It was probably unnecessary. Sorry.

-------
There is a ripple effect in all that we do,
what you do touches me, what I do touches you.

---

Yes and I wanted people to explain why they believed. Why do you think it's wrong most of the time?

---

Life is the most sacred thing we have, and to take it without reason is the ultimate theft. I want to say sin, or evil, but I don't believe in those.

FP

-------
I think we are in rats' alley
Where the dead men lost their bones.

---

Quote: from Majo at 5:38 pm on Aug. 15, 2008

---

Quote: from FurryPanther at 8:34 pm on Aug. 15, 2008

---

Circumstantial. Typically wrong, but can be a good thing.

  FP

---

 

 Echoed.  

 For example, the 1966 shooting at the University of Texas at Austin. That guy had to be taken down. Had he not been, he might have kept going until he ran out of ammo.

---

You're missing the message, apparently so has FP. Would you not say that taking down the the guy in Texas was justified because it was NECESSARY, specifically to protect the lives of "innocent" people?

---

I'm missing the message? Psh, you're the one who is confused. My reasoning is right there in my post, in plain English. Maybe you should go back, reread it, and think.

I very clearly stated that HE HAD TO BE TAKEN DOWN OR HE MIGHT HAVE KEPT GOING. How could I make my opinion any clearer that I think killing to protect the lives of innocent people is, at the very least, better than sparing the life of the murderer and, in turn, allowing him to continue killing. I just fucking agreed with the actions of the cop who took him down, what I think is right there.

-------
"Under the hardness of her facade a woman's heart is still beating."

I would choose number two but would use it only as a last resort.  The easiest part is pulling the trigger.  The hard part would be to have then mentality to use the power of killing someone as a very last resort by communicating and reconciling.  

I voted for the third option, but I would probably have phrased it (were it open ended) that I cannot presently conceive of a situation in which taking another human life would be justifiable.

-------
"It is the wrong question to ask, and therefore, as one  might expect, has
no right answer." - Hans von Campenhausen

This is the philosophy of my life.

Pacificism: violence as a necessary evil.  I can at least respect that.  It's the official stance of the Orthodox Church.

-------
"It is the wrong question to ask, and therefore, as one  might expect, has
no right answer." - Hans von Campenhausen

This is the philosophy of my life.

---

It is always wrong, but sometimes it is less wrong than the alternatives.

---

Is there now a scale of wrongness? If something is less wrong, doesn't that make it more right?

-------
Let yourself be enchanted,
You just might break through
To ever ever after

---

Quote: from sophos at 3:01 am on Aug. 18, 2008

---

The true answer will only be found in a kill or be killed situation.

---

In a kill or be killed situation, why does it become right to kill your attacker? By defending your own life aren't you creating two victims?

---