When is the time to kill?

[vern_humphrey]

john doran:

i think cynic’s probably talking about the simple use of depleted uranium munitions by the US in the balkans and iraq during desert storm…

this is a good article that gives an apparently level-headed overview of the whole DU issue:

wise-uranium.org/pdf/dumyths.pdf

I wrote the current manual on dealing with DU as part of a project I did for the US Army Chemical Center.

DU is used two ways, one as a penetrator to defeat heavy armor, and the other as a layer in armor (as in the “Heavy Armor” version of the M1 Abrams tank.)

But to talk about “bombing civilian areas with depleted uranium coated shells” is simply nonsense.

 

[john_doran]

vern humphrey:

I wrote the current manual on dealing with DU as part of a project I did for the US Army Chemical Center.

DU is used two ways, one as a penetrator to defeat heavy armor, and the other as a layer in armor (as in the “Heavy Armor” version of the M1 Abrams tank.)

right.

that’s very cool that you wrote the policy paper.
vern humphrey:

But to talk about “bombing civilian areas with depleted uranium coated shells” is simply nonsense.

agreed.

 

[fix]

john doran:

i totally agree. he is only guilty of murder if he intends to deal the lethal blow.

Yes, double effect.

 

[vern_humphrey]

john doran:

right.

that’s very cool that you wrote the policy paper.

I wrote a manual, not a policy paper.

 

[john_doran]

vern humphrey:

I wrote a manual, not a policy paper.

it’s still very cool.

 

[vern_humphrey]

john doran:

it’s still very cool.

It was a fun project, aimed at assessing the Army’s ability to fight in an NBC (nuclear, biological and chemical) environment, and coming up with solutions and techniques to deal with the problems we uncovered.

 

[cynic]

vern humphrey:

I wrote the current manual on dealing with DU as part of a project I did for the US Army Chemical Center.

DU is used two ways, one as a penetrator to defeat heavy armor, and the other as a layer in armor (as in the “Heavy Armor” version of the M1 Abrams tank.)

But to talk about “bombing civilian areas with depleted uranium coated shells” is simply nonsense.

such amunition is used by tanks (mainly by to penetrate the armor or other tanks I guess), and guided missiles are also supposed to incorparate this stuff. The depleted uranium dust particles get evdrywhere, soil, waterways it’s directly breathed in/ingested… and where has most of the combat taken place - civilian areas. Ok not a direct ‘bombing’ of civilain areas in most cases, bad choice of words, but the effect is the same. Such disregard for (innocent) human life…a small military advantage (as if it’s needed) is used to justify potentially poisoning whole areas… no words for that

 

[vern_humphrey]

cynic:

such amunition is used by tanks (mainly by to penetrate the armor or other tanks I guess), and guided missiles are also supposed to incorparate this stuff. The depleted uranium dust particles get evdrywhere, soil, waterways it’s directly breathed in/ingested…

No. It’s the ash that is the major problem, and there’s very little of that. The primary hazard is heavy-metal poisoning. It’s no worse than lead-based paints and is found inside knocked-out vehicles. Recovery crews are trained to deal with it.

cynic:

and where has most of the combat taken place - civilian areas.

Wrong. Most armored vehicle combat takes place in open areas, not in cities.

cynic:

Ok not a direct ‘bombing’ of civilain areas in most cases, bad choice of words, but the effect is the same. Such disregard for (innocent) human life…a small military advantage (as if it’s needed) is used to justify potentially poisoning whole areas… no words for that

The effect is not the same, and you are smart enough to know it. You also are smart enough to realize that no one is “potentially poisoning whole areas.”

 

[otm]

john doran:

killing isn’t necessarily wrong: it’s intentional killing that is wrong, always and everywhere.

which means that “self-defense” isn’t a get-out-of-jail-free card, either: if i defend my life by intentionally ending the life of my aggressor, then i am still guilty of murder.

Where, prey tell, did you come up with that conclusion? Certainly not from what the Church teaches.

 

[otm]

john doran:

i totally agree. he is only guilty of murder if he intends to deal the lethal blow.

that is not what the quote said.

 

[otm]

Where on earth did you get the idea that we are the ones with the homogeneous population? Not that ‘great melting pot’ myth again, I hope!

USA: white 81.7%, black 12.9%, Asian 4.2%, Amerindian and Alaska native 1%, native Hawaiian and other Pacific islander 0.2% (2003 est.)

New Zealand: European 69.8%, Maori 7.9%, Asian 5.7%, Pacific islander 4.4%, other 0.5%, mixed 7.8%, unspecified 3.8% (2001 census, since which time the Asian component has increased)

Both sets of figures are from the CIA World factbook, not a NZ source.

This, too, does not apply to us. All sudden deaths in New Zealand are investigated as homicides until proven otherwise. “suicide” is only for an individual who kills him-/herself deliberately; “manslaughter” is only for a demonstrably accidental killing. Recently, a 14-year-old on a bridge over a motorway threw an 8kg (3.5 lb) piece of concrete onto the motorway. The concrete went through the windscreen of a car, killing the driver. The teenager has been charged with murder.

It’s simple, really: guns make killing easier; a lack of guns makes killing harder.

It is simple, and yet not so simple. Guns in the hands of an average, law-abiding citizen do not equate with killing; guns in the hands of criminals do.

Guns in the hands of law abaiding citizens have repeatedly resulted in a significant drop in person to person crimes, as the crinminal, aware of concealed weapons laws, is less likely to commit a person to person crime as they believe that the person is likely to be armed and capable of defending themselves; whereas where there are no concealed weapons permits allowed, or very few, the risk is much lower.

It is simplistic to state that the availability of guns in and of itself makes crime more likely. the question that needs to be asked is “available to whom?”

 

[cynic]

vern humphrey:

No. It’s the ash that is the major problem, and there’s very little of that. The primary hazard is heavy-metal poisoning. It’s no worse than lead-based paints and is found inside knocked-out vehicles. Recovery crews are trained to deal with it.

Wrong. Most armored vehicle combat takes place in open areas, not in cities.

The effect is not the same, and you are smart enough to know it. You also are smart enough to realize that no one is “potentially poisoning whole areas.”

then why are military personal encouraged to wear safety gear while handling the material (loading shells)? It is much worse then lead based paints - it is radioactive material, what are you smoking?. Studies done in Kosovo and post Gulf War Iraq have shown large increases in the rates of certain cancers, lukemia, around affected combat zones…

Most armored combat took place in built up areas in Iraq, shells used to blow out buildings with insurgents in them… guided missles used to penetrate multi level buildings and bunkers.

here’s your link though i don’t expect you’ll give it much weight

sundayherald.com/40096

 

[cynic]

otm:

It is simple, and yet not so simple. Guns in the hands of an average, law-abiding citizen do not equate with killing; guns in the hands of criminals do.

Guns in the hands of law abaiding citizens have repeatedly resulted in a significant drop in person to person crimes, as the crinminal, aware of concealed weapons laws, is less likely to commit a person to person crime as they believe that the person is likely to be armed and capable of defending themselves; whereas where there are no concealed weapons permits allowed, or very few, the risk is much lower.

It is simplistic to state that the availability of guns in and of itself makes crime more likely. the question that needs to be asked is “available to whom?”

bahaha the gun lovers have their say. The reason we don’t have as much GUN related crime in New Zealand, is obviousely because we have stricter licensing laws for firearm ownership, particularly handguns and military style semi automatics. Everyone has to have a license, and they have to be safely stored. Big fines if you don’t. That means that less guns get into the hands of criminals through onselling to unlicensed individuals - because that 's a criminal offence (although it still happens of course). I know you Americans love your guns, but I’d rather live somewhere where every joe blow Rambo wannabe can’t just walk into a shop and buy an M16.

 

[vern_humphrey]

cynic:

then why are military personal encouraged to wear safety gear while handling the material (loading shells)?

For the same reason they wear the same safety gear when cleaning out the backstops on small bore ranges.

cynic:

It is much worse then lead based paints - it is radioactive material,

It’s less radioactive than the granite rock used in some park benches.

cynic:

what are you smoking?

That is an insulting remark and I expect an apology.

cynic:

Studies done in Kosovo and post Gulf War Iraq have shown large increases in the rates of certain cancers, lukemia, around affected combat zones…

No, they haven’t – wild CLAIMS have been nade, but not backed up with data.

cynic:

Most armored combat took place in built up areas in Iraq, shells used to blow out buildings with insurgents in them… guided missles used to penetrate multi level buildings and bunkers.

Dead wrong – note you say “shells” and “guided missiles” – not “long rod penetrators.” DU was not used in urban combat.

cynic:

here’s your link though i don’t expect you’ll give it much weight

sundayherald.com/40096

All the weight it deserves – which is not much.

 

[vern_humphrey]

cynic:

bahaha the gun lovers have their say. The reason we don’t have as much GUN related crime in New Zealand, is obviousely because we have stricter licensing laws for firearm ownership, particularly handguns and military style semi automatics. Everyone has to have a license, and they have to be safely stored. Big fines if you don’t. That means that less guns get into the hands of criminals through onselling to unlicensed individuals - because that 's a criminal offence (although it still happens of course). I know you Americans love your guns, but I’d rather live somewhere where every joe blow Rambo wannabe can’t just walk into a shop and buy an M16.

When you stoop to calling names, you’ve lost the argument.

 

[john_doran]

otm:

Where, prey tell, did you come up with that conclusion? Certainly not from what the Church teaches.

the church doesn’t teach moral philosophy.

it’s the only moral position that makes complete sense, and i was first exposed to in a moral philosophy class taught by professor jospeh boyle at st. michael’s college at the university of toronto; it would be difficult to find a more catholic man than joe boyle, i assure you.

for one thing, it’s impossible to give a usefully precise definition of the concept “innocent” that doesn’t devolve into utilitarianism. and utilitarianism involves “doing evil that good may come of it”, which, as you know, is proscribed by paul and the church. similarly, if you take christ’s observation that adultery is committed in the heart, the obvious conclusion is that intention plays a central role in moral reasoning.

 

[john_doran]

cynic:

then why are military personal encouraged to wear safety gear while handling the material (loading shells)? It is much worse then lead based paints - it is radioactive material, what are you smoking?. Studies done in Kosovo and post Gulf War Iraq have shown large increases in the rates of certain cancers, lukemia, around affected combat zones…

Most armored combat took place in built up areas in Iraq, shells used to blow out buildings with insurgents in them… guided missles used to penetrate multi level buildings and bunkers.

you’re off-base with this…

i posted it before, but i’ll post it again - this is a serious, moderate, and unbiased article on the use of DU by the military. you really should read it:

wise-uranium.org/pdf/dumyths.pdf

 

[Anim8]

I’m only online for a short time and there are waaaay to
many posts to read so I am posting this without reading
other people’s posts.

In answer to your question about the shopping mall. I would
shoot him without hesitation, and I would aim for body mass
(the chest/stomach area). The taking of an innocent life is
a mortal sin and is always and absolutly (without exeption)
wrong. But it is acceptable to kill in self defence or in
the defence of others. HOWEVER, you must use proportionate force.

If I come at you with a paper clip it dosent mean
you can blast me away with a tank. If I am using deadly
force against you, then you have every right to use deadly
force to stop me (so long as the foce is proportionate) such
as, if I am using a knife you may use a knife or a gun or
crossbow ect. because you are using deadly force that is
proportunate to my deadly force.

Let me adjust your example, lets say I am in a mall, I find
the gun next to me (because the thief / murderer/ whatever
droped it). He looks at me, I pickup the gun, point it at
center mass, turn off the safety and if he makes a move
towards me or anyone else in the store I will shoot him.
Because his intentions would be harmful and I cannot allow
him to harm another.

That said I also want to point out that if I shoot someone
in the chest it dosen’t nessesarily mean he will die, he can
survive if he gets medical attention (which he would get as
soon as the police and such arrive) depending on where
exactly you hit him and his health ect.

So, is murder (the taking of an innocent persons life)
wrong?
Yes, always, everywhere and without exception.

Is killing wrong?
Generaly, yes. But not always.

 

[Philthy]

Why would you kill one of God’s children? You will be held to account at Judgement!!!

That is not the same as restraining someone who is injurous to others…

Jesus died for ALL of us, how presumptious to slaughter anyone!

To save all the other children of God, DUH. Is that not obvious?

Clearly you don’t have any children of your own.

Im pretty sure I would shoot to eliminate the possibility of others being killed by him fully recognizing that he could be killed in the process (yet hoping he wouldn’t be killed)

Phil

 

[Spyder1jcd]

Let’s consider, for a moment, Isaac Asimov’s Laws of Robotics. As stated in his robot novels they are:

**1. A robot may not harm a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

1. A robot must obey human orders, as long as this does not conflict with the First Law.
2. A robot must preserve its own existence, as long as this does not conflict with the First and Second Laws.

**Now, let’s consider a statement made in Asimov’s novel I, Robot: There is no way to discern between a robot and a good person, because these Laws are basically the moral guidlines of society. A morally good person would not conciously harm another human. Such a person would also, to an extent, try to save a human being in danger. Also, that same person would, again, to an extent, follow orders by superiors, unless these orders were to cause the harm of another human being. And finally, pretty much every human would do what they could to preserve his or her own existence, and a truly good person would abandon this endeavor if someone else’s life was in danger.

So, if you were to use these Laws of Robotics as your moral guidelines, you would find that the only time that you should even consider killing another human being is when an innocent human being is in danger.

But that’s just my :twocents: