Firearms

[Saya]

Originally Posted by ionic_angel

Bull. I'm only arguing religion because you decided to go there first, and now that you find that most of them don't support your views - except perhaps your own - you are saying that they don't matter.

My argument is that murder is a legal definition, and that lethal self-defense has been a socially-accepted and approved means of protecting ones' self from harm. Therefore, you have no right (legally) to call someone who defends themself from harm with lethal force a "murderer". That's slander/libel.

If you want to personally consider it morally wrong, fine. Believe so and even say so. But going around stating that other people who follow the mainstream ethics of society are "murderers" is quite a different matter than saying that you don't believe in lethal self-defense.

So because its socially acceptable I have no right to say it and its slander?
Legally I know those people suffer no consequences, but that doesn't make it any less wrong. And anyway I'm Canadian and it is considered wrong here to just shoot someone who entered your house, so when you cross the border morality changes?

And you were the one that wrongly stated that all major religions support shooting shadows in the dark, which I strongly doubt seeing as guns werent even around at Biblical times and any laws (that I think you're making up anyway) like that were more than likely next to archaic laws on how you should stone gay men and adulterers. Where I have a problem with what you are saying is that religious views stood the test of time and are therefore better than any personal views, which I call bull on. I am a religious person but I can't stand anyone who doesn't think for themselves. And most people here I'd say are athiest and would reject your claim to "religion says its okay so its okay".

[PortraitOfSanity]

Originally Posted by ionic_angel

Bull. I'm only arguing religion because you decided to go there first, and now that you find that most of them don't support your views - except perhaps your own - you are saying that they don't matter.

My argument is that murder is a legal definition, and that lethal self-defense has been a socially-accepted and approved means of protecting ones' self from harm. Therefore, you have no right (legally) to call someone who defends themself from harm with lethal force a "murderer". That's slander/libel.

If you want to personally consider it morally wrong, fine. Believe so and even say so. But going around stating that other people who follow the mainstream ethics of society are "murderers" is quite a different matter than saying that you don't believe in lethal self-defense.

You sir, are a fucking idiot.

Good day to you.

[Jonathan]

It isn't so easy as saying "They are in my house at night, so I get to kill them now, no questions asked". In a lot of places, if someone tries to disengage and escape and you pursue the matter, regardless of how they got there, you are now the aggressor. The threat is over, you're not protecting anything anymore.

Furthermore, it can be argued that purchasing a weapon for the purpose of killing anyone who dares break in to your home could be considered as pre-meditated murder. You've already made the decision to kill someone under your set of circumstances. If x, y, and z conditions are met, you're blowing them away. Most places, that is considered first degree murder, and you can be executed for it.

Regardless of your local laws, there is nothing respectable about the sort of mentality that treats lethal force in a flippant manner. Owning and god forbid using a firearm in a life or death situation is a huge responsibility, and based on the last couple posts it doesn't seem to be getting the sort of respect that a measure of such gravity deserves.

[ionic_angel]

Originally Posted by Saya

So because its socially acceptable I have no right to say it and its slander?

Well, yes. If you call someone a "murderer", you can be held liable in a court of law, in many situations. Not that I intend to take anyone to court, mind you, but there is a difference between saying "I believe that to be morally wrong", and "you are a murderer". The first is a statement of morality, the latter of legal guilt.

Originally Posted by Saya

Legally I know those people suffer no consequences, but that doesn't make it any less wrong.

According to you. The problem is that the rest of the people in the United States - which is, I believe, one of the few nations with fairly liberal gun laws and thus the primary target of gun-control propositions - do not believe lethal self-defense to be wrong. Furthermore, although no globe-wide polls have been taken, I think we can safely assume that most people everywhere agree with lethal self-defense, at least based on average law across nations. Therefore, it is only wrong according to you and a few others, and you have no right to impose your morality on the rest of us.

Originally Posted by Saya

And anyway I'm Canadian and it is considered wrong here to just shoot someone who entered your house, so when you cross the border morality changes?

And when you take an airplane ride from the United States to Germany, you lose 1st Amendment protections. So is the right to free speech a legal right or a moral right? It's either determined by society, or by a higher power. From an operational standpoint, yes, it does change. From an moral standpoint, sure, it would be nice to have an absolute set of ethics, but none of us can seem to agree on what that might be. So the majority rules.

And, by the way, lethal self-defense is not justified by someone simply entering your house. It's justified when someone is threatening your life, or you have reason to believe such. Check your criminal code, sections 34-37.

Originally Posted by Saya

And you were the one that wrongly stated that all major religions support shooting shadows in the dark, [...]

I did not say that. You are twisting my words to change my argument into a more easily refuted idea. In other words, a straw man. This is dishonest of you.

Originally Posted by Saya

[...]which I strongly doubt seeing as guns werent even around at Biblical times and any laws (that I think you're making up anyway) like that were more than likely next to archaic laws on how you should stone gay men and adulterers.

First of all, there is no moral difference between lethal self-defense using a gun, and lethal self-defense using a knife, or a baseball bat, or a fist. For example, I have a sword in my apartment, and if someone broke in, I would certainly use it to defend my life, if I felt my life to be in danger. Now, a sword is certainly much more deadly in my hands than a gun would be (I believe), but there is no ethical difference between using it and using a gun. Neither straight pieces of steel nor high-velocity pieces of lead possess any morality of themselves.

Second, I'm not making up any laws. Go read the Pentateuch for yourself if you like. It is a fact that most major religions and quite a few minor ones allow and agree with lethal self-defense. This includes some branches of Buddhism. More on that when I respond to your next statement.

Originally Posted by Saya

Where I have a problem with what you are saying is that religious views stood the test of time and are therefore better than any personal views, which I call bull on. I am a religious person but I can't stand anyone who doesn't think for themselves. And most people here I'd say are athiest and would reject your claim to "religion says its okay so its okay".

You seem to be under the impression that I am arguing from religion. Actually - and I have pointed this out before, perhaps not clearly enough - that I am responding to your arguments from religion. Specifically, you said:

Originally Posted by Saya

No, it isn't. Even hear of turn the other cheek? Do unto others? Thou shalt not murder? Even eye for an eye doesn't suit because unless they guy kills you, you can only hurt them back.

Well if you're not Christian, here's other religions:
Islam: Islam is a little interesting because Mohammad was for "turning the other cheek" until he and his followers where met with violence, then it was condoned, so its conflicted. There is "If you kill a person, it is like you slayed a whole people. If you save a life, its like you saved a whole people." of course there is also the right to bear arms against heathens who are out for your blood, but I don't think a w

Also importantly - and I've stated several times that I am NOT only responding to your arguments in particular, but to the arguments against lethal self-defense as a whole - LiUsAiDh said this:

Originally Posted by LiUsAiDh

Thou shalt not kill.

Shut up.

Now, far be it from me to "inject religion into the discussion", which is apparently some great crime. But it seems to me rather hypocritical to try to argue from the Bible and other major religions that lethal self-defense is morally wrong, and then when you find me pointing out that you are explicitly wrong, to claim that I'm trying to argue solely from religion. In essence, you've done the following:

You: "Lethal self defense is wrong, and those who kill in self-defense are murderers."
Me: "Says who? You don't get to make standards for everyone else. Most of us think it's just fine."
You: "Well, because it's morally wrong, and several religions back me up."
Me: "Well, I agree that religion may have something constructive to say on the topic, and I agree that religion has more veracity than a single individual's viewpoint. But most religions say you are wrong, too."
You: "You're bringing religion into it! Not everyone agrees with your religion! You're an ignorant, brainwashed believer."
Me: "...what?"

Not to mention the fact that you keep twisting the actual argument to try to make mine sound extreme and yours reasonable. There is a difference between self-defense and firing blindly into shadows or shooting a fleeing person, and those differences are recognized both legally and morally by most people. In addition, legal self-defense is not confined to ones' house at night. If someone starts shooting at me in a shopping mall, and I kill him with a slingshot nabbed from the nearest hobby store, I am no more guilty than if I shoot someone who snuck into my bedroom with a knife.

Now, I will summarize things as I see them at this point. Keep in mind that my major focus is on the subject of lethal self-defense, not the relative merits of gun control, which I believe deserves different arguments than most of the ones presented heretofore.

You/others arguing your position stated that killing someone in defense of one's life or loved ones is murder. I disagree.

You state that you arrive at this position from a personal ethical view. I pointed out that, in a secular society, ethics are socially determined. One person does not get to enforce their views legally on another without the consensus of society. And "murder" is a legal term. Therefore, since ethics in a secular society are determined by the majority, the only way you can claim a valid point of view is to appeal to a higher authority than yourself.

You do so by stating religious justifications for your beliefs. I pointed out that the majority of the world's believers and ethical codes also agree with me, from the catholic church to even branches of Buddhism. (And short of God/Brahmin/whoever suddenly appearing to inform us as to which view is correct, we're basically stuck with faith - and that means that we're back where we started - the majority rules, at least in normal/non-dictatorship society.)

You respond to this by stating that personal viewpoints SHOULD trump religion.

Fine.

But why YOUR views? Why not mine, or Xombies, or George Bush's?

There is no reason why we should accept your non-violent views over my violent ones - especially when you consider that adopting those views is probably less safe for most non-criminals than adopting mine. The majority of people are more likely to be victims of violent crime than perpetrators, and this means that lethal self-defense is better for most people than a philosophy of limited defense or non-violence. Unsurprisingly, this is thus the view that most people hold.

You are perfectly free to state that you find lethal self-defense to be wrong. I'm all for freedom of belief. But I'm also free to point out that your arguments for it are fallacious and physically bad for the majority of people, as the amount of people suffering the harm of violence by potential criminals is higher than the amount of people suffering violence from lethal self-defense.

In short, my argument and your argument both agree that human life is valuable. But from there, I argue a pragmatic ethical solution based on harm to the minimum number of people possible, while you argue for an idealistic solution founded on baseless hope.

[ionic_angel]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Furthermore, it can be argued that purchasing a weapon for the purpose of killing anyone who dares break in to your home could be considered as pre-meditated murder. You've already made the decision to kill someone under your set of circumstances. If x, y, and z conditions are met, you're blowing them away. Most places, that is considered first degree murder, and you can be executed for it.

Legally, premeditated murder requires choosing a person, not necessarily a time, weapon, or place, so your reasoning is flawed. Furthermore, you are arguing using incorrect logic. Killing someone threatening your life is considered different, legally and morally, from killing someone who is not. In the case of lethal self-defense, no one is making the attacker put himself in that situation - he is choosing to do so, and the issue of whether or not you bought a weapon explicitly to deal with such a situation is immaterial.

By your logic, Russian soldiers defending themselves in World War 2 were guilty of murder because they accepted weapons with the the idea of killing anyone trying to invade and enslave them.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Regardless of your local laws, there is nothing respectable about the sort of mentality that treats lethal force in a flippant manner. Owning and god forbid using a firearm in a life or death situation is a huge responsibility, and based on the last couple posts it doesn't seem to be getting the sort of respect that a measure of such gravity deserves.

Yes, it is a huge responsibility, but I hardly think I need to intone every forum post with a bowed head and a moment of silence simply because I may one day have to defend myself. Flippancy about the subject may be forgiven if the person is actually serious about the matter in action, and has carefully considered it. But even if they have not, the legitimacy of lethal self-defense is not affected by the flippancy of one or two posters on an obscure forum.

[Saya]

ionic, do you really think that I can't remember this stuff?

To state that killing in self-defense is morally wrong goes against both the legal tenets of the United States and the moral codes of several religions. To advocate allowing harm to others based on your own reluctance to do harm could more easily be considered wrong. To state that someone else is a murderer based on your personal ethics is narcissistic, vain, intolerant, and naive.

This is from your original post, to which I replied, otherwise my post that you quoted wouldn't make sense anyway. You not only brought in religion but said to say killing is murder based on personal ethics is narcisstic, vain, intolerant and naive. YOU said religion backs YOU up, and that judging for personal ethics is not okay at all. And if you really were responding to what Liusaidah said quite a while ago, quote it. We're not going to reread a 17 paged thread every time a new post is put in.

And what cult that claims ties to Buddhism advocates murder? In Buddhism, if one is ever to achieve enlightenment, one must have compassion for all living things. You CANNOT take a life. It is one of the very few things in Buddhism in which there is absolutely no wiggle room. Taking a life ties that life to you forever, it becomes apart of your karma.

And don't back pedal and say that "no one said shoot shadows in the dark." For one, thats what happened in Vlad's case where we said it was murder. He said he saw two dark shapes and shot to kill. Secondly:

Originally Posted by Saya

No. If a person is breaking and entering, it doesn't mean his life is forfeit. No one should die because they want to steal.

And why not? More importantly, who said this is only about stealing? If you see a person ripping the radio out of your car, it is not legal to kill them. At least in the United States, lethal force is authorized almost exclusively in the defense of life and person. If a person enters your house, it constitutes a threat to your person in some states, but that is because a willingness to enter an occupied house entails a willingness to harm its occupants.

You already let it be known that someone entering your house constitutes a threat, and as for killing them, why not?

Why are you saying "I didn't say stuff like that! Stop putting words in my mouth!" Dude, we can read your prior posts.

And as for who decides whats right and whats wrong? Nobody. I don't think truth is that subjective, is it? Its more about stop thinking about clinging to guns and fearing everyone, and seeing other people not as "others" who are dangerous, but just other people. I think thats why America has such a high murder rate, they seem to have a culture of fear.

[Raptor]

My last posts got ignored, and I didn't even mention whether it's right or wrong to kill in self defence.

[ionic_angel]

Originally Posted by Saya

This is from your original post, to which I replied, otherwise my post that you quoted wouldn't make sense anyway. You not only brought in religion but said to say killing is murder based on personal ethics is narcisstic, vain, intolerant and naive. YOU said religion backs YOU up, and that judging for personal ethics is not okay at all. And if you really were responding to what Liusaidah said quite a while ago, quote it. We're not going to reread a 17 paged thread every time a new post is put in.

So, apparently, the validity of my argument is dependent upon my quoting someone for your reading pleasure? I think not. Furthermore, something posted about three pages back is not exactly an ancient text that must be carefully restored and studied.

The fact is that I spared one sentence to deal with the issue of religious views on lethal self-defense. You responded to that with a large amount of text since you thought it would justify your argument. It turned out that it didn't, so you decided to attack me for bringing religion into it.

The fact is that the majority of my argument has remained secular, and you have not been able to refute it or give reasons why it might be invalid.

Originally Posted by Saya

And what cult that claims ties to Buddhism advocates murder? In Buddhism, if one is ever to achieve enlightenment, one must have compassion for all living things. You CANNOT take a life. It is one of the very few things in Buddhism in which there is absolutely no wiggle room. Taking a life ties that life to you forever, it becomes apart of your karma.

Apparently you are unfamiliar with some of the philosophies about ahimsa, such as the thought that there is one level for monks, and another for rulers and householders, etc. I found an interesting discussion here: link

However, let us even agree that Buddhism advocates complete non-violence. Fine. However, as I pointed out before, the majority of the world's religions do not. Are you trying to claim that we should all convert to Buddhist beliefs? Or simply trying to state that we should be forced to conform to Buddhist morality? I think you would be pretty upset if I claimed that the general public should follow Christian morality.

Originally Posted by Saya

And don't back pedal and say that "no one said shoot shadows in the dark." For one, thats what happened in Vlad's case where we said it was murder. He said he saw two dark shapes and shot to kill.

Again, I'm not specifically arguing for Vlad's case. Furthermore, I believe that Vlad is a troll. I'm arguing for the validity of lethal self-defense, which you/your compatriots have already claimed to be murder in any form. Lethal self-defense can take place anywhere a person's life is threatened by another, and is not restricted to the house.

Lastly, if I recall correctly, Vlad stated that he was standing at the top of the stairs and the two figures were rushing him, which is not exactly a "shadows in the dark" situation by any definition. Perhaps he was not able to determine the exact sex, age, race, and name of his assailants, but I think that most people would be of the opinion that having ones' home invaded and then being rushed by a couple of unknown intruders does constitute a threat to life and limb.

Originally Posted by Saya

You already let it be known that someone entering your house constitutes a threat, and as for killing them, why not?

Yes, I did state that someone invading your home is a threat. So did you, implicitly, when you stated that non-lethal force was acceptable in such a situation. Of course, this is in the context of someone unlawfully entering and posing a threat to you. I've already made it clear that lethal self-defense does not allow a person to kill in defense of property, only in defense of human life.

When I say "why not", if I did, in fact, say that, I mean to ask why we should not defend ourselves? Why should a person be forced to accept whatever malevolent intentions another person bears towards them? Your answer is that it is wrong to kill, but fine to allow yourself or others to be killed. I have thus pointed out that your view is in the minority of religion, society, and history, and that you cannot justify any reason other than emotion or faith as to why the rest of us should agree with you.

Originally Posted by Saya

Why are you saying "I didn't say stuff like that! Stop putting words in my mouth!" Dude, we can read your prior posts.

Yeah, we can read my former posts, and they possess a disturbing lack of many of the unreasonable paraphrasings of my position you can find in your posts. So far you've accused me of:

1. Trying to argue solely from religious views
2. Proposing that people be allowed to shoot anyone who enters their home
3. Being in favor of negligent use of a firearm (firing at shadows)
4. Falsely claiming that major religions support point 3

Now I can't find any of that in what I wrote. For the record, I will define my view:

I believe that the use of lethal force to repel or disable an attacker that is posing a threat to the life and limb of another human being is justified, and that if use of said force causes the death of the attacker, that the defender is held guiltless.

Originally Posted by Saya

And as for who decides whats right and whats wrong? Nobody. I don't think truth is that subjective, is it?

Your statement here is contradictory. If no one decides what is right or wrong, then truth IS subjective. If truth is defined by someone, well, all well and good, but humanity can't seem to decide who or what that someone would be, and your particular view of truth is not believed to be the correct one by the majority of people. So why should we accept your version of truth?

Originally Posted by Saya

Its more about stop thinking about clinging to guns and fearing everyone, and seeing other people not as "others" who are dangerous, but just other people. I think thats why America has such a high murder rate, they seem to have a culture of fear.

Well, I certainly can't speak for most Americans, but most of the ones I know simply want to have a good job, eat fairly well, and survive life in relatively good order. America may have a lot of problems, but as a people, they're no worse or better than any other on the globe.

However, whether or not America has a culture of fear is irrelevant to whether lethal self-defense is murder or not. I've not argued anything about America's culture (as to a culture of fear, at any rate) in this thread, and as I pointed out before, guns are not morally wrong in and of themselves. If I defend myself with a knife or club it is no different than with a gun, from a moral standpoint or the expected result, although guns do seem to be less lethal than most bladed weapons.

And I'd be hard pressed to cling to a gun I don't possess.

[Saya]

The reason I made a longer post about your original post on religion because you are incorrect about it. I corrected you, I did not bring it in further or make my entire argument about religion, but also countered that secular personal ethics are just as important. Stop trying to wiggle out of things.

You said Liusaidah brought it up first, so if you're going to talk about it quote it. Otherwise YOU brought it up. And you tried to use it to back up your beliefs, saying that outside of religion and society personal ethics are vain. Also that we should protect "righteous souls".

The reason laymen were able to become soldiers was because it wasn't believed that they would reach enlightenment, and so never took the vow, if you wanted to achieve enlightenment you became a monk, Buddhist scriptures and tales rarely tell of wise laymen. It didn't make it any less wrong, and the monks knew that. And even that paper you linked to mentioned how it failed to confirm to the tenets of ahimsa, confirming that by going to war they were going agaisnt Buddhism. Nice try though. In the West now the population of religious Buddhists are mostly laymen, and most of those laymen do take the vow of ahimsa very seriously.

Before Jonathan posted you were all for killing to defend property because entering a home was a significant threat. The fact that you are denying this now makes me think how very very dishonest you are, or you are a terrible debater, maybe you should take some classes on how to make a point properly and not leave everything to the opponent to decipher.

[Opteron_Man]

Originally Posted by dead_dreams

That made me laugh

LOL! Me to! Ugh ugh ugh ugh!

[ionic_angel]

Originally Posted by Saya

The reason I made a longer post about your original post on religion because you are incorrect about it. I corrected you, I did not bring it in further or make my entire argument about religion, but also countered that secular personal ethics are just as important. Stop trying to wiggle out of things.

Now you are just out and out lying. My quote-unquote "first post" on religion had one sentence related to religion. You turned that into a several-paragraphs dissertation on how I was wrong about religion. I replied by pointing out that most of the world's religions DO allow lethal self-defense, and that we can't just base our decision on its morality solely on Buddhism, which has not kept all if its practitioners from violence, either.

So you see, it's impossible to correct me when I'm NOT WRONG. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam ALL allow for lethal self-defense. Those incorporate the majority of the world's religious people, and many other religions also allow for it.

I'm not trying to wiggle out of things: if you want to debate lethal self-defense on religious grounds, fine. The problem that we are going to have, of course, is that I come from a religious background that says shooting people trying to kill me is fine, and you do not. And there is no reason why people should accept my beliefs over yours, religiously, unless of course, you intend to force them to.

Originally Posted by Saya

You said Liusaidah brought it up first, so if you're going to talk about it quote it. Otherwise YOU brought it up.

I didn't notice you quoting anyone when you posted this post, so should I not be responding to it? Sorry, but I usually assume that most people actually read a thread when responding to it. You know, since people might actually be responding to other people's opinions, and not just posting unrelated lines of text. Seriously, this is a total failure as an argument. Someone else yells "THOU SHALT NOT KILL" and if I say one sentence about it, I'm bringing up religion? Please.

Originally Posted by Saya

And you tried to use it to back up your beliefs, saying that outside of religion and society personal ethics are vain. Also that we should protect "righteous souls".

Well, no, actually I pointed out that they supported my beliefs AFTER you posted your diatribe in response to my one sentence on religion in my first post. Personally, I don't recall saying that ethics were in vain outside of religion, I just stated that they rested on the majority opinion if you aren't getting them from religion. As for "protecting righteous souls", well, you hadn't pointed out that you were a Buddhist yet, so I decided to go with an assumption that you came from a background of one of the three major monotheistic religions. It helped that you seemed knowledgeable enough about this Bible to try to twist it to your own purposes.

Originally Posted by Saya

The reason laymen were able to become soldiers was because it wasn't believed that they would reach enlightenment, and so never took the vow, if you wanted to achieve enlightenment you became a monk, Buddhist scriptures and tales rarely tell of wise laymen. It didn't make it any less wrong, and the monks knew that. And even that paper you linked to mentioned how it failed to confirm to the tenets of ahimsa, confirming that by going to war they were going agaisnt Buddhism. Nice try though. In the West now the population of religious Buddhists are mostly laymen, and most of those laymen do take the vow of ahimsa very seriously.

Uh-huh. I think I pointed out that I'm NOT arguing that Buddhism says killing is fine. I pointed out that they aren't all that CONSISTENT. I also pointed out that it doesn't really matter, since they aren't the majority and most of the rest of humanity disagrees with them.

Originally Posted by Saya

Before Jonathan posted you were all for killing to defend property because entering a home was a significant threat. The fact that you are denying this now makes me think how very very dishonest you are, or you are a terrible debater, maybe you should take some classes on how to make a point properly and not leave everything to the opponent to decipher.

This is just bullshit. From the beginning I used the term "lethal self-defense", which is a very specific term. I responded to Jonathan because I wanted to be very clear that I DO NOT support shooting people who are not a legitimate threat. In fact, well before Jonathan's post, I pointed out that someone stealing from you does NOT justify harming them. I also pointed out that in some states, entering an occupied house was considered intention of harm TO THE PERSONS INSIDE, but I did not say that stealing was a situation where lethal self-defense was necessary. I also did not state that I think a person merely entering a home to steal is a situation where lethal force is reasonable, you just decided to add that on in your head. You are lying.

Now let us examine what I mean by "lethal self defense":

Lethal: liable to cause serious injury or death.
Self: ones' own person, body, being.
Defense: resistance to attack, protection.

So, apparently I'm neither lying nor a terrible debater...you just can't be annoyed to use a dictionary. "Lethal self-defense" is a lethal response to someone attacking your own body, and extends (usually) to a person attacking the body of another. By the very terms I used, I made it clear that the ONLY kind of response I was arguing for was one used to defend ones body from attack.

Your points have pretty much been as follows:

1. Lethal self-defense is murder.
-To which I responded that your statement is only valid to you

2. Lethal self-defense is considered murder by most major religions.
-To which I responded with proof that it is not, and that the majority of religions consider it moral.

3. You argued that morality should not be dictated by legality or the majority of society.
-To which I pointed out that we have nothing else to choose morality from, unless we arbitrarily pick a religion or a person to take our morality from. And that there is no reason to pick your morality over mine.

Now let us examine my argument from the beginning until now, or at least the central points as regarding self-defense.

1. Lethal self-defense is regarded as a right by the majority of human beings.
2. Lethal self-defense is regarded as a right by the majority of religious people.
3. Lethal self-defense is better for the majority of people, as it allows the majority (non-murderers) to protect themselves from the minority (murderers).

Therefore, I affirm that lethal self-defense is not murder and is morally appropriate and right because of the consensus of society, both religious and non-religious.

So far, I have made the case that the only thing you can base your argument against lethal self-defense on is your own beliefs, religious and otherwise. I have also made the case that no one else has any reason to be bound by those, especially when your beliefs could prove harmful to our physical bodies if we follow them and are attacked by someone.

Your response to my arguments has been to argue that I am bringing religion into the argument, that I am lying - without evidence for it, that I support killing people who are not attacking a person (which is clearly false), and that in general I'm a horrible person.

[Saya]

Look, you're just turning this now into "I DIDNT SAY THAT YOU SAID THAT." You said most religions supported it, I presented some evidence that a lot of religions do not, while you have no provided any evidence whatsoever. Never did I base my entire argument around religion, but merely countered your point. You said entering a home is sufficent enough to count as a threat to kill, and now you're taking it back.

Buddhists may have not been consistent, but thats like saying Christians support child **** because priests do it, or Americans condone crime because a lot of them are criminals. However the doctrines and teachings are consistant.

You should have quoted Liusaidah because it was a long time ago she posted that and once again I'm not going to read every single post again and again after someone resurrects the thread, if it was immediately after that post we'd pick up on that or even if it were on the same page, but otherwise, no.

Anyway, if you' so certain that "what the majority of people say is right", and the majority of people here agree that killing is murder, on this board at least you are outnumbered and by your logic we are right.