon for years I finally took the time to ask myself why, and took the time to reason out an answer, or at least one of them.

I carry a weapon because it is the moral thing to do. It meets with my definition of doing ‘right’. Being prepared to defend myself and loved ones is part of being a responsible person.

Please allow me to explain…

bearbicycle.blogspot.com/2009/07/morality-of-carrying-weapon-for-self.html

[Deleted]

Excellent.

For those who chose not to read the article via the link, choose again. It's worth it.

[osrb]

It is a great article. The small brain tofu eaters would not understand. They do not understand when seconds count cops are only minutes away.

[gridbug]

They do not understand when seconds count cops are only minutes away.

"Minutes"? You have never called the cops before, have you?

But seriously, does not the reasoning "I need to carry a gun in case there is not an armed policeman around" reek a bit of vigilanteeism?

[Deleted]

Nope. It reeks of preparedness, self-reliance, and those sorts of things.

A vigilante, on the other hand, is someone who *deliberately* wants to take the law into his or her own hands with forethought.



or maybe just threethought. I'm not sure.

[Warkitty]

If I were to purposely go to an area filled with criminals with the sole intent of attacking, killing, maiming, or merely beating and tying up said criminals, that would be vigilantism. Having a weapon of some sort on my person or near to hand and using it to defend myself when someone attacks me while I'm walking out of the grocery store, sitting at home, walking down the street to or from the theater/dinner/date/etc is not vigilantism, it's self defense. It worries me, Grid, that you seem not to understand the difference.

[LimitedRecourse]

To many, just thinking you need to/should/or even COULD carry a gun is proof that you are a "right-wing whacko."

[Deleted]

I just finished reading the book by Massad F. Ayoob called, "In the Gravest Extreme - The Role of the Firearm in Personal Protection". (Thank you, Dr. Goomba.)

Anyone who is considering carrying a firearm should make reading this book one of the FIRST steps they take - even before taking the gun safety class.

Among other things, Ayoob talks about how deep the doodoo can get when you pull that trigger. Think lawyers, judges and trials. It's definitely food for thought. Quite sobering.

[goomba]

and Ayoob teaches also, LFI (lethal force institute) the basic course (LFI-1) is a week long. If I can save the money and take the week off, I'd go in a heartbeat.

[professorx]

The way I see it you are responsible for yourself, your family and your loved ones. You are morally obligated to protect your family and loved ones.

The police have their role, and do their job well, but they cannot be responsible for every individual's safety. Only you are morally obligated to protect yourself and your loved ones.

[nic]

I just want to clear a few things up.

Are Iran morally obligated to have nuclear weapons?

[Justin Thyme]

Jul 21, 2009 12:49:39 GMT -5 nic said:

I just want to clear a few things up.

Are Iran morally obligated to have nuclear weapons?

Iran is a signatory nation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. They have agreed not to pursue nuclear weapons. I would say this would mean that they are morally obligated not to arm themselves with nuclear weapons.

[nic]

So its not about the rights and wrongs of being armed - Its just what the law says?

[LimitedRecourse]

Comparing nations (with vastly different cultures/laws) and people of the same country under pretty much the same rights/laws is poor logic.

[Justin Thyme]

Jul 21, 2009 14:33:39 GMT -5 nic said:

So its not about the rights and wrongs of being armed - Its just what the law says?

Iran is armed, heavily so, just not with nuclear weapons. My comment about the nuclear weapons and the morality of Iran obtaining them relates to another aspect of morality, keeping one's word.

[gridbug]

keeping one's word

Like SDI and breaking the START treaty?

[daworm]

Since when are nukes defensive weapons (despite the claims even our own government has made and still makes)?

The purpose of the second amendment isn't to protect the country from foreign invaders, it is to protect the people from their own government. It was added to legalize just the sort of armed rebellion that gained our independence from England. It is an escape clause in case the great experiment failed. Nobody wants to talk about that, maybe because it sounds so unpatriotic.

That guns are also great for self defense is a fringe benefit.

[nic]

I don't know. I know this isn't the right part of the forum for a debate on gun ownership. So, I'll leave it.

However, with one question. Say I keep in the house, a baseball bat. Am I fulfilling my moral obligation to protect my wife and daughter?

[goomba]

Jul 22, 2009 5:16:50 GMT -5 nic said:

I don't know. I know this isn't the right part of the forum for a debate on gun ownership. So, I'll leave it.

You may discuss here, the debate lounge is for debating,

Jul 22, 2009 5:16:50 GMT -5 nic said:

However, with one question. Say I keep in the house, a baseball bat. Am I fulfilling my moral obligation to protect my wife and daughter?

www.a-human-right.com/


If you would use the base ball bat as a weapon to defend yourself & your family, I would say you are fulfilling your obligation "when" you use it.

but why not use a firearm? it is a very specific weapon, and takes minimal specific training to use effectivly, especially when compared to using a baseball bat. (which IMO takes more training to use effective at close range). Having taking martial arts for several years, it is my opinion that close range hand to hand, or baseball bat is nowhere near as effective as a handgun.

lets say a crazed drugged man enters your home late at night. where is your baseball bat? how large is this intruder? how much time will it take you to get your bat? I can have my firearm in my hand in less than a second and I can then begin to issue verbal commands, with a weapon to back my commands up.

lets see, baseball bat v. handgun..... I would feel (and I do) that I am being neglectful for refusing to have an effective tool in my toolbox. ie: you dont leave the hammer out of the tool box b/c you might hit your thumb one day.

I hope I have explained this well and have not gone off on a tanget on you... and I apologize that the link in the OP is now broken, & i cant get access to it again.