Is effective self-defense moral?

I am posting this question, because on many of the gun threads there are those who equate genuine self defense with murder. In many states Mace/Pepper sprays are illegal, even though they are rarely (But in some cases possibly) dangerous. Stun guns, (Not really guns but hand held devices that deliver a powerful electrical shock to the target person.) are also illegal in some states.

When CallerID first came out the ACLU was strongly against it. Even though all it did was tell you who was calling. Before CallerID prankcalls were common, now they are rare.

The RWs have no problem with self defense at any level. I sometimes think they would like to see everybody packing iron on open display.

The laws mentioned above are all liberal states & cities.

So I post the question: Is effective self defense moral?

after I have defended myself.

The most important thing when defending yourself is actually removing the threat from you, not weighing the morality of your actions.

It is better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

if you have responsibilities (family/kids maybe) it would be immoral to NOT try to defend yourself..or more so you kids.

Apparently not

I do not desire thread drift into questions of the policy on Iraq. That opens up a different can of worms. I am talking about strictly personal defense against a personal attacker(s), in an otherwise orderly setting.

if somebody is going to rape your girlfriend you should let them or else Jesus will be mad at you and send you to hell when you die. Geeze what a silly question.

Self evident.

If someone is trying to kill me, I will try to neutralize them, first.

is "over-kill" moral?

or would you say that over-kill is effective defense? and how moral is that?

The sprays are intended to be non-lethal effective defense, but are apposed by some liberals. Could you address that part of the question, please?

the spays, and some other forms of non-lethal forms of self defensse, can, and quite often are, used to perpetrate a crime. Just because you psess Mace, does not mena your intnetions are noble.

As for the rest of your initial post: It is not only moral, it is also legal to defend yourself, family innocent people in the area, and some forms of property. One need not use deadly force in every occasion where force is necessary. Each case must be dealt with quickly and as effectively as possible.

Rarely is there a necessity to use deadly force immediately. I for one, would much rather know WHY someone was trying to do harm, as opposed to just "taking him/her out". Just like when i was in the Army, when I told the Guards that deadly force was authorized, it certainly didn't mean it was the only course of action. We want to know WHY that person was where they should not have been. A leg or butt shot will most likely incapacitate the individual enough for capture. A head shot is a whole different matter, and you better have a DAMN GOOD reason for using it.

:kick:

in defending yourself. Killing someone when you know it is not necessary and claiming self defense is not moral. Using leathal force to defend yourself when you felt it was required at the time is moral even if you were incorrect.

If someone wants to harm you, it is fine to do what you need to do to stop them. That does NOT mean you can shoot someone who is trying to smack you in the head. It DOES mean you can shoot someone trying to do serious harm to you. In this kind of situation, force can be met with equal force.

Now, all of that said, I will not allow a firearm in my house. It is much more likely that the person injured or killed will be someone innocent (like your kids) than someone trying to rob/hurt/kill you.

On edit: typos

It DOES mean you can shoot someone trying to do serious harm to you.

If someone is trying to do serious harm to me, if I have to kill them to stop them I will.

"It is much more likely that the person injured or killed will be someone innocent (like your kids) than someone trying to rob/hurt/kill you."


Please cite the evidence, but be willing for it to be held to extreme scrutiny.

You are considering self defense to mean only those cases where the bad guy gets shot. But if you are able to scare off the bad guy by pointing a gun at him, that is a successfull defensive use by the gun. Of course you don't know what the intruder may or may not have done to yourself/family. Maybe you saved their lives, may just the TV. With the great number of instances of guns scaring off criminals then it is certain that there are childrens live who are saved every year by parents use of guns.

I remember one story of a 6 year old who saved his mother's life with a rifle. His mother was being attacked in the house by an intruder. The kid grabbed a .22 rifle, pointed it at the guy and told him to stop. The gun was unloaded and the kid knew it. The intruder started to move toward the kid. The kid flipped the bolt and offed the safety real quick. The guy stopped, then ran. I don't have a link. The story was in the papers about 20 years ago. Of course he knew how to do that only because he had been taught about gun by his parents.

Self defense is fine, so long as it consists only of the force necessary to escape the threatening situation at hand. What it does NOT mean is, if someone comes at you with a knife and you disarm them, you can then kick them in the head repeatedly.

What it does NOT mean is, if someone comes at you with a knife and you disarm them, you can then kick them in the head repeatedly.

If they continue to attack you after you disarm them, you are right to continue to defend yourself. The chances of them halting their attack midstream because they 'lost' their weapon is slim.

Where someone has used force against another and claims it was in self-defense.

A shooting that is judged to be self-defense might be judged an unlawful assault with just minor changes in circumstances. Every case has to be looked at carefully.

blathering on about "my rights! my rights!" while people are killing each other is reprehensible

If somebody stood on the street corner and preached a message of hate, and some person was inspired by that first person to do violence, who's responsible?

As you try to defend the "rights" to guns, people are going around killing each other....are you responsible for that?

whose actions I am responsible for are mine.

and I even mention the ACLU opposition to CallerID.

At one time crank and obscene calls were common. CallerID empowered the average person to do something about such calls by being able to know who was calling. Such calls are now rare. At the time when CallerID was new, the ACKU bitterly opposed it. It used it as an example because it is the weakest form of self defense I could find.

The responding poster didn't address anything except guns. What about sprays. Why are they oppossed?

Do some of our further left brothers/sisters think that the average citizen should be denied the tools to protect themselves?

Protecting the rights of gun owners and stopping people from killing each other are not mutually exclusive.

If somebody stood on the street corner and preached a message of hate,...

Let's take a concrete example: A gun control fanatic preaching hatred of gun owners, like the threads we see in the J/PS forum almost constantly.

...and some person was inspired by that first person to do violence,...

And after hearing the speech someone punches out a guy wearing an NRA cap...

...who's responsible?

The person who delivers the punch is indisputably responsible.

But if more than one person are driven to beat up NRA members then the hate-speech guy might be charged with incitement to riot. It depends on state and local laws. This is not a black or white issue, other than the fact that the person who commits the actual assault is always responsible.

and I applaud that.
But in the meantime, I have a family and will defend my home.
What is the problem with that?
I'm sorry that people are oout there MISusing guns.
But the guns are merely a means to an end that will still be there, albeit more slowly, no matter the access to a firearm.

Tell me how to fix the people that are wanting to kill each other first, please.

solve the social problems, and there will be no more misuse of guns

If you wait around with your gun hoping that these issues will just sort themselves out, then Q is right...a self-fulfilling prophecy is what you get.

I'd love to have the time to do it myself.
But since the 80's, I've gone from seeing Jello fronting DK, to seeing him turn into a weenie. I've ran my own business. I've started a family.
I don't have enough hours in the day to solve the world's problems.
I have a family, I do what I can, and I will protect that family.

I WILL NOT take the chance with my family. I WILL NOT offer them up as possible martyrs on the alter of utopia.

Cheers

I grew up in bad neighborhood. Never understood guys who let people know they had guns. It's the quickest way to get shot.

99.9% of gun owners broke no firearms laws today!

color me shocked!

TO WELLONG: good! then why are there so many problematic gun issues that are so prevalent today?

Because normally its 99.999999% of gun owners broke no laws.

I was saving key strokes.

They better put there hands up, fall to the floor, and scream don't shoot! Because if they don't, I don't have the luxury of asking him what he's doing.

Often in life we have to come to a conclusion on limited information. When someone breaks into a home the probablity is nearly certain that they intend to do harm to the occupants. They will amost certainly react violently if they are challanged. They won't sit down for a philosophical discussion.

In the laws of my state I don't have to challange an intruder, I can open fire by surprise. However, if I am ever in that situation, I intent, if possible, to challange by saying "Freeze". At the same time I will have a .45 on him, and anything that looks like an attack will draw fire. However, if I see that he is armed, then I won't take the chance and will shoot.

That is a great risk on my part, because I transfer the iniative to him. If he makes a move, I have to interpret the move, decide if it is a threat, make the shoot-no shoot decision, act on the decision. That takes about a half second. That's enough time for him to get off the first shot at me, hence the reason for not challanging him if I see a gun on him.

The law is based on the "reasonable man" concept. What would a reasonable man believe. If an armed stranger breaks into you home, what would you believe were his intentions to you?

If someone breaks into your house, you have no idea what that person plans. If you are lucky, he or she only plans to take your property. However, there is always the possibility that he or she may want to harm or kill you. It would be very foolish to underestimate the potential danger of an intruder. By demonstrating a willingness to let a potential intruder surrender, sgr2 is showing more restraint than many people would.

In 1995, when CallerID technology was new, there were some real concerns.

The first concern was for people who had unlisted numbers. As you know, today callerID does not display certain numbers, which show up as "unavailible" or "out of area." People do have the option to keep their numbers private, but in 1995, it was a concern that needed to be addressed, and I'm glad the ACLU addressed it.

The second problem with caller ID is a real problem. In the ACLU's own words (from February 1995):


Caller-ID with automatic name delivery poses a far greater threat to privacy and safety than Caller-ID with only number delivery, the ACLU-NJ said. With the name and number of the telephone subscriber available immediately, a Caller-ID user could trace a caller's geographic location in a matter of minutes by simply calling directory assistance. This endangers victims of domestic violence, who often have to call their abuser concerning child-related matters. Undercover police officers and informants also risk having their identities inadvertently exposed, undermining criminal investigations and endangering lives. Automatically disclosed names and telephone numbers also threaten confidential relationships between service providers, like health care professionals and attorneys, and their clients and undermine the privacy for which unlisted subscribers pay.

(Source: http://archive.aclu.org/news/n020695.html)

These are legitimate concerns. Some of them have work arounds today, and some of them continue to be a problem.

I am fine with CallerID, use it and like it - however, I also appreciate the ACLU drawing attention to real privacy concerns with the technology, and helping to contribute to some work arounds and solutions that allow for both the use of callerID and options to protect privacy when necessary.

... I would have been more inclined to support their position had it been one of forcing the education of the consumer about how CallerID works, and how it can be disabled on a call-by-call basis and such.

The fact that CallerId can be deleterious in certain circumstances is hardly a reason to ban it when it has benefits in the vast majority of situations. If that logic applied there would be no cars.

from the link above:

The ACLU-NJ's comments are being offered on behalf of the same group of individuals and organizations who challenged Bell Atlantic's introduction of Caller-ID with automatic number delivery two years ago. Through their efforts, this group, which includes the New Jersey Coalition for Battered Women; the Coalition Against Sexual Assault; the New Jersey Veterinary Medical Association, and numerous unlisted telephone line subscribers, reached a settlement in which Bell Atlantic agreed to provide and publicize free per-call blocking of Caller-ID with automatic number delivery by dialing "*67" before making a call.
...
Should Caller-ID with automatic name delivery be approved, the ACLU-NJ contends that the utilities should provide all customers with per-line blocking option free of charge. (Telephones with per-line blocking would not disclose any information to Caller-ID users, regardless of the use of a code.) Additionally, the telephone companies should notify all customers about what information will be disclosed and provide them with full and complete information concerning per-line and per-call blocking options.

So it turns out you DO support the ACLU position :)

"... I would have been more inclined to support their position had it been one of forcing the education of the consumer about how CallerID works, and how it can be disabled on a call-by-call basis and such."

The ACLU agreed with you, if you bother to read the link I posted. You I guess just "assumed" they were trying to ban the technology. And you assumed wrong. If you look at the link I provided, you'll see that.

Just another example of how the ACLU is always and forever being misrepresented by both left and right while continuing to tirelessly defend civil liberties each and every day. :) It's a dirty job, but somoene's got to do it!

Proud member of the ACLU.
Sel

Normally I try not to just repeat what someone else has said, but in this case IrateCitizen said it perfectly.. (well, in most cases IrateCitizen says damn near everything better than me, but I usually don't steal it!)

"Self defense is fine, so long as it consists only of the force necessary to escape the threatening situation at hand. What it does NOT mean is, if someone comes at you with a knife and you disarm them, you can then kick them in the head repeatedly."

someone with a knife?

I don't have voodoo ninja powers myself.
And besides, in my house, where do I "escape" to?

.. if you break into my house I can shoot you, end of story. Frankly, I think guns are unlikely to protect you if someone breaks into your house at night while you sleep, unless you can leave it loaded on the nightstand.

I have kids so that is not an option. However, given the choice of having to wake up, find my gun load it and threaten an intruder, versus just asking them to leave, I'll take the former thank you :)

And while I'd never want to shoot anyone, if it comes down to someone breaking into my house, well sometimes you have to do things you don't like because someone puts you in a no-win situation.

There are child-proof mini safes on the market that can be bolted down just about anywhere. They're about the size of a shoebox, and are specifically designed for rapid access by the owner while keeping curious but unauthorized hands off of your firearm.

"if you break into my house I can shoot you, end of story"

I believe everybody already knows it is LEGAL to kill someone under those circumstances in any state of the union, not just for you big bad asses down in Texas. But is it MORAL.

The answer to that like most such queestions is, "depends". For example, someone breaks into your house, sees you and turns to flee, then you just lost the moral imperative to kill even though you still retain the legal right.

Of course, none of this is what the original poster was asking about anyway. He wants to know why people (he claims they are liberal) oppose non-lethal forms of self-defense such as pepper spray.

Plus possibly breaking a bone or three.

I was jumped by a kid with a switchblade in the seventh grade. Swift kick to the wrist knocked the knife loose and broke the kid's wrist. Effectively stopped. When I was in my early twenties whan I was jumped by a guy with a knife. Unfortunately I was in a bad mood at the time(just walking off a head of steam from an arguement) and was a little overzealous. After disarming him, the fellow kept attacking. I proceeded to put him in the hospital for three months, while I got thirty stiches out of the initial attack. The police let it go as self-defense, but I realized that I overreacted a bit. Its amazing what a hefty load of rage and adrenalin can do. However in a life or death situaltion I'd rather react with too much force rather than too little. If the guy hadn't jumped me, he wouldn't have gone to the hospital. Perhaps he thought twice before committing his next mugging.

"escape" means - get out of the dangerous situation. If the only way to do that is to blow someone's brains out with a gun, fine.

That's the point I'm making - self-defense, any kind, including leathal force, is acceptable when it is the minimum ammount of force necessary to get out of danger.

The example being given, is that it is not okay in a situation where a person breaks into your house, sees you with a gun and tries to flee, and you shoot him in the leg, then walk up to him on the ground and beat him in the head until you crack his skull open and his brains spill out into the driveway... at that point you've crossed the line from "defense" to "offense."

Than DEAD.
And WHO is the arbiter here of what is and is not 'moral"?
What's my pay-off for not violating some "moral injuction' against killing while I'm being killed myself? Remember-I'm an Atheist and do not believe in the fairy stories of "Heaven and Hell"...

Sprays are regulated because they are WEAPONS. Matters not if they're intended for self-defence, they can still be mis-used, just like a baseball bat, tyre-iron or firearm.

If someone is going to hurt or kill me, I have a right to do whatever I can to stop them. Period.

there are no easy answers, only simplistic ones.

The simplistic one is the generally accepted legal one that one can use "appropriate force," or some such language, to defend oneself. The means stopping him from hurting you with the least force possible. This then gets mired down into all sorts of possibilities and exceptions. It does work pretty well when it works.

But, when discussing morality, the first question is just what is the dispute, and why is the attacker's life or limb worth less than your's?

If I am screwing someone's wife, or stole something from him, am I morally justified in defending myself if he wants to beat me up?

If someone with starving children sees killing or beating me, with no dependants, as the only way of feeding his children, what moral justification do I have to defend myself and let his children starve?

Precisely why is my life worth more than my attacker's?

It is easy to pick these questions apart, but here we're talking morality, not law. There may be a difference between self-defense and self-preservation.

Thankfully, for most people this is a no brainer.

To me, almost everybody's life is worth less than mine. If you give me the choice of whether I die, or you die. Sorry, but you're history. My kids lives would be another story, their lives I would value over my own.

Basically, even leaving aside the obvious variation in value that we put on lives relative to our own, every person has a right to life. I would guess that there is near unanimous agreement on that fact. Since you have a right to life there is a corollary right to defend your life. If in the course of defending yourself, you attacker happens to be killed, so be it.

I am the product of billions of years of evolution. All of my ancestory, all the way back to the first life forms that could make a choice, chose to survive, at least until they could pass on their genes & memes. (Some memes are encoded in the genes. We call those instinct.) By now I have a very strong meme that says, "SURVIVE", although it would allow self-sacrifice for my daughter or my wife. I will defend myself.

But lets get philosophical for a moment. Aside from the survival meme, how would I justify self defense? If I am under attack by agressive violence, then the aggressor is acting as a predator and I am his prey. Yes, this is an accurate analogy. In your example of the guy with some starving kids, he acts like the wolf attacking a lamb to feed the pups. Her pups are starving and need food. But if he is allowed to suceed, the his predatory behavior has been rewarded. He will have to repeat the violence soon, on another victim, just as the wolf will soon have to hunt again. He will teach that behavior, will pass on that set of aggressively violent genes & memes, to the next generation, thereby helping society become more violent. By defending effectively against him, his violence is punished. Perhaps he, if he has survived, will try a non-violent means next time. Of couse my violent defense will have been rewarded, but since I come under attack very rarely, only defensive violence gets reinforced. So the genes & memes for peaceful behavior, except when confronted with violence, get passed on.

These stratigies have been gamed out on computers and there is a result. In a population of only wolves and sheep, the wolves eat all the sheep. In a population of wolves and longhorns, (The Longhorns are sucessful defenders.) the wolves die out. In a mixed population, if the wolves can't tell who is who before the attack, the populations flucuate until they cycle about an equilibrium. Therfore, the longhorns help keep the wolves from killing everything.

I live in a very small rural town in Texas, almost all the homes have guns. Our burglary rate is next to zero. Could potential burglars be afraid of something?

If you believe in non-violence under any circumstances, fine.

If you believe in defense against unlawful agressors, forceful defense if necessary, but only in defense, not in retaliation, fine.

What's not acceptable is an extremist attitude of vengeful malicious offense. Going up to an assailant once they have been incapacitated and hacking off all their limbs or beating them to death this a crobar, that's not self defense - that's just second degree murder.

who cares if some think it's not moral.

That also include the tools for (normally) nonlethal defense. Sprays, elctrical stunners, etc. In many locales those items are against the law. Therefore I must conclude that the lawmakers desire the populace have NO means of selfdefense. Why?

to be dependant on them for your saftey and security. I can think of no other reason.

Everytime I have heard of a ban on non-lethal forms of self defense such as pepper spray, it was a ban enacted at the request of local law enforcement. Paranoid rightwingers would have it law enforcement wants the people to remain dependent upon them. A little common sense suggests the reason given by law enforcement need not conceal a sinister secret agenda.

Frankly, they simply don't relish the idea of people whipping it out against them. Even more complicated is the question of how a police officer goes about detaining someone employing pepper spray. The office can not shoot the individual since the individual poses no obvious deadly threat. Nor can he easily close with the individual.

This is not a progressive vs conservative issue. In fact, progressives would likely love to see cops using more non-lethal agencies themselves which would then largely answer the question posed above. So one could argue it is the conservative nature of law enforcement that pushes this issue.

Hmmm....Sarah Brady...long-time registered Republican....Wife of Reagan's press secretary...now a registered "Independent"...pushing an issue that causes great damage to the Democratic party...Hmmmm....are the gun banners REALLY on our side? Or is the simplest explanation that it's just one big fat "false flag" operation by Republican operatives???

I like this summary:
=========================
Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful... Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of own's own life than of another's. - St. Thomas Aquinas
=======================

This is from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. If you're interested in moral discussions, this book is full of items like this and you can get it at Barnes and Noble for fifteen bucks. A good read. To sum it up, respect yourself and defend yourself.

the first instinct of any organism is self-preservation.

we dont live in a pefect world. if someone is trying to kill you, what do you do? let them?

There are those who do not want the citizenery to have any tools of selfdefense. In some locales sprays, etc are outlawed. I was hoping someone of that persuation, who thinks that violence is NEVER appropriate would join the thread.

they are dead. someone attacked them and killed them. they did not put up a fight.

the same person who would natually fight off a shark while swimming or large lion if it attacked would not defend themselves against an attack from a human being?

what the hell is that? a person who would believe that their cause of non-violence allows them to defend themselves against a natural animal predator, but not a human one?

placing this in context, such a person would describe the animal attack as a natural one and would accept that they where working from a different framework of ethical behavior than one would be working from in an attack by a human.

why?

each attack is innately natural in and of itself. humans are animals too.

one can resort to a logic where their ethical behavior prevents harm to another human, or even animal, but a sentient being truly working at such a level of self awareness understands the uniqueness of sentience in the universe and would strive to protect it. even if it was that sentient being itself.

the same fundamental ethical basis and reasoning used to say one will not take a life regardless of circumstance also declares that if one can prevent a life from beng taken such action towards that end is necessary.

those who point to the Buddha and Jesus as examples of non-violence miss the point. both rejected the asceticism that itself rejects the world. both indicated in their teaching that one must participate joyfully in the sorrows of the world. they did not mean one should let human sharks and lions eat them.

If someone tries to hit you you have the moral right to defend yourself by any means.

I would not hesitate to kill anyone that would try to rob or rape me, or just threaten me in any way.

Is that certain people are hell bent are removing that right.

itching for someone to break in so they can blast them to kingdom come. Been waiting so long, haven't ya? Yep. Got that big ole fat shiny defense weapon and just dying to use it.

A gun would do me no good. Of course I live in an urban environment, not somewhere out in the wilderness. If I had a gun in the house, I would have to lock the bullets up apart from where I lock the gun up, meaning that, I'd have no time to use it.

I couldn't keep it loaded because there wouldn't be sufficient cooling off time between being really pissed at somebody and having a gun at the ready. Besides, somebody might find it and ...

For all you people crying about "show me statistics," do you not know that the vast majority of shootings in the US are between people who know each other? That's a fact that's become common knowledge now.

Somebody gets drunk and gets insulted, -- BLAM! and then they're crying at the trial about how they didn't mean to do it.

Somebody finds out his wife got screwed - BLAM! Who could blame you?

I give a pass to people who live in the country or sparsely populated areas. But people in the cities? You don't need a gun.

You don't want to own a gun. OK, I can live with that. Now let's add some clarity to some of you assertations.

People usually know the person who shot them. True. Mob members usually know the hit man that takes them out. Most of the mob guys know each other. Drug dealers & suppliers know each other. Dealers & customers know each other. Pimps & hookers know each other. Gangbangers know each other. Get the idea?

Domestic murders. - Extremely rarely does a member of a family, kill another family member "out of the blue". In every case I have known there has been a history of violence in the relationship and on the part of the killer. You almost never see the loving relationship suddenly turn to murder. So if your a member of your family is a violent prone person, then your household should be gun free. You also need to get out of that relationship.

No Need for selfdefense? Police responce time is several minutes at the best. What do you plan to do until the police get there?

a country and city setting. The only time I have ever used a firearm in self defense (brandished it and the intruder bolted) was when I lived in the city.

In the country, the gun was little needed for self defense. Few people around, and the chance of someone driving way out into the woods to rob a home was minimal. Animals that were indigenous were not threatening. There were bears, but I only saw one in many years.

Now the city was a different story. On the street a concealed weapon was much appreciated, and the chances of a home invasion were greatly increased.