I really appreciate the work you do spotting typos! I'd offer you a free subscription, but subscribing doesn't bring any benefits, so let me know if you have any work you'd like me to promote.
I think this ignores the sort of environmental effect, which I suppose could go either way. What I mean is, in a jurisdiction where self-defense is looked on kindly and excessive force not much of a consideration, persons in general might be less eager to start something, but on the other hand, once they decide to start something they might escalate immediately to more deadly force. But in a jurisdiction where self-defense is just not allowed or judged strictly for excessiveness, potential assailants might be more casual about starting things.
I suppose people have a predisposition on this issue according to their ideology. I would be curious to learn what the predictable effects of the different policies are by allowing people to choose their jurisdiction. It's hard to control for other factors, though, and experiments to gather data are not really the government's style.
I am open to the possibility that an act of violence calls off the rules at least until the violence is definitely stopped. Preemptive self-defense, if that isn’t a paradoxical phrase, seems harder to justify, but maybe not impossible. Are we being unreasonable hoping for bright lines? Bright lines are generally to be preferred, but not always possible to draw.
As to 9: that much of violence is caused by uncontrolled fear and/or desire to minimise risk to oneself or one's side seems obvious to me; including "preemptive" violence.
Good article. I'm totally unsure, however, if we are better to defend ourselves or let them take our lives. I guess most don't agree. Certainly in close quarters, with a knife, or something similar, an argument could possibly be made one was attempting to defend oneself, but as you mention, it might lead to over-reaction even then. But how do you ever defend yourself with a gun? Do you push pause to get your own gun? Do you sense (or hear someone breaking into your house and then confront them)? If someone is shooting at you,is it defending yourself to pull the trigger first? Or do you wait and hope the other misses and then You defend yourself? At what point is self-defense, not offense? Certainly if someone is trying to use a gun, or any weapon, or even their fists, I would feel compelled to defend them by trying to deflect to myself and away from them the action, if I could. But if my action becomes aggressive towards the attacker, am I being defensive, or am I now the aggressor?
All of this, note, can be accomplished with an unloaded firearm, if you're a *sensible* pacifist concerned with self-defense, or with less-than-lethal options available if you prefer, e.g. rubber bullets or rock salt in the 12 gauge.
> shifting into the pubic
Typo.
I really appreciate the work you do spotting typos! I'd offer you a free subscription, but subscribing doesn't bring any benefits, so let me know if you have any work you'd like me to promote.
Crawling on the flaw
I think this ignores the sort of environmental effect, which I suppose could go either way. What I mean is, in a jurisdiction where self-defense is looked on kindly and excessive force not much of a consideration, persons in general might be less eager to start something, but on the other hand, once they decide to start something they might escalate immediately to more deadly force. But in a jurisdiction where self-defense is just not allowed or judged strictly for excessiveness, potential assailants might be more casual about starting things.
I suppose people have a predisposition on this issue according to their ideology. I would be curious to learn what the predictable effects of the different policies are by allowing people to choose their jurisdiction. It's hard to control for other factors, though, and experiments to gather data are not really the government's style.
I am open to the possibility that an act of violence calls off the rules at least until the violence is definitely stopped. Preemptive self-defense, if that isn’t a paradoxical phrase, seems harder to justify, but maybe not impossible. Are we being unreasonable hoping for bright lines? Bright lines are generally to be preferred, but not always possible to draw.
As to 9: that much of violence is caused by uncontrolled fear and/or desire to minimise risk to oneself or one's side seems obvious to me; including "preemptive" violence.
Good article. I'm totally unsure, however, if we are better to defend ourselves or let them take our lives. I guess most don't agree. Certainly in close quarters, with a knife, or something similar, an argument could possibly be made one was attempting to defend oneself, but as you mention, it might lead to over-reaction even then. But how do you ever defend yourself with a gun? Do you push pause to get your own gun? Do you sense (or hear someone breaking into your house and then confront them)? If someone is shooting at you,is it defending yourself to pull the trigger first? Or do you wait and hope the other misses and then You defend yourself? At what point is self-defense, not offense? Certainly if someone is trying to use a gun, or any weapon, or even their fists, I would feel compelled to defend them by trying to deflect to myself and away from them the action, if I could. But if my action becomes aggressive towards the attacker, am I being defensive, or am I now the aggressor?
"But how do you ever defend yourself with a gun?"
1. Show
2. Draw
3. Point
4. Ready, e.g. shuck or thumb the hammer back, safety
So far, so good. A pacifist buddy in Chicago back in the 80s kept a portable tape recorder next to his bed loaded with the sound of racking a shotgun.
A, ah, non-pacifist buddy recommended a warning shot into the ground before getting serious.
All of this, note, can be accomplished with an unloaded firearm, if you're a *sensible* pacifist concerned with self-defense, or with less-than-lethal options available if you prefer, e.g. rubber bullets or rock salt in the 12 gauge.