NationStates Jolt Archive

What do you think of this quote?

There are causes worth dying for, but none worth killing for. - Albert Camus

What do you think of this quote?

There are causes worth dying for, but none worth killing for. Albert Camus
Its a nice sounding quote but I eat meat a lot and for the cause of my hunger I would probably kill a chicken or something if I had to.

Its a nice sounding quote but I eat meat a lot and for the cause of my hunger I would probably kill a chicken or something if I had to.
Interesting...I never thought of animals...I applied it in my mind only to humans...then again, that isn't really a cause, it it?

Would you kill in the name of a cause? (let's keep it to humans here)

I'd have no reservations about killing someone who is threatening me, my friends, or my family. I don't see the problem with killing someone who plans to kill or rape innocent people. If you think nothing's worth killing for you open yourself up more than most to the possibility of being killed, robbed or raped. There is no dignity in being a pacifist because a violent person can come and abuse you at will.

Interesting...I never thought of animals...I applied it in my mind only to humans...

Hunger...killing animals...yes, I could see it.

How about humans? (not to eat, please) ;)
Well if all the chickens were dead and a hungry human wanted to kill and eat me I would probably be willing to kill for the cause of my self preservation.(although Im not sure I would have the will to live if I knew I definately wasnt getting any chicken)

I'd have no reservations about killing someone who is threatening me, my friends, or my family. I don't see the problem with killing someone who plans to kill or rape innocent people. If you think nothing's worth killing for you open yourself up more than most to the possibility of being killed, robbed or raped. There is no dignity in being a pacifist because a violent person can come and abuse you at will.
Yes, a pacifist is open to violence...but so is everyone. If someone stronger than you plans to kill, rob or rape you, whether you resist or not, you will likely succumb.

The idea of killing someone who plans to kill or rape 'innocent' people (do guilty people count? Or is it okay to kill and rape them...like inmates in a prison?) is a little strange...how are you going to know they are planning such a thing....does merely fantasizing about it, or writing it in a journal merit death?

Would you truly have 'no' reservations? Would you not feel somewhat sickened, even if your actions saved your family from harm? Would you immediately attempt to end the life of someone...and at what level of threat would you do this? Would verbal threats be enough to merit death?

These are somewhat individual cases though...how about in the name of a cause...a movement you belong to...would you kill over ideals? (some sort of 'ism)

I have to disagree with Camus. There are causes worth killing for.

In particular - the cause of defending own's own, or another's, life.

I can speak from personal experience that it is not an easy decission to make - you are deciding that anothers life is less than yours, or that of the person you are defending - it is a judgement call that ever after affects you ( and by extension all those involved and others you may never know )

but sometimes that judgement call has to be made, the fates/life/karma/ circumstance/what have you, leaves you no choice.

My personal code of ethics will not allow an innocent to be harmed, even if it means killing.

dying for a cause makes you a martyr. killing for one makes you a murderer.

chances are whoever you kill wouldn't be someone who is really responsable for whatever you're fighting against anyways.

Yes, a pacifist is open to violence...but so is everyone. If someone stronger than you plans to kill, rob or rape you, whether you resist or not, you will likely succumb.

The idea of killing someone who plans to kill or rape 'innocent' people (do guilty people count? Or is it okay to kill and rape them...like inmates in a prison?) is a little strange...how are you going to know they are planning such a thing....does merely fantasizing about it, or writing it in a journal merit death?

Would you truly have 'no' reservations? Would you not feel somewhat sickened, even if your actions saved your family from harm? Would you immediately attempt to end the life of someone...and at what level of threat would you do this? Would verbal threats be enough to merit death?

These are somewhat individual cases though...how about in the name of a cause...a movement you belong to...would you kill over ideals? (some sort of 'ism)
1 A pacifist is a victim of choice for a criminal. It could even be argued that a pacifist is a victim by choice.
2 For example, I'm in my local mall and some whacko starts shooting at people. I must assume he's killing regular folks rather than thinning the herd at a serial killer convention. If I have my pistol on me, he gets shot.
3 I'm confident that I would have no remorse whatsoever for killing someone who planned to do me, my family, or my friends harm. Verbal threats count if the person has a reputation for following through.

I have to disagree with Camus. There are causes worth killing for.

In particular - the cause of defending own's own, or another's, life.

I can speak from personal experience that it is not an easy decission to make - you are deciding that anothers life is less than yours, or that of the person you are defending - it is a judgement call that ever after affects you ( and by extension all those involved and others you may never know )

but sometimes that judgement call has to be made, the fates/life/karma/ circumstance/what have you, leaves you no choice.

My personal code of ethics will not allow an innocent to be harmed, even if it means killing.

To what extent are you willing to extend your protection of innocents? Does that extend to defending your country from aggression? Does that extend to pre-emptive strikes against nations that MAY or MAY NOT prove a possible threat to your nation? Does that include intervening in genocides? Or do you maintain that protection solely for those people directly in your presence?

(I re-read that and it might sound snarky, but that's not the intent...I really do want to know these things)

What do you think of this quote?

There are causes worth dying for, but none worth killing for. - Albert Camus

I think it's wrong.

dying for a cause makes you a martyr. killing for one makes you a murderer.

chances are whoever you kill wouldn't be someone who is really responsable for whatever you're fighting against anyways.

I agree. When I think of killing for a cause, I look to history to see whether this has ever been effective. It's effectiveness is not proven to any reasonable amount. Those in power will do to those without as they choose.


passive resistance

- a method of nonviolent protest against laws or policies in order to force a change or secure concessions; it is also known as nonviolent resistance and is the main tactic of civil disobedience . Passive resistance typically involves such activities as mass demonstrations, refusal to obey or carry out a law or to pay taxes, the occupation of buildings or the blockade of roads, labor strikes, economic boycotts, and similar activities.

Pacifism does not mean 'being a victim of choice'. Passive resistance is still resistance, and can be more effective than outward violence, as the authorities have no blame to lay in order to justify their own violence against those who resist.

To what extent are you willing to extend your protection of innocents? Does that extend to defending your country from aggression? Does that extend to pre-emptive strikes against nations that MAY or MAY NOT prove a possible threat to your nation? Does that include intervening in genocides? Or do you maintain that protection solely for those people directly in your presence?

(I re-read that and it might sound snarky, but that's not the intent...I really do want to know these things)
Yes it includes defending my country. In most cases it doesn't extend to preemptive strikes. A preemptive strike should be attempted only with significant evidence that you are going to be attacked. This evidence was lacking in Iraq. Yes, I think we should intervene in genocides. Even if it only means using airpower to destroy the aggressor's military assets.

I think it's wrong.
In what way exactly?

Yes it includes defending my country. In most cases it doesn't extend to preemptive strikes. A preemptive strike should be attempted only with significant evidence that you are going to be attacked. This evidence was lacking in Iraq. Yes, I think we should intervene in genocides. Even if it only means using airpower to destroy the aggressor's military assets.
Thanks for clarifying your stance. Now...would you kill in the name of your country? If you nation wished to invade another, rightly or wrongly, would you support that? On what would you base your decision to kill for your country's cause? (Assuming you are NOT being threatened by this hypothetical country)

Pacifism does not mean 'being a victim of choice'. Passive resistance is still resistance, and can be more effective than outward violence, as the authorities have no blame to lay in order to justify their own violence against those who resist.
It's a fact that the vast majority of criminals would rather take on a pacifist than someone who will fight back aggressively. This is true even if the criminal knows he will win the fight in the end. Look at the rates of "home invasion" type burglaries. They tend to happen almost exclusively in areas where guns are banned or strictly controlled. Look at the behavior of bullies in schools and in the adult world. They consistently pick on those who won't defend themselves.

Thanks for clarifying your stance. Now...would you kill in the name of your country? If you nation wished to invade another, rightly or wrongly, would you support that? On what would you base your decision to kill for your country's cause? (Assuming you are NOT being threatened by this hypothetical country)
Not if I thought it was invading wrongly. I would base it on whether we're defending ourselves, our allies, or civilians who are being slaughtered with no hope of defending themselves (darfur).

It's a fact that the vast majority of criminals would rather take on a pacifist than someone who will fight back aggressively. This is true even if the criminal knows he will win the fight in the end. Look at the rates of "home invasion" type burglaries. They tend to happen almost exclusively in areas where guns are banned or strictly controlled. Look at the behavior of bullies in schools and in the adult world. They consistently pick on those who won't defend themselves.
I think you are confusing 'weak' or 'scared' with 'pacifist'. Criminals (often)target people who are weak, physically, mentally or socially. A pacifist is someone who does not believe in using violence, though they may be very strong in all the areas I mentioned. It is a conscious choice, not one determined by one's abilities. How can you spot a pacifist? You can no more pick out a pacifist from a crowd than you could a communist or a facist (outside of obvious symbols that identify them as such). Unless the criminal KNOWS his or her victim is a pacifist, that probably won't factor into how the crime is acted out.

When defending yourself or others, can't you incapacitate rather than kill?

What do you think of this quote?

There are causes worth dying for, but none worth killing for. - Albert Camus

I think that any cause we feel passionately about is a cause worth dying for, except often people will kill for their cause, having never had the chance to die for it. They gotta make the headlines somehow...

Not if I thought it was invading wrongly. I would base it on whether we're defending ourselves, our allies, or civilians who are being slaughtered with no hope of defending themselves (darfur).
Ok...so you would make a decision based on the situation. If you decided that the actions of your country were wrong, yet you were expected to kill for that cause, what would you do?

An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth would leave the world blind and toothless.

When defending yourself or others, can't you incapacitate rather than kill?
It puts you at greater risk. I'd rather let my attacker take the risks.

I think this quote is taken a little out of context. Being a witness to the damage done by political groups in and after WWII, I think Camus was talking about "cause" in the sense of "movement," rather than of "motive."

That said, I'm of the opinion that the only just motive is defense of life. Not defense of way of life or lifestyle or property. Going in those direction justifies all sorts of nastiness.

To me, that quote means:

If you truly believe in something, you must be willing to die for that cause. You may have to put your life on the line to defend it. (Not all causes carry the same weight of danger...I believe strongly that cranberry sauce and turkeys should never meet...but I probably wouldn't get shot over that)

If you truly believe in something, you must not FORCE it upon others using violence. Revolutionaries that use violence become terrorists. They lose support because of their actions, or the violence used against them becomes justified. I think it undermines your position as a movement to become violent. To really enact change, you must be better than what you fight...how else can you truly win people to your cause? Use violence, and they may fear you...even obey you....but they will never respect or believe you.

Look at the behavior of bullies in schools and in the adult world. They consistently pick on those who won't defend themselves.
bullies pick on kids who give a reaction. if you don't do anything to respond, they get bored.

and you're making this about something other than actual causes to fight for and more about bashing people you don't agree with.

Ok...so you would make a decision based on the situation. If you decided that the actions of your country were wrong, yet you were expected to kill for that cause, what would you do?
be a conscientious (sp?) objector.

bullies pick on kids who give a reaction. if you don't do anything to respond, they get bored.
As a teacher...I see this constantly....the kids who get targeted are the ones who react the most to the slightest provocation. Bullies know the buttons to push, do so, and gleefully sit back and watch the victim lose control. People who are more certain of themselves don't make such sport.

be a conscientious (sp?) objector.
Would you desert your army?

bullies pick on kids who give a reaction. if you don't do anything to respond, they get bored.

and you're making this about something other than actual causes to fight for and more about bashing people you don't agree with.
How long has it been since you've been in school? Bullies will persist until they force a reaction. They never seem to pick on the kids who have a reputation for fighting back though.

An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth would leave the world blind and toothless.
Yes, but a life for an eye and a crippling injury for a tooth will discourage aggressors.

Yes, but a life for an eye and a crippling injury for a tooth will discourage aggressors.
Where has that worked?

In any case...we are straying...

Would you desert your army?
I would try to do something that doesn't involve killing the "enemy" in that situation. Perhaps fake being gay if that fails. Apparently they kick you out for that.

If you truly believe in something, you must be willing to die for that cause. You may have to put your life on the line to defend it.
. . .
If you truly believe in something, you must not FORCE it upon others using violence. Revolutionaries that use violence become terrorists. They lose support because of their actions, or the violence used against them becomes justified. I think it undermines your position as a movement to become violent. To really enact change, you must be better than what you fight...how else can you truly win people to your cause? Use violence, and they may fear you...even obey you....but they will never respect or believe you.

I think that's a spot-on read of this quote. It means more than "Nothing's worth killing for."

As a side note, this fear and respect juxtaposition can be seen in contemporary literary works, most notably in Def Jam's Fight for New York, where D Mob and Snoop Dogg demonstrate the inevitable clash between fear and respect in their rumble to control underground fight venues in New York's gritty hip hop scene. (GameSpy says 7/10.)

In what way exactly?

I think one is justified in defending oneself, even if doing so results in the attackers death.

Here is a news article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/4168877.stm

What it doesn't tell you is that the old man then had to worry that after his surgery, he would be prosecuted for using a sword in self-defense! I would not agree with such a prosecution.

Where has that worked?

In any case...we are straying...
Personal experience. Figuratively speaking of course, nobody has ever poked out my eye.

I would try to do something that doesn't involve killing the "enemy" in that situation. Perhaps fake being gay if that fails. Apparently they kick you out for that.
You can't be a conscientious objector by not objecting and just trying to get kicked out. A conscientious objector objects to the action based on their beliefs, religious or otherwise and refuses to take part (usually) in military service. If you don't want to do it, but don't want to get into trouble for not doing it, that just makes you unwilling to face the consequences of your (in)actions.

As a side note, this fear and respect juxtaposition can be seen in contemporary literary works, most notably in Def Jam's Fight for New York, where D Mob and Snoop Dogg demonstrate the inevitable clash between fear and respect in their rumble to control underground fight venues in New York's gritty hip hop scene. (GameSpy says 7/10.)
:D
*gasp*
funny

You can't be a conscientious objector by not objecting and just trying to get kicked out. A conscientious objector objects to the action based on their beliefs, religious or otherwise and refuses to take part (usually) in military service. If you don't want to do it, but don't want to get into trouble for not doing it, that just makes you unwilling to face the consequences of your (in)actions.
I would find a way to not fight in the situation you mentioned. That's my answer. There are many possibilities. If I'm not already in the military, I could be a conscientious objector. If I'm already in, then I could work in a hospital, or try to get kicked out. I don't understand why you find this answer unsatisfactory. Oh, by the way, weren't you the person who owed me a sandwich? ;)

Don't worry, didn't sound snarky at all.

To what extent are you willing to extend your protection of innocents? Does that extend to defending your country from aggression? Does that extend to pre-emptive strikes against nations that MAY or MAY NOT prove a possible threat to your nation? Does that include intervening in genocides? Or do you maintain that protection solely for those people directly in your presence?

Yes it does extend to defending my country from agression.. Pre emptive strikes -There is a datum out there called BAD - Best Available Data - Give me the the best and HONEST intellegence available to make the decission on wether to preemptive strike or not - it is one of those things you can't make a blanket call on.

Lets look at North Korea. The types of missiles they have must be kept unfueled. If they started fueling them ( expensive and dangerous, definitley not done on a whim ...but with mr nutcase il jong, hmmmmmm?) I damn well would send ours off first.

One of my biggest gripes with the UN is that they have repeatedly done nothing effective to stop genocides, nothing! Some people will not stop what they are doing, no matter how many times you ask or even 'DEMAND' that they do - sadly all some people recognize is force. And sadly there fore some times force must be used to get people to stop.

No remorse? No not a bit - I was happy that I and those I was protecting were the ones alive.

I can't say if verbal threat would be enough - my experiences were where things had progressed passed that point.

No one who has not been in a similar situation can truly understand the phrase "In fear for your life" - the knowing that if you don't do something you ARE going to die.- and it can not be described, it must be experienced - and I wouldn't wish it on any one.

I'd have no reservations about killing someone who is threatening me, my friends, or my family. I don't see the problem with killing someone who plans to kill or rape innocent people. If you think nothing's worth killing for you open yourself up more than most to the possibility of being killed, robbed or raped. There is no dignity in being a pacifist because a violent person can come and abuse you at will.

I completely DISAGREE. There is more dignity in resisting violence. It is much easier to succumb to your own rage and instinct than to succumb to another's will. Tolerance and self-restraint are signs of personal willpower and strength. If you cannot control yourself, you cannot control your life. It is too easy to succumb to desires.

What do you think of this quote?

There are causes worth dying for, but none worth killing for. - Albert Camus
Not much. There are a number of things far, far worse than death, and far, far better to kill than BE killed.

What do you think of this quote?

There are causes worth dying for, but none worth killing for. - Albert Camus
it depens whether you live life by your ideals and ethics, or whether you believe that rules, beliefs and preconceptions are 'bendable' or ignorable under circumstance.
Societies' norm is that 'killing people is bad and please dont do it". The former type will adhere to this on ethical basis, and hence will be pacifists. The latter will see this as more of a guideline - dont kill people, normally; sometimes its ok (like to protect your family or the innocent).
Hence you have (generally) two opposing opinions.

Me, im the idealist type. Animals are one thing - the food chain always has always existed plus i dont care. with humans i do. family could be the only possible accordance with killing people, but i'm divided.

I would find a way to not fight in the situation you mentioned. That's my answer. There are many possibilities. If I'm not already in the military, I could be a conscientious objector. If I'm already in, then I could work in a hospital, or try to get kicked out. I don't understand why you find this answer unsatisfactory. Oh, by the way, weren't you the person who owed me a sandwich? ;)
Don't start...I thought we were finally having a reasonable conversation for once...

No, my only point here is that a conscientious objector, based on the definition of such either refuses to enter the military, or if forced to through conscription, refuses to fight. I'll accept your description above.

Don't start...I thought we were finally having a reasonable conversation for once...

No, my only point here is that a conscientious objector, based on the definition of such either refuses to enter the military, or if forced to through conscription, refuses to fight. I'll accept your description above.
I tend to get sick of reasonable after lunch and start making jokes.

Bruce Lee preached Pasifism in his movies.

Seriously.

Bruce Lee preached Pasifism in his movies.

Seriously.
I practice the art of fighting without fighting

Killing a few to prevent more being killed? That's logical.

If I met a band of robbers on the road (this is a bad metaphor, I know) who tried to kill someone, I would kill them, simply because that would end the threat they posed to other people.

Killing a few to prevent more being killed? That's logical.

If I met a band of robbers on the road (this is a bad metaphor, I know) who tried to kill someone, I would kill them, simply because that would end the threat they posed to other people.
You're not dealing with the problem...it's like how people deal with their bad eating habits by treating the symptoms caused by these habits rather than eating properly. Killing bandits doesn't deal with the core issue...why are they bandits? Are they simply out for a thrill? Are they being persecuted and have no other recourse but to steal in order to feed their families? Are they being forced to steal (as children are sometimes forced to beg by beggarmasters)? Is food too expensive for the average person to buy, and so some turn to theft? Killing people is not a black and white thing, and it doesn't solve anything. You've removed a symptom, not the disease. More symptoms will soon be felt.

You're not dealing with the problem...it's like how people deal with their bad eating habits by treating the symptoms caused by these habits rather than eating properly. Killing bandits doesn't deal with the core issue...why are they bandits? Are they simply out for a thrill? Are they being persecuted and have no other recourse but to steal in order to feed their families? Are they being forced to steal (as children are sometimes forced to beg by beggarmasters)? Is food too expensive for the average person to buy, and so some turn to theft? Killing people is not a black and white thing, and it doesn't solve anything. You've removed a symptom, not the disease. More symptoms will soon be felt.
There are bandits because they haven't been killed yet. There are too many possible causes to deal with them all. We should deal with the ones that can be more easily solved, like poverty, and use force on the rest when appropriate.

Killing a few to prevent more being killed? That's logical.

If I met a band of robbers on the road (this is a bad metaphor, I know) who tried to kill someone, I would kill them, simply because that would end the threat they posed to other people.

Of course you would kill them. Cause you roll 20s.

You're not dealing with the problem...it's like how people deal with their bad eating habits by treating the symptoms caused by these habits rather than eating properly. Killing bandits doesn't deal with the core issue...why are they bandits? Are they simply out for a thrill? Are they being persecuted and have no other recourse but to steal in order to feed their families? Are they being forced to steal (as children are sometimes forced to beg by beggarmasters)? Is food too expensive for the average person to buy, and so some turn to theft? Killing people is not a black and white thing, and it doesn't solve anything. You've removed a symptom, not the disease. More symptoms will soon be felt.

There will always be bandits, no matter what. You could cure all the world's ills, but there will always be someone who whether by greed or just paranoia thinks others have more than they do. To get what they think they deserve, they will steal.

Condoms arent 100% safe. My friend was wearing one and got hit by a bus.

"Killing bandits doesn't deal with the core issue...why are they bandits?"

They are bandits in part because they are still alive, let's not forget. Kill them, and they cease being bandits, correct?

Condoms arent 100% safe. My friend was wearing one and got hit by a bus.
I'll bet the bus didn't get pregnant though.

Condoms arent 100% safe. My friend was wearing one and got hit by a bus.
As long as he didnt get the bus pregnant, the last thing your friend needs is child support on top of all the medical bills
Edit-dang DC beat me to the punch

Condoms arent 100% safe. My friend was wearing one and got hit by a bus.

Did the bus at least buy him dinner? You know, before it fucked him?

Did the bus at least buy him dinner? You know, before it fucked him?
I heard the bus was pissed cos he had spammed one of the bus' threads with dead baby jokes.

There are bandits because they haven't been killed yet. There are too many possible causes to deal with them all. We should deal with the ones that can be more easily solved, like poverty, and use force on the rest when appropriate.
Good to have you back...killing machine prepared and all!

How is poverty easily solved? What is the solution?

"Killing bandits doesn't deal with the core issue...why are they bandits?"

They are bandits in part because they are still alive, let's not forget. Kill them, and they cease being bandits, correct?
Kill the poor and they stop being poor, correct?

I heard the bus was pissed cos he had spammed one of the bus' threads with dead baby jokes.
Ay Blatant...I didn't think you were in on that too...I hadn't memorized names....I'm crushed. I was getting to like your comments lately. :(

Uh oh...Drunk Commies...is it after lunch for you?

Kill the poor and they stop being poor, correct?
You dont have to kill the poor to stop them being poor, if they are really poor they will starve to death .

You dont have to kill the poor to stop them being poor, if they are really poor they will starve to death .
Hmmmmm....I'm getting out before the degenerates degenerate further....

Ay Blatant...I didn't think you were in on that too...I hadn't memorized names....I'm crushed. I was getting to like your comments lately. :(

Uh oh...Drunk Commies...is it after lunch for you?
Its all done in the name of entertainment never take anything personally from me unless its a compliment ;)

Good to have you back...killing machine prepared and all!

How is poverty easily solved? What is the solution?
Give those able to work jobs that pay a living wage, give those that are unable to work welfare, give those unwilling to work a bullet in the head.

Give those able to work jobs that pay a living wage, give those that are unable to work welfare, give those unwilling to work a bullet in the head.
Why not give those able to work jobs shooting those unwilling to work in the head?

Give those able to work jobs that pay a living wage, give those that are unable to work welfare, give those unwilling to work a bullet in the head.
Wait, wait, wait...I just can't resist this...it seems to go against everything I've heard from you before (except for the bullet in the head thing). GIVE people a job? Pay a living wage? Do you realise what that would entail? A living wage should be able to cover rent, basic food, transportation to and from the job and incidentals (like clothes and such...no nakedness please). YOU support that? And WELFARE? I'm dying of shock here...

But then you just get all weird with the killing lust....I'm not sure what to make of this.

I disagree with that statement. Sometimes peaceful methods do not work, sometimes violence and killing must happen.

I'd kill to protect my rights. I'd try to maim first, but if they kept on coming, I'd kill.

And I'd only kill after having run out of non-violent options.

Why not give those able to work jobs shooting those unwilling to work in the head?
When I get elected I want you to head up the dept. of labor. I like the way you think.

You're all kind of missing the point...this quote doesn't address self defense...it addresses killing for a cause. Killing in the name of (insert belief system here). Do you think that is justified?

Wait, wait, wait...I just can't resist this...it seems to go against everything I've heard from you before (except for the bullet in the head thing). GIVE people a job? Pay a living wage? Do you realise what that would entail? A living wage should be able to cover rent, basic food, transportation to and from the job and incidentals (like clothes and such...no nakedness please). YOU support that? And WELFARE? I'm dying of shock here...

But then you just get all weird with the killing lust....I'm not sure what to make of this.
Yeah, I'm a liberal. I'm just a weird liberal.

Yeah, I'm a liberal. I'm just a weird liberal.
I'll keep that in mind...*slinks away nervously*.....

You're all kind of missing the point...this quote doesn't address self defense...it addresses killing for a cause. Killing in the name of (insert belief system here). Do you think that is justified?

Yes.

It's a fact that the vast majority of criminals would rather take on a pacifist than someone who will fight back aggressively. This is true even if the criminal knows he will win the fight in the end. Look at the rates of "home invasion" type burglaries. They tend to happen almost exclusively in areas where guns are banned or strictly controlled. Look at the behavior of bullies in schools and in the adult world. They consistently pick on those who won't defend themselves.

Drunk commies, where are you getting these stats from? I can find stats on murders, rapes, assault, all that kind of thing, but nothing specific on home invasions.

When it comes to total crimes per capita, the United States, which has fairly lax regulations regarding gun control has more crime than Canada, which has gun regulations plus an outright ban on some kinds of firearms, but less reported crime than the UK, which also has regulations and bans.

It doesn't appear to me to a 'fact' at all that home invasions are more likely to occur where firearms are regulated, at least not from the data I've managed to dredge up - which I admit is not specific to home invasions. But since I can't find home invasion specific data, I'm stuck with what I've got. If you have data that shows otherwise, I'd really appreciate it if you could toss up a link.

Thanks!

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_tot_cri_cap
(note: The stats on this page tend to indicate the populace's willingness to report crime, but I figure that the US, the UK, and Canada should have fairly equal tendencies in this regard. It's not like compaing New Zealand and Zimbabwe for openess, after all.)

Drunk commies, where are you getting these stats from? I can find stats on murders, rapes, assault, all that kind of thing, but nothing specific on home invasions.

When it comes to total crimes per capita, the United States, which has fairly lax regulations regarding gun control has more crime than Canada, which has gun regulations plus an outright ban on some kinds of firearms, but less reported crime than the UK, which also has regulations and bans.

It doesn't appear to me to a 'fact' at all that home invasions are more likely to occur where firearms are regulated, at least not from the data I've managed to dredge up - which I admit is not specific to home invasions. But since I can't find home invasion specific data, I'm stuck with what I've got. If you have data that shows otherwise, I'd really appreciate it if you could toss up a link.

Thanks!

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_tot_cri_cap
(note: The stats on this page tend to indicate the populace's willingness to report crime, but I figure that the US, the UK, and Canada should have fairly equal tendencies in this regard. It's not like compaing New Zealand and Zimbabwe for openess, after all.)
It's been posted in this forum that burglaries while the occupants are at home went up in Australia after guns were banned, and occur more often (per capita) in England than in the USA. Criminals don't want to take the chance they'll be shot.

It's been posted in this forum that burglaries while the occupants are at home went up in Australia after guns were banned, and occur more often (per capita) in England than in the USA. Criminals don't want to take the chance they'll be shot.
Here in North Carolina, all kinds of violent crime dropped, especially "crimes against persons," shortly after NC passed a concealed carry law. Even though most criminals are admittedly rather stupid, even they can understand that the little old lady customer standing by the soft drink dispenser may have a .45 concealed in her coat, and she may just take issue with you trying to rob the place while she's there. :)

You're all kind of missing the point...this quote doesn't address self defense...it addresses killing for a cause. Killing in the name of (insert belief system here). Do you think that is justified?

Yes.
Thank you...you've just justified 911.

So, Eutrusca and Drunk Commies, are you saying that the lower total crimes per capita statistics for Canada versus the US are an anomaly?

If you supported that quote, then the U.S. would probably still be a colony of England.

I would never kill for a cause, though there are a couple I might die for. I would kill in defense of myself or a third person. It's not the same thing. No ideal is worth taking anothers life for. I suppose I must qualify that, because I probably would kill if my country were invaded by a foreign aggressor. But if I came home to a burglar stealing my TV I wouldn't be willing to use lethal force to stop him. I wouldn't kill someone just because they believe differently from me. I will defend myself though. I found that in school, having a truly nasty temper and breaking the nose of one bully put an abrupt stop to any trouble.

Would you kill in the name of a cause? (let's keep it to humans here)
Probably.
I wouldn't really know until I was faced with that.

What definition of "cause" are we using, exactly?
(sorry if somebody's already asked this, I got into the thread late...)

So, Eutrusca and Drunk Commies, are you saying that the lower total crimes per capita statistics for Canada versus the US are an anomaly?
Canada actually has more guns per capita than the USA. It regulates them more strictly, and doesn't allow pistols (I think, not sure on that last part)

Canada actually has more guns per capita than the USA. It regulates them more strictly, and doesn't allow pistols (I think, not sure on that last part)

But you were talking about how house breakins increased where gun regulations and bans took place, not measuring the number of firearms. Canada currently requires registration of all firearms (althought there is a lot of non-compliance). Handguns are not banned, they've just been regulated longer than rifles and shotguns. Assault weapons, automatics, and semi-automatic guns are outright banned (except for the military, of course).

And yes, Canada has a lot of guns, but we don't have conceal carry laws. The average Canadian is not packing when they walk down the street. In fact, gun ownership is concentrated in rural areas in Canada, not our urban areas.

There are causes worth dying for, but none worth killing for. - Albert Camus

There are two things I have to say:

1. It would appear my hunch was right. It would definately appear that Yasuhiro Nightow did borrow heavily on existentialism when he wrote Trigun. This quote, combined with numerous references to free will and self-determination (which were a constant theme yet also more subtle than the not killing part), seems to strongly suggest that.

2. I knew Camus was cool, but I never knew this quote and now he seems even cooler.