Question I have on the Innocence of a Victim

Status
Not open for further replies.
A gang of 200 guys show up surrounding the home with guns, a lot of them rifles. They then pound down the door to the home you're in. They swarm in.
Click to expand...
Sucks to be you, bunky.

A man defending himself against an illegal intrusion and attack upon his person is 'innocent' of any crime. The person claiming otherwise is simply not thinking much. Either he doesn't understand the concept, or he's sold out to the far left (moonbat) theory of 'passivity is proper in all cases'.

A person defending himself or family may lose claim to martyrdom, but is still not 'guilty' of any wrongdoing.
 
John Rogers,

How this acquaintance put it, if you die in a gun fight, you're not an innocent victim. He said if someone is just killed and doesn't do anything, they die an innocent death, because that's what a true Christian would do. That's what he said and I don't understand how he brought up this conversation.

I don't quite understand and what that has to do with anything? :scrutiny::scrutiny::scrutiny:

If someone attacks me with a gun I don't care what people say, I'm going to fire away. A machine gun might be useful. Oh well, to each his own.
 
He said if someone is just killed and doesn't do anything, they die an innocent death, because that's what a true Christian would do.
Click to expand...

Jesus didn't ask nicely when He cleansed the temple. The Lord taught David's hands to war and his fingers to fight. But that's a futile argument.
 
The original text in the ten commandments isn't "Thou shall not kill" its "Thou shall not murder". Which would imply that according to christian tenets, while you may in fact have to kill (as undesirable as it may be), there is a clear distinction between killing and murdering. Murder being a crime that is done out of a selfish intent (Whether it be profiting in some way, or catering to your own distorted psyche), and killing being taking a life because it has to be done.
 
Well I don't claim to understand it either..

It sounds like the argument is that no self defense is ever justified. The implication here is that a peaceful, law abiding person has less of a right to live than a murderer. It also follows that it is more important for your friend to be able to view one's self as a "true Christian" than to prevent the murderous attacker from continuing to take other innocent lives.

If one wants to believe that it is more important to maintain a course of action that is consistent with a moral code (regardless of whether this is really what it means to be a "true Christian), there should be no objection to that person's choice. But it seems kind of hypocritical to determine that it is more important to maintain one's own state of purity than it is to facilitate a murderer's crimes.

The other objection is the application of this person's belief in what defines a "true Christian" to any and all other people, who may or may not be Christians. Would a Muslim be more or less innocent under the same circumstances? How about an atheist? Why does your friend think that everyone else's innocence or lack thereof requires them to behave according to his ideal of a "true Christian"? Who gave him license to dictate that others should sacrifice their lives for his personal moral standards that are not the law of the land?

The addition of religion to the scenario presents a challenge for further discussion. For any who continue it (I don't think I will), please remember to keep it on the High Road!
 
I don't agree with his logic, but I do happen to agree that you died in a gun fight. Ideology aside, if you are fighting, with a gun, you are in a gun fight. You can paint it as defense, an exercise of your 2A rights, or whatever else, it's still a gunfight.

With the semantics out of the way, let's review your friends basic premise as I understand it:

Going down fighting = "guilty" victim
Going down without a fight = innocent victim.

Assuming that this is the core of his argument, what he obviously skips over in a ill-concieved attempt to bash guns is that your still dead, and are thus a victim regardless of circumstance. It's a bad argument, pure and simple.
 
Moral Equivalence

He's using a "moral equivalence" argument.

Fighting in self defense is morally equivalent to anything else done with fighting, hence equivalent to murder.

The premise is nonsense, the argument is nonsense.

This is not someone with whom you want to have a really close relationship.

The "innocence at all costs" mindset is a dangerous liability, and not one you want riding shotgun in your life.

I won't say he's not salvageable, but I wouldn't make that salvage my mission in life.

When the ship begins taking on water, he's the guy who grabs the solid gold anchor and tries to swim to shore with it, knowing he will drown in the attempt.

Lose the anchor.
 
The best way to illustrate this is to buy two custard pies, one medium one large. Go over to his house and set them down on a table. Both of you pull up a seat.
Proceed thusly:

YOU: Do you note these custard pies, sir?

HIM: Indeed, I see them.

YOU: It is my intent, shortly, to avail myself of the larger of the two pies.

HIM: By all means, do it.

YOU: I will not eat it, sir.

HIM: You will not? Why?

YOU: I intend to reach over this fine table and press the aforementioned pie into your face.

HIM: That is not the act of a gentleman.

YOU: Indeed it is not. However I must advise you of your moral duty NOT to reach for the second pie when you see me availing myself of the first. This most excellent advice stems from my desire to see you retain your innocence in this scuffle. Now, sir, remove your spectacles and put on a game face!
 
Your friend has helplessness confused with innocence. If you are attacked unprovoked and go down fighting, taking a couple with you, it makes you no more "guilty" than someone who hid in a corner and got killed anyway, though perhaps less "guilty" of being a coward. You're not killing for any reason other than just protecting you and yours, anyone who says you're "guilty" of anything else is a moron.

I usually suggest to those I know who have that mindset to actually read what Ghandi actually said on the subject of self defense, as most of them will cite him when questioned about their reasoning.

This is actually one of my pet peeves, truth be told.
 
Last edited:
If in a situation as ridiculous as 200 armed people coming to my house to harm me or mine, or even a single armed person, I KNOW I will have no problem avoiding being a WILLING victim.

I would not even think about my moral superiority, my innocence or guilt. The only thing I would be thinking about is the fact that everybody in my house has their posterior in the deep fryer, and I will be doing everything I can to put out the fire.

If I have to kill somebody to stop them, I will not feel good about it, but I will have a better chance of living with my guilt instead of dying with my innocence. I know I did nothing to bring the violence to my house, and since they brought it to me, I'm a defensive shooter and I will defend. I simply cannot stand by and beg the invaders to stop, they won't. In fact, I would even venture a guess that they would rejoice in making my death a cruel and painful one.
 
The Last Flight On 9-11

On 9-11 the last flight, if indeed the passengers formed a group rushed the cockpit and downed the aircraft with force, killing all on board. Are they now party to terrorism or hero's from stopping the intended target from being hit, killing more people?
As I see it, they were not cowards. I would not expect an armed person to go quietly into the night.
 
Extension of logic.

Let's apply the same logic to another scenario. A woman is accosted by a man with ill intentions. She fights back, and is killed. By his logic, she isn't an innocent victim because she acted violently during the assault. Hogwash. Your friend is an idiot and a fool, you need to get some friends who have a clearer view of the world. Juvenile thinking can be contagious. Seperate yourself.

Oh, and when someone tries to bring up the Holier Than Thou attitude (I happen to be a Christian myself), remind them that Jesus himself is described in the book of Revelation as being astride a war horse, weilding a two edged sword and his clothing soaked in blood. Being good doesn't mean being a pansy.
 
Two words, Straw. Man.

That scenario is so out of whack it isn't funny.

A straw man argument is an imagined scenario, so ridiculous that it would be highly improbable to impossible in real life, created to support one side of an argument.

Key phrase "so ridiculous that it would be highly improbable to impossible in real life"

The argument of your idiot acquaintance is rooted in fallacy, if 200 gangsters were outside of your house then they are there for a reason and regardless someone would phone the police who would consider a mob of 200 to be a danger to the public and respond in kind, expect something on the news about 200 gang members killed in a shootout with the police/National Guard.

All that being said, I'm taking as many of them with me as possible, it really doesn't matter what anyone thinks at this point, only that the number of evil dead outweighs the number of the righteous, and if we can kill em all, then oohrah.

About your acquaintance, rational, logical thinking doesn't work for most of these people, personally I think they are mentally sick and should be committed to an insane asylum. I mean really, what other reason aside from insanity could someone have for thinking like that?
 
A straw man argument is an imagined scenario, so ridiculous that it would be highly improbable to impossible in real life, created to support one side of an argument.
Click to expand...
Actually no a straw man argument is when you twist your opponents position
It is based on misrepresentation not improbability
 
They can talk, talk, talk, they can bicker, bicker, bicker, they can talk they can bicker.....about how you shouldn't be permitted to defend yourself......


But as soon as something happens to them personally, then there tune will change to whine, whine, whine, about how the police and government shouldn't have allowed this to happen to them.

Let me guess....a Democrat :neener::neener::neener:
 
Here is how I would have responded.

You said choosing to defense yourself with a firearm (or it could have been any other weapon) while the assault is occurring is just as bad as choosing to participate in the "gun fight" before the assault on you occurred because you are still participating in the assault against you. For your argument to hold true then the act itself of self defense (regardless of tool used to defend yourself) removes a persons "innocence." So then, would a woman who uses mace, a stun gun, or even a concealed firearms against a guy raping her no longer be an "innocent victim" because she fought back?
 
200 guys with rifles are attacking a suburb house?? :rolleyes: HAHAHAHHAHA!

Only on THR would you get that scenario. I love it. And the funny thing is, there are some guys on this web site who would be prepared to respond to such an attack with a lot more than just a pistol...

"Achtung! Die Russen kommt!" :evil:

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • enemy-at-the-gates-800.jpg
    enemy-at-the-gates-800.jpg
    132.9 KB · Views: 88
200 guys armed with rifles break into your house and start firing thru walls....

The strategy would depend on whether they were air-dropped in and had air and armored support.... Your pistol could be a nice distraction while waiting to kiss your ass bye-bye.
 
Considering the astounding stupidity of this scenario I'll give the dumbest answer I can.

Chances are you are probably guilty.

If 200 people, most of them with rifles, surround your house, and are trying to force their way in they're more than likely cops and they have reason to come get you. Or they have the wrong house.

Either way, you've shot back at cops.
 
I wonder if the original conversation was involving the Waco incident in any way?

In anycase, the situation presented is absurd. Who cares if you're innocent or not? You just got gunned down by 200 people. Innocent victim or righteous defender of liberty, you're still highly ventilated wormfood.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

H
  • Locked
Nation of Victims
2
Replies
49
Views
2K
coelacanth
C
R
  • Locked
  • Poll
Another Poll About Drawing your Firearm
Replies
17
Views
883
Grizzly Adams
G
L
  • Locked
Victim Shoots Robber-VA
2
Replies
30
Views
1K
DelayedReaction
D
P
  • Locked
Guns in the Home
Replies
7
Views
748
akodo
A
R
  • Locked
CCW holders. Would you protect a stranger...
2 3
Replies
70
Views
2K
herohog
herohog
Back
Top