Imagine The End Of The World

[Stargazer]

Yes, I do think killing someone else is an immoral act. And I don't feel any compunction to go around killing other murderers. I find your statement, "to permit others to murder is to agree to murder." a strangely circular argument. Unfortunately, in the world of today, many nations turn a blind eye to atrocities of murder, rape and pillaging in many of the countries of the world. Right now in Syria and the Gaza strip. I actively work for changes there but I stop well short of agreeing to kill or supplying means to kill.

Deleted my extensive response to this because of bcuzbcuz's subsequent admission of being a pacifist in the strictest sense.

A position I disagree with to a large extreme, but a man must know himself and be himself.

I just hope he is never put in the position of having to bring fists to a gunfight, metaphorically or literally.

Edited November 20, 2012 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

I once fought a man to the ground who tried to hold up a store with a knife, but saw no reason to harm him, only disarm him.

I applied, many years ago, for a police position as a youth worker, but during the training we had to drill in disarming and/or shooting a dangerous criminal, at which point I dropped out of the training. In response to the direct question, "could I shoot a dangerous person?" I had to answer, no.

I refused the draft in 1969 to be sent to Viet Nam. I neither wanted to kill or be killed.

I would hope, should the situation ever arise, that I would have the conviction of my word to stand between a threat and block any threat without applying equal force back.

I own hunting rifles but would never, ever use them against another human being, regardless of the situation.

How would you handle such a scenario?

OK, so you are a conscientious objector and a pacifist. I withdraw my previous post.

[Stargazer]

Thanks for the tips. Acorns were just an illustration as to the caloric value of wild nuts. In general we have white oaks and pin oaks in prevalence here. White oaks aren't so bad at any point but pin oaks aren't very palatable until late winter. Rain and snow have a natural blanching effect. I wasn't planning on a whole exposition on the topic.. just getting the general idea across. I didn't even touch on the viability of eating insects and stuff.

My Northern California Indian ancestors, the Maidu, harvested acorns and used them as their principle source of carbs, protein, and fats. They knew how to prepare them to get rid of the tannins, which was done primarily by grinding them into meal then allowing them to stand in depressions dipped in running streams to leach the bitterness out. A favorite way to enjoy acorns was Acorn Soup.

[volgadon]

When the end of the world comes we all better hope the internet is still working. lol

Wikipedia will finally become authoritative...

[bcuzbcuz]

OK, so you are a conscientious objector and a pacifist. I withdraw my previous post.

Labels, don't you just hate labels?

I'd still like to hear your opinion.

[Lightbearer]

To save your family you state you are ready to kill other humans.

So do I! I would die for my family and if necessary yes I would kill for them too! But not because someone wanted my food. But if they tried to kill, rape or molest my wife or son, I would kill them without a second thought. I believe that God does not require us to lay down and let our enemies kill us without defending ourselves. As noted here:

"And they were doing that which they felt was the duty which they owed to their God; for the Lord had said unto them, and also unto their fathers, that: Inasmuch as ye are not guilty of the first offense, neither the second, ye shall not suffer yourselves to be slain by the hands of your enemies. And again, the Lord has said that: Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed. Therefore for this cause were the Nephites contending with the Lamanites, to defend themselves, and their families, and their lands, their country, and their rights, and their religion." (Book of Mormon | Alma 43:46-47)

No I do not delight in the shedding of blood and consider murder a terrible offence against God and humanity, yet I am not a pacifist, not a "peace at all costs" follower. But as reguarding the OP I do not think it necessary to fight over the last crumb of food, but if my family is attacked by a band of thugs I would fight like a dragon and pray to God for the strength to defend them even unto death. Just as David slew Goliath, or Nephi slew Laban, or the Nephites defended themselves against the aggressions of the Lamanites, I will defend the innocent and not be slain by the wicked without a fight. I will never pick a fight, but I will not be a victim to the demons in the flesh that would destroy me or mine.

[bcuzbcuz]

So do I! I would die for my family and if necessary yes I would kill for them too! But not because someone wanted my food. But if they tried to kill, rape or molest my wife or son, I would kill them without a second thought. I believe that God does not require us to lay down and let our enemies kill us without defending ourselves. As noted here:

No I do not delight in the shedding of blood and consider murder a terrible offence against God and humanity, yet I am not a pacifist, not a "peace at all costs" follower. But as reguarding the OP I do not think it necessary to fight over the last crumb of food, but if my family is attacked by a band of thugs I would fight like a dragon and pray to God for the strength to defend them even unto death. Just as David slew Goliath, or Nephi slew Laban, or the Nephites defended themselves against the aggressions of the Lamanites, I will defend the innocent and not be slain by the wicked without a fight. I will never pick a fight, but I will not be a victim to the demons in the flesh that would destroy me or mine.

I started this OP trying to grasp exactly that which you talk about. It is also the same very topic that is not possible with my brother and sister and their families who live in the US, while I and my family do not. We cannot talk about the issue of self defense because we have already gone over it many times before and find no common ground.

My brother is, IMO, armed to the teeth prepared for that which you describe as "enemies who would kill, rape or molest my wife or son". My brother has a license to carry a weapon, and he keeps another weapon in his vehicle, another in his night table beside his bed, as does his wife, and several other weapons in his house, also available and usable, not for hunting, but for "protection".

My brother and his wife have an "action plan" should anyone break into his house. Their plan involves retreating to the top floor, where they have a heavy door that can be locked and barred and that they can then fend off any intruder with weapons ready for the situation.

My brother has described a situation where a stranger ran toward him while he was filling his car with gas at an all-night gas station. My brother viewed the stranger as a threat, called out "freeze" and put his hand into his jacket where he keeps his weapon. The stranger froze in his tracks, obviously reacting to my brother's threat in the way my brother envisioned, then backed off and went in another direction. My brother did not pull out his weapon but his actions clearly defined his intent and were so interpreted by the stranger.

Recently an almost identical situation happened to me where I live in Europe. I was at an all-night gas station filling my car when a man ran towards me. I watched him approach, run by and continue running to wherever he was running to. I just continued to fill my tank and when through, got in my car and drove away. I only reflected on the situation because of my brother's story. It would not even occur to me that the running man was a threat.

My wife and I have no similar "action plan" as my brother's. Should someone break into our house we just hope they would take whatever they wanted as quickly as possible and then leave. We have discussed such situations only in passing, usually sparked by some film on TV, but without any real substance. I have hunting rifles in the house but they are all locked away with their bolts and bullets stored separately. It would take me half an hour just to find the keys to unlock everything. I am also aware that were I to fire my hunting rifle in the house the bullet could potentially rip through my house and several of the neighbour's houses as well.

So now I come to my question. Do you think that the framework of your thinking, the potential of a threat to 'life and limb' extends the paradigm such that it makes killing another human a "necessity"? And is that threat real or just perceived?

[Calm]

Do you think that the framework of your thinking, the potential of a threat to 'life and limb' extends the paradigm such that it makes killing another human a "necessity"? And is that threat real or just perceived?

In the ward we lived in Canada, the father of one of the young men (a nonmember) who I taught in Cubs was violently killed by a home intruder. One of our best friends in the ward who was a professional painter volunteered to go in and repaint the area where he had been killed before the family came home to the house. He described the walls being heavily splattered by blood all over. Quite horrific. I am not sure they ever actually managed to come back; perhaps just to pack up as the house was sold a short time later.

So while such things are unusual, knowing that they do happen has caused my family to think about what we would do if a home invasion were to occur. So far it has not led us to arm ourselves though.

I do believe there is good reason to protect the innocent from unnecessary suffering where possible, those who take up violence to dominant others who have never harmed them have lost imo the same requirement though I would never encourage imparting harm to another save it is essential to saving the lives of the innocent and weak and those who cannot make the choice for themselves whether or not to sacrifice themselves for another.

Edited November 24, 2012 by calmoriah

[volgadon]

In the ward we lived in Canada, the father of one of the young men (a nonmember) who I taught in Cubs was violently killed by a home intruder. One of our best friends in the ward who was a professional painter volunteered to go in and repaint the area where he had been killed before the family came home to the house. He described the walls being heavily splattered by blood all over. Quite horrific. I am not sure they ever actually managed to come back; perhaps just to pack up as the house was sold a short time later.

So while such things are unusual, knowing that they do happen has caused my family to think about what we would do if a home invasion were to occur. So far it has not led us to arm ourselves though.

I do believe there is good reason to protect the innocent from unnecessary suffering where possible, those who take up violence to dominant others who have never harmed them have lost imo the same requirement though I would never encourage imparting harm to another save it is essential to saving the lives of the innocent and weak and those who cannot make the choice for themselves whether or not to sacrifice themselves for another.

While I'm not paranoid about it, and certainly don't go around stockpiling weapons, the world can be an ugly place. I've It is foolish not to have at least an idea of the options at your disposal. What can be used in defence, where to defend from, etc...

[bcuzbcuz]

While I'm not paranoid about it, and certainly don't go around stockpiling weapons, the world can be an ugly place. I've It is foolish not to have at least an idea of the options at your disposal. What can be used in defence, where to defend from, etc...

But more people die on the highways due to alcohol, do they not?

[Calm]

But more people die on the highways due to alcohol, do they not?

So because people die in other ways including being killed by others through accident, we should just ignore the fact that sometimes people kill others intentionally?

Why not encourage strong penalties for DUIs to lower the likelihood and avoid driving at all possible during the most dangerous times and always be a defensive driver?

Or do you think one shouldn't worry about how others are driving as long as one is driving safely oneself?

I put safety caps on plugs and cabinets, etc. to keep my grandchildren safe in our home, license my dog and make sure everyone gets yearly physicals and dental cleanings as well.

I think it is intelligent to plan ahead for living safely where it is possible in all areas of one's life.

Edited November 24, 2012 by calmoriah

[Bikeemikey]

So because people die in other ways including being killed by others through accident, we should just ignore the fact that sometimes people kill others intentionally?

Why not encourage strong penalties for DUIs to lower the likelihood and avoid driving at all possible during the most dangerous times and always be a defensive driver?

Or do you think one shouldn't worry about how others are driving as long as one is driving safely oneself?

I put safety caps on plugs and cabinets, etc. to keep my grandchildren safe in our home, license my dog and make sure everyone gets yearly physicals and dental cleanings as well.

I think it is intelligent to plan ahead for living safely where it is possible in all areas of one's life.

The concern is when some forms of preparation actually create the issues they are meant to prepare against.

[Calm]

The concern is when some forms of preparation actually create the issues they are meant to prepare against.

Somehow I don't think preparing for the possibility of a home invasion is actually going to cause a home invasion to happen.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I never think of such things too often...now we have all the fanfare as of late concerning 12-21-12 relating to the end of the World...I found out yesterday it is true. Hostess is no longer going to make "Twinkies"...so in short...we're done!!!

Edited November 24, 2012 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[Stargazer]

Labels, don't you just hate labels?

I'd still like to hear your opinion.

Labels are merely descriptors. You expressed your feelings on the matter, and I identified them using well-known terms. There's nothing wrong with this -- all of language is intended to communicate meanings such that the interlocutors have a mutual understanding. And I hope you understand that I used the terms "conscientious objector" and "pacifist" in accordance with their meanings, not as pejoratives.

I don't know if I want to express it. Have you ever said or written something you wish you hadn't expressed in the form you expressed it in? That is what I did, and fifteen minutes later decided I was being too vehement about it. Especially after I read another thing you wrote.

[Stargazer]

Yes, I do think killing someone else is an immoral act. And I don't feel any compunction to go around killing other murderers. I find your statement, "to permit others to murder is to agree to murder." a strangely circular argument. Unfortunately, in the world of today, many nations turn a blind eye to atrocities of murder, rape and pillaging in many of the countries of the world. Right now in Syria and the Gaza strip. I actively work for changes there but I stop well short of agreeing to kill or supplying means to kill.

OK, I am going to answer this, using a modification of my original answer. Yes, I saved it.

How is this circular? Strangely or not? You need to explain, because I don't find it circular at all. If you are capable of stopping a violent crime committed in your presence, but do not, then are you not then an accomplice, at least in some degree?

As to the attitude you express here, namely that you don't feel any compunction to "go around killing other murderers"? What do you do with them, then? Put them in jail, perhaps? But bcuzbcuz, to do this you must pull out a gun or some other deadly weapon and take them into custody under the threat of deadly force. And a threat without intent to follow through is no threat at all -- no criminal would submit to custody without the threat and the belief that the threat would be carried out if submission were not forthcoming. Hence killing or being willing to kill "other murderers" is absolutely required as part of the process of stopping the murderers. And don't tell me that you personally wouldn't do it -- but that you rely upon the law enforcers you have hired to do it -- because if they are your agents, then you are as much as doing it yourself.

The fastidiousness about not agreeing to kill or supplying the means to kill with respect to Syria is utterly self-deceptive. How the heck can you think that working for changes there is going to have any hope of success without violence or the threat of violence to back up the changes? You expecting some miracle of Koom-by-Ya to suddenly break out among Assad and his goons? That is so pathetic I can hardly find words for it. As to Gaza, well, if Hamas decided to stop firing rockets into Israel, the Israelis wouldn't be threatening an invasion to stop them. Unfortunately, it is the stated purpose and reason for existence of Hamas to destroy Israel, and expecting them to give this up is rather identical to asking the organization to self-destruct. What could you possibly offer them in exchange?

[Stargazer]

I started this OP trying to grasp exactly that which you talk about. It is also the same very topic that is not possible with my brother and sister and their families who live in the US, while I and my family do not. We cannot talk about the issue of self defense because we have already gone over it many times before and find no common ground.

In Europe it becomes problematic to defend oneself with deadly force, whether by firearm or some other way. Courts in Great Britain, for example, have convicted burglary victims of felonious assault for physically defending themselves or their property from their burglars. Plus the fact that most European countries (Switzerland being a marked exception) do not permit ordinary citizens to keep arms without difficult-to-obtain permits.

In Europe you're simply forced to assume that nobody will assault you, burgle you, or murder you, and take due care to lock your residence and other property adequately. Common ground doesn't actually have the potential to exist between your brother and you, unless one is discussing pure theory.

My brother is, IMO, armed to the teeth prepared for that which you describe as "enemies who would kill, rape or molest my wife or son". My brother has a license to carry a weapon, and he keeps another weapon in his vehicle, another in his night table beside his bed, as does his wife, and several other weapons in his house, also available and usable, not for hunting, but for "protection".

My brother and his wife have an "action plan" should anyone break into his house. Their plan involves retreating to the top floor, where they have a heavy door that can be locked and barred and that they can then fend off any intruder with weapons ready for the situation.

My brother has described a situation where a stranger ran toward him while he was filling his car with gas at an all-night gas station. My brother viewed the stranger as a threat, called out "freeze" and put his hand into his jacket where he keeps his weapon. The stranger froze in his tracks, obviously reacting to my brother's threat in the way my brother envisioned, then backed off and went in another direction. My brother did not pull out his weapon but his actions clearly defined his intent and were so interpreted by the stranger.

I know your brother's mindset (I also have a concealed carry permit and am well-enough armed), although from your description he is what I would call "hyper-alert". It may or may not be justified in his case, depending upon a lot of factors that you do not describe. Does he live in a high-crime area featuring frequent home-invasions? Such areas do exist in the US. However, in that case your brother should move to a safer area, IMHO. In the incident with the gas station, was he fueling in an area that is known to be unsafe? I'd say that if not, your bro needs to chill out some.

Recently an almost identical situation happened to me where I live in Europe. I was at an all-night gas station filling my car when a man ran towards me. I watched him approach, run by and continue running to wherever he was running to. I just continued to fill my tank and when through, got in my car and drove away. I only reflected on the situation because of my brother's story. It would not even occur to me that the running man was a threat.

I'm sure you felt perfectly safe, and your reaction was completely congruent with the situation. Had the man been drawing a knife or a firearm while approaching you, however, I bet you would have reacted appropriately to the situation.

My wife and I have no similar "action plan" as my brother's. Should someone break into our house we just hope they would take whatever they wanted as quickly as possible and then leave. We have discussed such situations only in passing, usually sparked by some film on TV, but without any real substance. I have hunting rifles in the house but they are all locked away with their bolts and bullets stored separately. It would take me half an hour just to find the keys to unlock everything. I am also aware that were I to fire my hunting rifle in the house the bullet could potentially rip through my house and several of the neighbour's houses as well.

We have no action plan, either. We don't have much they would want to steal, actually, and the highest value item in the house is a rather older 55" LCD TV downstairs. We have no jewellry (beyond a few heirloom pieces of no particular value), don't store large amounts of cash, and our principle "wealth" is in the form of books. Burglars or home invaders would quickly realize that they had hit a "dry hole". Unfortunately, home invaders have been known to "punish" those who failed to possess (or reveal) enough to make the hit worthwhile.

A hunting rifle is far and away the worst thing you could use to defend yourself with -- or at least it might be if you actually had to use it. I can see it now, trying to rack another round into the chamber after your first miss and the bad guy doesn't retreat. You'd be far better off using a shotgun, preferably a pump shotgun with at least a 5 round capacity. If you're concerned with overpenetration, then don't use 00 Buck (although exterior walls in Europe tended in my experience to be made of concrete block or brick, reducing the risk of overpenetration, even with double-ought). Birdshot is sufficiently intimidating, I think. And a shotgun has more "authority" than many other firearms. The name of the game being, of course, intimidation.

The thing is, most people don't REALLY have to worry about this kind of thing. And most people may safely lock their doors and leave it at that. But if you're more conspicuously wealthy than most, or live in a bad area, however, you really ought to pay more attention to it.

And you are right, I would rather be burgled without having to harm another person than have to use deadly force or the threat of it to defend myself. If push came to shove, however, well the bet is off.

So now I come to my question. Do you think that the framework of your thinking, the potential of a threat to 'life and limb' extends the paradigm such that it makes killing another human a "necessity"? And is that threat real or just perceived?

The threat level is not uniform throughout the world. It isn't uniform in any given country. So a general pronouncement is pretty much valueless.

But in the framework of my thinking, God doesn't expect me to stand helpless while a bad guy injures or murders me or my family. The thing is, nobody ever expects to run into this kind of trouble. If they expect it, then they perhaps shouldn't be where they are. But if you are minding your own legal and lawful business, and the unexpected happens, well, the right to self-defense exists, whether you choose to use it or not. It's an individual choice.

[volgadon]

Courts in Great Britain, for example, have convicted burglary victims of felonious assault for physically defending themselves or their property from their burglars.

Funny, I've heard the same about the US.

[volgadon]

But more people die on the highways due to alcohol, do they not?

Of course. One should always exert caution on the roadways. Alcoholism is one of the greatest social evils in the world, IMHO, and I have seen its destructive results.

Of course, what any of this has to do with my point, I don't know.

[bcuzbcuz]

Labels are merely descriptors. You expressed your feelings on the matter, and I identified them using well-known terms. There's nothing wrong with this -- all of language is intended to communicate meanings such that the interlocutors have a mutual understanding. And I hope you understand that I used the terms "conscientious objector" and "pacifist" in accordance with their meanings, not as pejoratives.

I don't know if I want to express it. Have you ever said or written something you wish you hadn't expressed in the form you expressed it in? That is what I did, and fifteen minutes later decided I was being too vehement about it. Especially after I read another thing you wrote.

Yes, I have often, too often, said things that would have been better left unsaid. "If you can't say something nice...." and all that. So i definitely understand why you choose not to say anything more. And I thank you for that.

[Stargazer]

Yes, I have often, too often, said things that would have been better left unsaid. "If you can't say something nice...." and all that. So i definitely understand why you choose not to say anything more. And I thank you for that.

Ah, but you invited me to express it after all, so I let fly some of it into the public aether. I edited it beforehand, so perhaps it won't be as egregious as it was originally.

Sometimes I think I have become the worst version of myself. To paraphrase Joe Fox (in "You've Got Mail!")

[bcuzbcuz]

OK, I am going to answer this, using a modification of my original answer. Yes, I saved it.

How is this circular? Strangely or not? You need to explain, because I don't find it circular at all. If you are capable of stopping a violent crime committed in your presence, but do not, then are you not then an accomplice, at least in some degree?

As to the attitude you express here, namely that you don't feel any compunction to "go around killing other murderers"? What do you do with them, then? Put them in jail, perhaps? But bcuzbcuz, to do this you must pull out a gun or some other deadly weapon and take them into custody under the threat of deadly force. And a threat without intent to follow through is no threat at all -- no criminal would submit to custody without the threat and the belief that the threat would be carried out if submission were not forthcoming. Hence killing or being willing to kill "other murderers" is absolutely required as part of the process of stopping the murderers. And don't tell me that you personally wouldn't do it -- but that you rely upon the law enforcers you have hired to do it -- because if they are your agents, then you are as much as doing it yourself.

The fastidiousness about not agreeing to kill or supplying the means to kill with respect to Syria is utterly self-deceptive. How the heck can you think that working for changes there is going to have any hope of success without violence or the threat of violence to back up the changes? You expecting some miracle of Koom-by-Ya to suddenly break out among Assad and his goons? That is so pathetic I can hardly find words for it. As to Gaza, well, if Hamas decided to stop firing rockets into Israel, the Israelis wouldn't be threatening an invasion to stop them. Unfortunately, it is the stated purpose and reason for existence of Hamas to destroy Israel, and expecting them to give this up is rather identical to asking the organization to self-destruct. What could you possibly offer them in exchange?

I do not agree with your statement that somehow police are my agent, that they kill in my name. I disagree but must admit I don't have a really good argument. First of all, I live in a country where police, the average patrol cop, does not carry a weapon. An officer has to apply (probably in triplicate) and justify why a weapon is considered necessary. Then, should the weapon be fired, an investigation is automatically done to verify that a threat existed and that it was handled properly. Police many times must talk a criminal into submission without using deadly force.

Should a private citizen fire a weapon or even use a knife or blunt object to inflict injury the procedure is quite rigorous to confirm use and legality. As someone else stated, a private citizen can end up worse off than the original crime perpetrator should injury occur. I can find no fault with such laws since a private citizen taking the law into his/her own hands is engaging in criminal activity. Equally so, a police officer who uses force cannot do so without consequence

You interpret my thoughts regarding Syria and the Gaza strip to mean that I think people will suddenly burst out in verses of Koom-by-ya and throw flowers to each other. I'm not that naive. But increased violence, regardless of who does what to whom, is far more tested and far from effective. The former Yugoslavia should be evidence enough that violence doesn't solve the problems and creates the desire for vengeance. It doesn't matter if weapons are given to Israel or Palestine or Assad or the militia that fight against him. Weapons will not solve the problem. If one of the sides ends up powerful enough to bomb the opposition into submission, the peace will only last as long as it takes for the opposition to get back on its feet.

[Nathair/|\]

I do not agree with your statement that somehow police are my agent, that they kill in my name. I disagree but must admit I don't have a really good argument. First of all, I live in a country where police, the average patrol cop, does not carry a weapon. An officer has to apply (probably in triplicate) and justify why a weapon is considered necessary. Then, should the weapon be fired, an investigation is automatically done to verify that a threat existed and that it was handled properly. Police many times must talk a criminal into submission without using deadly force.

Should a private citizen fire a weapon or even use a knife or blunt object to inflict injury the procedure is quite rigorous to confirm use and legality. As someone else stated, a private citizen can end up worse off than the original crime perpetrator should injury occur. I can find no fault with such laws since a private citizen taking the law into his/her own hands is engaging in criminal activity. Equally so, a police officer who uses force cannot do so without consequence

You interpret my thoughts regarding Syria and the Gaza strip to mean that I think people will suddenly burst out in verses of Koom-by-ya and throw flowers to each other. I'm not that naive. But increased violence, regardless of who does what to whom, is far more tested and far from effective. The former Yugoslavia should be evidence enough that violence doesn't solve the problems and creates the desire for vengeance. It doesn't matter if weapons are given to Israel or Palestine or Assad or the militia that fight against him. Weapons will not solve the problem. If one of the sides ends up powerful enough to bomb the opposition into submission, the peace will only last as long as it takes for the opposition to get back on its feet.

Have you ever read Heinlein's Starship Troopers (not the movie, don't watch the movie). You really should.

[Stargazer]

I do not agree with your statement that somehow police are my agent, that they kill in my name. I disagree but must admit I don't have a really good argument.

Your disagreement or agreement is not relevant. It is the basis of civilization that the enforcement of law is generally removed from the individual and delegated to the polity of which the individual is a part. It is part of the "social compact" and you are stuck with it. When they say that the political leaders and their agents are your "public servants" it isn't just a euphemism. They are ultimately your agents.

First of all, I live in a country where police, the average patrol cop, does not carry a weapon. An officer has to apply (probably in triplicate) and justify why a weapon is considered necessary. Then, should the weapon be fired, an investigation is automatically done to verify that a threat existed and that it was handled properly. Police many times must talk a criminal into submission without using deadly force.

Whether the average patrol cop carries a weapon or not is beside the point. The police have firearms at their disposal, when and if they need them. They just keep them locked up at the station. If an officer is faced with a criminal bearing a firearm, and cannot persuade the criminal to give up the deadly force, he or she must call for backup, and given the presence of weapons, that backup will arrive armed. Or else you've got a very foolish system.

Should a private citizen fire a weapon or even use a knife or blunt object to inflict injury the procedure is quite rigorous to confirm use and legality.

You think that also isn't true in the U.S.? Of course they do the same here.

As someone else stated, a private citizen can end up worse off than the original crime perpetrator should injury occur. I can find no fault with such laws since a private citizen taking the law into his/her own hands is engaging in criminal activity. Equally so, a police officer who uses force cannot do so without consequence.

That "someone else" was me. And I was speaking in particular of Great Britain.

The problem with the situation in the UK is that self-defense is no defense. If you are assaulted and are in fear of grievous bodily harm or death, you are nevertheless not justified in defending yourself. I guess they figure that if you can run, then run. If you can't run, then you have no other option but to submit to the violence and whatever outcome the assaulter wishes to dish out. Because defending yourself is "taking the law into your own hands." Darn, you might hurt the guy who's trying to kill you, and that just isn't justiable.

I have no words to describe this heinous legal fiction, that self-defense is out the window and submission to the perpetrator is the word of law.

You used to have the common law in the UK, where the law was in force in all cases, except where necessity dictated otherwise. The common law dictum was that "necessity knows no law". Which means that if, in an emergent situation, recourse to the law (i.e. the police) was not available in a timely manner, then you were justified in taking the law into your own hands. Always of course with the proviso that you were restricted to that application of force which a "reasonable person" would consider not out of line with the perceived threat.

You interpret my thoughts regarding Syria and the Gaza strip to mean that I think people will suddenly burst out in verses of Koom-by-ya and throw flowers to each other. I'm not that naive.

I'm sorry, but you sure seem that naive. When you said you were working towards peace in Syria and Gaza, but not that you send weapons to help the Syrian people to defend themselves against their own government, or to do something to stop Hamas from firing rockets into Israel from Gaza, it sounded so self-contradictory that the only way to describe it was Koom-by-Ya.

But increased violence, regardless of who does what to whom, is far more tested and far from effective. The former Yugoslavia should be evidence enough that violence doesn't solve the problems and creates the desire for vengeance. It doesn't matter if weapons are given to Israel or Palestine or Assad or the militia that fight against him. Weapons will not solve the problem. If one of the sides ends up powerful enough to bomb the opposition into submission, the peace will only last as long as it takes for the opposition to get back on its feet.

The situation in Syria is a lot less complicated than that in Gaza. Violence will ultimately solve the current impasse, and that is not subject to contradiction. Assad has no choice but to fight to retain power. Once he breaks, there will no longer be an opposition for the people to worry about getting back on its feet. He and his supporters will be just as dead as Ghaddafi. It will be game over.

Gaza is a greater puzzle. Israel has no interest in or desire to fighting a war with Gaza, or with Hamas. All Israel wants is for Hamas to stop firing rockets into Israel. They are very easily mollified; stop shooting and they're good to go.

Unfortunately, Hamas has no interest in or desire to let Israel continue to exist. Their stated goal, and they are very open about it, is to destroy Israel as a country, and they are not averse to killing every Jew who lives there, if that's what it takes.

Now, how is Israel supposed to deal with this? Just keep shooting down the rockets and take no further action? Just submit, in other words? Allow them to kill as many Israelis as they can reach? That's their only option? Because Hamas doesn't care how many Gazans die in their cause -- in fact, dead Gazans are a plus! This means more outrage against Israel, and more support for their campaign of terror. Israel can't win, unless somehow Hamas can be made to disappear. Unfortunately, their reason for existence is to kill Israel: there's no compromise possible; there's only temporary ceasefires while they resupply rockets.

And what is your solution to the problem? Besides hoping for Koom-by-Ya?

[Stargazer]

Have you ever read Heinlein's Starship Troopers (not the movie, don't watch the movie). You really should.

The movie's not that bad -- it just should be called "A Socialist Director's Reimagining of Starship Troopers". In itself, it is entertaining, but as a reflection of the book it is a disaster.

bcuzbcuz will not be impressed by Heinlein. Everything he has written here is antithetical to everything that Heinlein ever wrote, including SST. There is no common ground. In fact, if I didn't know better, I'd swear his brother is the resurrected Heinlein.