Conference quark::human_relations-v1

        If I were to fight in a war, it would probably for preservation
        of the life style that I like. i.e. Capitalism as opposed to
        communism. Then again if the computer industry gets boring,
        I might just do it for profit. :-)
        
        q
        

    I cannot defend the reasons listed,
    
    I never knew men to give those reasons...my father explained to
    me that he was fighting for freedom. He spent two tours in Viet
    Nam, he didn't come home from the second tour, but I always had
    a good understanding of why he volunteered to return to a country
    where so many lost their lives.
    
    -sunny-

    One reason why it's so criminal to shut down old conferences is that
    we're constantly going over the same ground ie "Are there things worth
    dying for" was the title of a similar topic in SOAPBOX. 
    
    Here goes: I'd place myself in the position of being killed in order to
    defend the life and liberty of others.  As a consequence being in such
    a position I would not waive my right to defend myself. This applies to
    street crime and to organized killing called war. 

    One reason you didn't hear, and won't hear, it probably the most
    likely; "I like it.".
    
    Face it, we're animals, two-footed beasts.  Let's not get too impressed
    with our "civilization"; our economic system(s), our VAXNOTES. I'm
    a bit of an amateur animal behaviorist, and I see nothing about
    the human species that qualifies us as superior to our fellow creatures.
    At least, animals kill mostly for survival.  We do it for sport.
    For that reason I suspect that we must have a common ancestor with
    felines, another vicious killer.
    
    Please don't get me wrong, I believe there is hope.  However, we're
    still in the jungle.  We'd be wise to remember that when trying
    to understand why there are so many horrors in the world today.
    
    
    						Fred

    I must disagree with your assessment, Fred.  We are not nearly so
    close to felines; we are primates.  That means, among other things,
    that we have to be socialized to recognize each other.  Animals
    in which a larger fraction of behavior is "instinctual" or "hard
    wired" automatically do so, and certain behavioral controls on
    intraspecies conflict are keyed to this.  (Most animals that battle
    for territory have some method of signaling defeat, and this signal
    seems to inhibit the winner from further injuring the loser.)
    
    For primates learning is necessary, and always weaker than instinct.
    We know this to be so from the famous experiments involving orphan
    monkeys, who grew to maturity but were, behaviorally speaking,
    hardly monkeys at all.
    
    One aspect of being human is that we can use language to modify
    our perceptions, and that of other humans, without little "real"
    input to justify the change.  For a cat, another cat is always
    recognizable as a cat.  But for we clever primates, another
    primate may be a slime, a snake, a sheep, a wolf, a worm, a
    monster of any kind you can name or invent...and such is the
    nature of our symbolizing capacity, SO SHALL IT BE.  The person
    designated unperson will not evoke any sympathy (which may be a
    faint echo of the former instinctual recognition).
    
    The primate that kills for sport is probably running on a
    script that says this activity is attractive or status-building
    among other primates.  I acknowlege that some may have other
    motives; we cannot fully fathom each others' motives because of
    the degree to which we learn to be human.
    
    Likewise, because we can conceive of the future, we spend a lot
    of time reacting to imaginary threats (Yes, Nicaragua is just
    a scant two-hour drive from the US border!) along with the
    real ones.  Thus humans appear to behave viciously, when in
    fact they are reacting to threats that do not exist in the
    here and now.
    
    I point this out because humans are descended from vegetarian
    apes, which diverged from the carnivores way back.  It is more
    reasonable to attribute our nasty behavior to pride and mob
    psychology (both seen in apes) amplified by language.
    
    Pat Hardy
    

    Your points are very well stated, Pat.  Obviously we are closer
    to primates than felines, but I'm not sure if that makes us more
    likely to be peaceful vegetarians.  After all, look at our incisors,
    and other killing abilities/attributes.
    
    I'm not sure if conditioning plays as major a role as you state.
    I think man's natural instinct is more towards the aggressive than
    the peaceful, much like the baboon.  The world condition seems very
    similar to the experiments done to colonies of mice.  As the population
    gets larger, incidences of hostility and aggressiveness increase
    dramatically.  The mice form gangs(no joke), and engage in other
    forms of aberant behavior.

    Really, I don't even know if the comparisons are valid.  Certainly
    one could argue that we're generally peaceful creatures, or violent
    by nature.  The thing that DOES set us apart from every other living
    creature may be our undoing; we have the unique ability to destroy
    not only ourselves, but the entire planet.  After all, killing is
    a natural phenomenon which has always existed.  It's undesireable,
    but at least it is limited.  Hopefully our self preservation instincts
    will triumph in the long run.

    						Fred

    I don't think I used the word "conditioning" in my response.
    Nor did I deny genetic and instinctual factors, and I certainly
    did not imply that our root nature was that of peaceful
    vegetarians!  (Language is amazing!)
    
    I agree all these terms are of doubtful validity.  It's meaningless
    to say that the mice in the overcrowding studies were agressive,
    or peaceful; the situation just got to them, as it gets to people.
    
    Again, unlike mice, we can sustain reactions to things that do not
    exist in the here and now.  Our "natural" reactions, whatever they
    might be, are being played out in a world we are *making* -- where
    religions that guide our worldview have been founded by terribly abused
    people, and every injustice that ever occured is *still* remembered,
    frozen in myth and song.  I agree that all this bad karma is stressful
    in an animal with teeth and claws, but damn near suicidal for an animal
    with thermonuclear weapons.
    
    By the way, I suspect the baboon's agressive behavior is an
    adaptation to living on the ground with the leopard.  No single
    baboon can defeat a leopard, but four or five can drive the cat
    off.  This is almost certainly the origin of the "gang" in human
    society.
    

    Some of the highest ideals of mankind are epitomized in the words
    "Duty, Honor, Country", the motto of West Point Military Accadamy.
    Why are such ideals needed?  So that some will unshelfishly put
    their lives on the line so that the survivors may retain their "life,
    liberty, and [their] pursuit of happiness."
    
    On this Memorial Day the country has long honored those whose duty
    cost them their lives. 
    
    The phrase "laying down" one's life is a poor euphemism for dying
    in the course of doing your duty. It is nevertheless a phrase that
    should be honored, never demeaned. Many, many have died defending
    the rights that we enjoy today.  Hopefully when we too shall die
    we shall have left the world a bit better and a bit safer place
    for those who follow.
    
    	Rick Merrill
    

    A while back, it was not uncommon for young men in trouble to be
    given a choice of joining the Army or going to jail.  Generalizing
    this a bit, the mind of a young man could conclude that killing
    in a war was positive behavior compared to getting drunk and negative
    behavior compared to getting married.  The minds of younger brothers/
    sisters/cousins/neighbors might conclude that "wastin' gooks" was a rite
    of passage.  I think this attitude is still prevalent in the judiciary,
    and may still be perpetuating the view that killing for your country
    can somehow compensate for social maladjustment.
    
    Disclaimer - I am ABSOLUTELY not suggesting that all/most military service
    is motivated in this way or that military service suggests ANYTHING     
    negative about an individual.
    

      By "A while back" you must be going way, way back. In the U.S. if
    you are convicted of a felony you are not eligible for military
    service. Think back to Arlow Gunthry sitting on the group W bench
    in Alice's Restaurant with all the "mother stabers and father rapers".

    >Generalizing this a bit, the mind of a young man could conclude that
    >killing in a war was positive behavior compared to getting drunk and
    >negative behavior compared to getting married.

      Both joining the military and getting drunk involve the possibility
    of killing someone. In the military there is a chance that it is done
    in self defense. When the English used the practice of drafting people
    from jail into the British Navy, Napoleon and the French Army was a
    real threat to their survival. A lot more Englishmen would have been
    killed if Napoleon had been able to cross the Channel.

      George

re- 4.0 
		Today is my first look at this NOTES file, however not being
shy and having the isolation of the electronic media let's try a response to
one of my HOT BUTTONS.

	<HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO>

	What must I do to provoke you into killing me?( if a policeman kills me
	or a soldier kills me, they are your mercenaries.)

	Statement:	I am unwilling to be taken, I will die before capture.

	For instance:
			will raping your wife and daughter aggravate you enough?
			will stealing all your possesions provoke you?
			will burning your house with your family inside?
			will torturing your mother and sister push you that far?
			will denying your freedom be adequate?

	I assume you are willing to die, therefore I won't ask you if the threat
	of killing you will be enough.

	<END of HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO>

	I strongly believe that nearly every person has a line which when
crossed will spur them into action.  Where that line is drawn varies with the
individual.  For some it takes very little to provoke violent behavior, others
can not be provoked.  You maybe a pacifist to the point where you will not
defend yourself, but will you stand by and watch those who are helpless be
ravaged?

		This is HONOR, this is COUNTRY.

					  There is no glory.

    Why people kill each other:


    "You have what I want."

    People kill each other when killing:
    
    	defends the helpless (children, women, unarmed...)              
    	prevents people from being killed themselves (self-defense...)         
    	seems the appropriate revenge for an emotional situation (cheating...)  
    	increases the killer's sense of power/possession (wars, gangs...)  
    	done by somebody else seems unjust (executions...)                   
	keeps the economy going (wars, alcohol/drug/tobacco industries...)     
        is made to seem reversable,impermanent,funny (cartoons,movies...)
        seems ok to do to animals and other living things...
                                                                        

re: -1,

>    	seems the appropriate revenge for an emotional situation (cheating...)  

	This one caught my eye as being relevant to the "Cheating" note,
    maybe it's time we disscussed what constitutes an "emotional situation"?
    This also relates to my "Well, Burst My Bubble" note, because I have a
    feeling that some network fantasies might be construed as "emotional
    situations" and I'd hate to see the wrong person get this impression
    (i.e. a potentially homocidal sort of sod).
                                                                        
	I guess the only way to really discuss this particular phenomenon
    (i.e. an "emotional situation") is to start up a new note, right?  I'd
    sort-of rather incorporate it into one of our existing notes somehow to
    avoid too much fragmentation, so I'll await the general consensus before
    starting a new note just yet.

								-davo

>    	seems the appropriate revenge for an emotional situation (cheating...)  

	... I suddenly knew
	What a hunted thought quickened his step
	And why he looked upon the garish day
	With such a wistful eye:
	The man had killed the thing he loved,
	And so - he had to die.

	Yet each man kills the thing he loves
	By all let this be heard...
	... The coward does it with a smile,
	The brave man - with a sword.

This is not exactly the way Oscar Wilde wrote it (the Ballad of
Reading Gaol), but it's been over twenty years since I read it
last and memory is no longer what it used to be...

For the interested: dear old Oscar devoted a good 100 pages (or
so), trying to explain how the "appropriate revenge for an
emotional situation" led a man to "kill the thing he loved".
Not very convincing, but very well expressed.

-- Ron

The "humans are animals" argument overlooks the trend that animals do
 not generally kill their peers.  They may fight and injure each other,
  but a fight to the death among adult members of the same species is
   quite rare.

One of the things that differentiates humans from other animals is that
 we learn practically everything we know; we aren't born with many in-
  stincts.  To the point, we aren't born with a predisposition to kill.

Killing is a complex action.  It takes a lot to kill somebody!  We
 have to learn how to do it.

While it's a complex action, it seems to be a simple solution.  The
 motive for killing is almost always a conflict of wills.  Killing is
  a very simple approach to resolving the conflict:  eliminate the
   other's will!

Why do humans kill?  Because most of the ones in power don't know other
 means of conflict resolution.  Nonviolent conflict resolution is com-
  plex and detailed, and most of us aren't even adequate at the first
   step (communication).
    <_Jym_>

    re:. 19	Killing is simple
    
    I don't think people kill people because they want to.  People kill
    targets because it is socially desirable behavior.  Understanding
    that the things that are killed are people makes it *VERY* difficult.
    War requires artifice to protect warriors from this reality.  Further,
    discovering that the things that one killed were people leaves one
    in a fundamentally different state than before that discovery. 
    BTW, my exposure to this was 66-68, 5th Spcl Forces Grp, III Corp-RVN
    

RE:.19

Yea, I've been to war, three times; two of which kind of actively.

The good part is, I was never killed. Not even once.

Did I kill anyone? I don't think I killed anyone. But, I don't know.
For instance, one night we kept shooting at things that moved out
there in the dark. There were bodies all over the field in the evening.
There were bodies all over the field in the morning. There was shooting
all through the night. No one counted bodies either before or after. I
have no idea whether I killed anyone.

Which brings me to the real answer. In war, killing is different.
It's different morally - the guy out there is after you, better get
him first, in self defense. It's different psychologically - it's
not a crime, it's positively patriotic. Even the implemetation is
unlike the civilian variety - you do it in the open and you are not 
ashamed (just scared silly).

The subject is "why people kill". Well, in war they kill because so
many miles behind them there are a mother, a wife, two kids. And, if
you don't kill, they will be hurt. So, you do your best to kill.

-- Ron

    Re: .22 Killing in War
    
>    Which brings me to the real answer. In war, killing is different.
>It's different morally - the guy out there is after you, better get
>him first, in self defense. It's different psychologically - it's
>not a crime, it's positively patriotic. Even the implemetation is
>unlike the civilian variety - you do it in the open and you are not 
>ashamed (just scared silly).

    While I am in strong agreement with the above, I think our society
    has made this hard to believe by our own confusion about Viet Nam.
    The vast majority of men in combat roles in that war volunteered
    because of the above beliefs, but were labeled as "baby killers"
    and other vile epitaths upon their return.  Our society has finally
    erected large rocks in memoriam, but it is also not uncommon for a news
    broadcast to note that some criminal was a Viet Nam veteran.  If
    I was 15 years old, I would be *VERY* confused about whether I would
    be willing to die for my country in war.
    
    
    

    May I suggest a good book on the subject?
    
    Try "Starship Troopers" by Robert Heinlein.
    
    It may help, or at least give you more to
    
    argue about.  Dana

    I know it has been awhile since this note has been read but I just
    found it.
    			KILLING for the safety of yourself, your family,
    or your lifestyle is something that is, I consider, neccessary.
    	I have a .357 Magnum loaded with 125 grain JHP within seconds
    grasp of my bed. If someone enters my home and threatens the lives
    of my wife or son or myself I will, without problems, unload my
    weapon through the business end into the intruders chest.
    	The intruder knows the inherent danger of his selected profession.
    I'm merely putting a hole in his statistical table, as well as his
    chest. This may seem cold hearted but someone who enters your home,
    country, or business for the purpose of taking something away from
    you is not doing it with glad tidings and a warm heart, someone
    must pay for something someone else gets for free. The criminal
    should pay not the victim. 

    And what if in your sleepiness, or in the darkness you make an
    assumption there is an intruder and it is actually a member of 
    your family?
    
    And if you have the presence of mind to wait until you have clear
    view of the intruder your decision might be to late and you could
    be on the receiving end of a similar weapon.
    
    And what about your son...if the weapon is loaded and within seconds
    grasp of your bed it is also within the curiosity of the child.
    
    I would suggest that a state of the art security system might provide
    the same functionality with less risk.
    

    
    re: .27
    how does the saying go?
    
    	"If guns were outlawed, only outlaws would have guns"?
    
    It's not so much what people were killed by, as it is the crazy
    people that do the killing. What about the drunk drivers with
    the weapon they hold in their hands??? 
    
    There is a proposal, though, that is in the works in Vermont that
    makes sense to me is that (if passed) when a person goes to purchase
    a firearm there will be a 10 day waiting period before the purchase
    is made. This could put a better hold on "spur of the moment" suicides
    and temporary insanity where someone has the urge to take a life.
    
    Nothing is 100% guaranteed. Especially what goes on in the minds
    of the temporary insane.
    
    For what it's worth...
    
    Dan
    

    re .27
    
    I think some of victms were stabbed and bludgoned
    

    re.27
    DAMN good right to keep and bear arms. I keep and bear mine!
    The gun dident kill those people the fool that shot them did.
    The gun only does what it was designed for. You would have a whole
    lot less rights than you currently enjoy if there were no guns.
    <FLAME ON>
    I assume your comment was one of pro gun control and if so you need
    to be less emotional and get the facts straight. Gun control has
    it sights on taking guns away from law abiding citizens leaving
    only criminals with guns. This should really make things better
    as we wont have to worry about some innocent bystander killed by
    your average citizen while protecting his family. The criminal will
    only have to show his gun and do as he pleases as you wont have
    the right to own one to defend yourself. <- i'm joking
    The right for every citizen(except felons,drug addicts) to own guns
    was given to each of us by the founders of this country to even
    think of taking away those rights would be going against the very
    concept that made america great. Gun control was the first thing
    Hitler did before he killed thousands of Jews and others.
    I hold the very idea of gun control as communist.
    Protect your rights folks there wolves in sheeps clothing out there
    that would con you into believing they are looking out for the good
    of all. What happens if the russians invade(non nuke) and we dont
    have guns? We start speaking russian! 
    <flame off>
                                          
    -j
    

        I see pros and cons to this debate, but I can only tell you
    	one thing:
    
    			I will never go to Florida.
    
    
    						Carla
    	

    Back to the original topic...
    
    The man who killed 14 people and buried them inhas been put into
    custody (about damn time) and family members are going to try and
    identify the remains of the decomposed bodies.  An account regarding
    this jerk is that he is a "abused his wife, sexually assaulted his
    children, beat his kids, and was basically a bomb waiting to explode,
    which he did"  I believe that quote is verbatim by the way.  If
    not many apologies.                
    
    He is in desperate need of psychiatric help and should be put away
    and not let out for a very long time, if ever.
    
                                   Debbi
    
    

    re: .32
    
    > Given a few years, almost all guns will disappear from the hands of
    > criminals.  Some will still be able to afford the outragous price a hot
    > firearm will command, most small time criminals (the majority of all
    > armed robberies and armed assaults) will be unable to get one.
    
    An assumption on your part?
    
    re: .31
    
    Why is that?
    
    - M

    
    
    
    But the experts egree that gn control works!!
    
    who are these experts - 
    
    	Hitler
    
    	Castro
    
    	Khadafy
    
    	Stalin
    
    	Dukakis

    I do not want this note to degenerate into a gun control debate.
    There is an enormous one in SOAPBOX already. Please keep to the
    topic of what brings one person to kill another, and do not argue
    whether the particular means should be available.
    
    Tamzen, co-moderator

    Oh, come on, do we *have* to discuss this? The moderators have already
    complained once. 
    
    	Jon

    I guess we're talking about instances other than war, self defense.
    That still leaves lots of reasons. No witnesses to a crime etc.
    Why does an investor feel the need to kill his stockbroker when
    the market crashes? Why does an engineer thats frustrated at his
    job go home and wipe out his family and himself? Its all crazy!
    And that is the answer. Rational thought has ceased.
    
    Bob Mc

    I read an article a few months ago on a servey that was done on
    whear convicted criminals got their guns. the survey was conducted
    on over 1000 convicted criminals. I dont rember the exact numbers
    but as near as i can remember it said that 70% of the guns used
    in crime were stolen or obtained from family members. about 20%
    were purchased off the street as hot guns. the other 10% were leagly
    purchased. 
    
    

  Dr. James Wright is a professor of sociology and director of the Social and
  Demographic Research Institute (SADRI) at the University of Massachusetts,
  an expert on survey research, and a reformed advocate of harsh gun laws.
  In a 1975 article entitled, "The Ownership of the Means of Destruction:
  Weapons in the United States," Wright attacked the NRA and gun ownership.
  In 1979, Prof. Wright joined with Peter Rossi- also from SADRI at U. Mass.,
  and a former president of the American Sociological Association- in
  studying the gun issue more thoroughly.  This has caused a dramatic shift
  in their views. 

                        The Armed Criminal In America

                           by Dr. Paul H. Blackman

  Fear of the armed citizen and the threat of tough punishment for using a
  gun (or other weapons) in committing a violent crime are significant
  factors in both reducing and deterring crime, according to the results of a
  survey of imprisoned felons conducted by Professors James D. Wright and
  Peter H. Rossi. 

  Through in-depth interviews with 1,874 imprisoned felons conducted between
  August, 1982 and January, 1983, the government-funded researchers delved
  into the deep-seated attitudes of criminals on the questions of weapons
  choice, deterrence, attitudes towards "gun control", criminal history and
  firearms acquisition.  The prisoners, studied under a grant from the
  National Institute of Justice of the U.S. Justice Department, were
  incarcerated in Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts,
  Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada and Oklahoma. 

  Although some of the survey and its authors conclusions have been released
  piecemeal for the past few years, the government-issued Wright-Rossi
  analysis will soon be released in it's entirety by the Justice Department.
  Complete data tapes were made available to the public on June 7, and now
  provide criminologists with extensive views into the mind of the criminal.

  The officially released analysis will likely be edited by Justice
  bureaucrats seeking to minimize its pro-gun conclusions.  The data,
  however, confirm policies espoused not only by the pro-gun fraternity for
  the past two decades but by others concerned with the trend toward judicial
  leniency in America. Based on characteristics such as age, race, education,
  marital status, and conviction offense, as reported in other surveys of
  state prisoner population, the experiences and attitudes of the adult male
  prisoners studied by Wright and Rossi appear to be fairly representative of
  the entire adult prison population, and of adult male criminals generally.
  
  Wright-Rossi divided violators into the following categories corresponding
  to their use of weapons in committing crimes: unarmed felons, improvisers,
  knife-wielding criminals, one-time gun abusers, periodic or sporadic gun
  abusers, and handgun and shotgun predators.  The last group commits a wide
  variety of crimes, using a host of weapons and with disproportionate
  frequency. For most purposes, interest centers on criminals who have used
  guns at least once in crime, although Wright notes that the predatory
  group, one fifth of the total sample, accounts for half of the crimes
  admitted to by the imprisoned felons. 

  For the impact of mandatory penalties, however, it is the unarmed or
  non-gun criminals whose responses may be more instructive.  The study show
  a full 69% of respondents who did not carry firearms, but used knives,
  razors, brass knuckles, or clubs, said that "stiffer sentences" was a "very
  important or "somewhat important" reason for their not carrying a gun.  The
  fear of "stiffer sentences" was even greater for wholly unarmed felons,
  with 79% citing tougher punishment as "very" or "somewhat important" reason
  for not being armed. 

  Mandatory sentencing and other sentence enhancements help incapacitate
  repeat, predatory criminals and also work to discourage their less
  committed comrades from using a gun to commit a crime.  The Wright-Rossi
  survey reemphasizes the need for expanding career criminal programs and for
  reducing the prosecutorial and judicial leniency, particularly with active
  or predatory weapons-wielding criminals.  Wright has noted, "It's only
  simple justice to punish criminals who prey on people with such
  intimidating weapons." 

  The Wright-Rossi survey shows clearly that gun laws affect only the
  law-abiding, and that criminals know it.  Eighty-two percent of the sample
  agreed that "Gun laws only effect law-abiding citizens; criminals will
  always be able to get guns," and 88% agreed that "A criminal who wants a
  handgun is going to get one, no matter how much it costs."  To this Wright
  adds, "The more deeply we delve into our analyses of the illicit firearms
  market, the more confident we become that these opinions are essentially
  correct ones." 

  In states with widespread gun ownership and tough punishment for gun
  misuse, criminals surveyed were often unarmed: 54% in Oklahoma, 62% in
  Georgia, 40% in Maryland, 43% in Missouri, and 35% in Florida.  In
  Massachusetts, however, only 29% of the felon-respondants were unarmed.  In
  that state, it is difficult lawfully to acquire a firearm, and the illegal
  carrying of a firearm, rather than the criminal misuse of a gun, is subject
  to the mandatory penalty.  The survey data indicate that the criminals'
  fear of an armed victim relates directly to the severity of gun laws in the
  state surveyed.  Where gun laws are less restrictive, such as Georgia and
  Maryland, criminals think twice before running the risk of facing an armed
  victim; the are much less concerned in Massachusetts. 
                                                                        
  Fifty-six percent of the felons surveyed agreed that "A criminal is not
  going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun;" 74%
  agreed that "One reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is
  that they fear being shot." 

  A 57% majority agreed that "Most criminals are more worried about meeting
  an armed victim than they are about running into the police."  In asking
  felons what the personally thought about while committing crimes, 34%
  indicated that they thought about getting "shot at by police" or "shot by
  victim." 

  The data suggest that criminals may be a little more concerned about being
  caught by police and imprisoned than about being shot, but meeting the
  armed citizen clearly elicited fears of being shot.  That deterrent effect
  of citizen gun ownership appeared in their responses to questions about
  actual encounters.  Although 37% of those surveyed admitted that they
  personally had "run into a victim who was armed with a gun," that figure
  surpassed the 50% mark for armed criminals, an experience shared by 57% of
  the active gun predators.  And 34% of the sample admitted to having been
  "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim." 

  Significantly, almost 40% said there was at least one time when the
  criminal "decided not to do a crime because [he] knew or believed that the
  victim was carrying a gun."  Clearly, armed citizens represent a real
  threat to criminals, a threat with which large numbers a personally
  familiar, or familiar with through the shared experiences of their fellow
  outlaws. 
                                           
  Other surveys, taken of law-abiding gun owners, suggest that handguns are
  used for protection about 350,000 times each year in America.  The data
  from the Wright-Rossi felon survey, based on the number of crimes each
  felon has committed, and the number of times the criminals acknowledge
  being deterred or scared off- some a few or even many times- lends support
  to that figure. And it would appear form the survey data and police data
  that a criminal is much more likely to be driven off from a particular
  crime by an armed victim than to be imprisoned for it by the criminal
  justice system. 

  The criminal's physical condition also favors the armed citizens' success
  in thwarting an attempted crime.  Abuse of alcohol or drugs appears to be
  commonplace.  More than one quarter of the felons admitted to alcoholism
  and/or drug addiction, and most had used a variety of hard and soft drugs.
  A majority (57%) admitted to being high on drugs and/or intoxicated at the
  time the committed the offense for which they were imprisoned.  Drug abuse
  tends to increase along with the number of crimes committed.  About 80% of
  the most active predators are drug abusers, compared to just over half the
  whole sample surveyed. 

  The number of criminals committing crimes while "high" on drugs or alcohol
  undermines the image, often espoused by the anti-gunners, of a victim's
  inability to overcome a competent, controlled criminal.  The trumped-up
  charge that resistance is useless against criminal attack is proved to be
  unfounded based on criminals' expressed fear of the armed citizen and
  likelihood that the criminals' abilities and reflexes are dramatically
  impaired by substance abuse. 

  The Wright-Rossi data further confirm that the widespread policy of
  treating criminals under 18 years of age with kid gloves, or ignoring the
  pre-adult records in determining sentencing in later years, is misguided
  and mistaken. A majority of felons surveyed had, before turning 18,
  committed at least one burglary and one theft, while one-third had
  committed a robbery, and over one-fourth had committed an armed robbery. 
 
  The survey also refutes the oft-stated myth that criminal obtain firearms
  to commit crime through legitimate business channels, such as firearms
  dealers in general or pawnbrokers in particular.  And the survey data thus
  show the absurdity of attempting to regulate criminal access to firearms by
  regulating legitimate channels.  As Wright noted, criminals "obtain guns in
  hard-to-regulate ways from hard-to-regulate sources.  ...Swaps, purchases,
  and trades among private parties (friends and family members) represent the
  dominant patter of acquisition within the illicit firearms market." 

  The average gun-wielding criminal studied expected to have no difficulty in
  obtaining a gun within a day after release from prison.  Fifty percent
  expected to unlawfully purchase a gun through unregulated channels; 25%
  anticipated borrowing a gun, and only one-eighth expected to steal their
  guns.  The choices of where to obtain a handgun, among those categorized as
  handgun abusers, ranged downward from friends, to the street, to fences, to
  blackmarket and their drug dealers.  Licensed gun dealers do not figure
  high in the plans of the felons surveyed.  And pawnbrokers accounted for
  only 6% of the mentions of possible sources for guns.  That low number
  supports the finding of BATF studies showing that pawnshops were not
  disproportionately used by criminals who illegally obtained firearms
  through licensed dealers. 

  Theft certainly is a problem, but other unregulated acquisition is even
  more popular with felons.  Criminals are thieves, however, and guns are
  clearly among the items stolen, mostly to sell rather than for personal
  use.  The criminals surveyed reported committing a great number of thefts,
  with a large percentage stealing guns from regulated sources.  Among those
  who reported stealing a gun (40% of the total sample), 37% stole from
  stores, 15% from a policeman, 16% from a truck shipment, and 8% from a
  manufacturer. 
                                                  
  Well-secured and well-regulated sources such as stores, shippers,
  manufacturers and even police may represent a substantial percentage of the
  guns stolen, indicating that theft from individuals may have been
  exaggerated as a problem in the illegal commerce in firearms as
  anti-gunners frequently charge. These data might suggest that a reasonable
  policy conclusion would be to make theft of a firearm, especially more than
  one, a felony regardless of the value of the gun or guns stolen. 

  The Wright-Rossi landmark study also explodes the so-called "Saturday Night
  Special" myth, long propounded by anti-gun activists, that criminals prefer
  small, cheap handguns and that their ban would save lives.  The data
  indicate that small-caliber, short barreled, or inexpensive handguns are
  quite opposite the characteristics sought when criminals steal or choose to
  own a handgun to commit a violent crime. 

  The firearm of choice, based on the handguns criminals own, is akin to
  those used by law enforcement: a .38 or .357 with a 4" barrel, made by
  Smith and Wesson, Colt, or Ruger with an estimated retail value of over
  $150. Felons stated preferences for high quality, accurate and
  easy-to-shoot guns, generally revolvers rather than semi-automatic
  firearms.  Only 14% of the guns owned by criminals would fit the classic
  anti-gun  definition of a "Saturday Night Special," combining small caliber
  (.32 or less) with short barrel (3" or less).  Fifty-five percent  combined
  a caliber of .38 or more powerful with a barrel length of at least 4".
  Only 5% admitted to owning a .25, although this particular model accounts
  for a 13% domestic market share in handguns purchased by U.S citizens,
  according the the earlier Wright-Rossi book, 'Under the Gun.' 

  The survey findings give the lie to any suggestion, popular with Handgun
  Control, Inc., and its Kennedy-Rodino gun gill, that a ban on small
  handguns, the so-called "Saturday Night Specials," would be beneficial.
  According to Wright, felons make it clear that such a law "would stimulate
  a wholesale shift to bigger and more lethal weapons among predatory
  felons."  The same crimes would still be committed, but with potentially
  more lethal firearms. Wright has characterized his findings on the possible
  impact of such a ban as "uniformly dismal.  If what they're saying is true,
  I'd rather they carry little cheap stuff.  Not that I want them to be
  carrying anything, but if the don't have little guns they might buy .357
  Magnums or 9mm semi-automatic pistols, and the death rates go up with
  larger-caliber weapons." 

  The data show that an outright ban on handguns, such as is proposed by the
  National Coalition to Ban Handguns, would have nightmarish consequences.
  Most of the criminals who have previously used handguns- and especially
  those predators who have committed many crimes using handguns- said they
  would simply move to long guns which would be sawed down to concealable
  size.  Outlawing handguns would simply make career criminals turn to what
  Wright describes as bigger more lethal weapons. 

  If a ban on handguns was enacted, 64% of the criminal respondents said they
  would shift from a handgun to sawed-off rifles and shotguns.  That finding
  was elicited from three-fourths of "handgun predators" and five-eighths of
  those who had used a handgun more than once in crime.  Wright says, "We
  would do well, by the way, to take this response seriously: most of the
  predators who said they would substitute the sawed-off shotgun also told us
  elsewhere in the questionnaire that the had in fact sawed off a shotgun at
  some time in their lives and that it would be 'very easy' for them to do so
  again.  The possibility that even a few of the men who presently prowl the
  streets with handguns would, in the face of a handgun ban, prowl with
  sawed-off shotguns instead is itself good reason to think twice about the
  advisability of such a ban.  That as many as three-quarters of them might
  do so causes one to tremble."  Wright argues, then, that there are
  "sensible and humane" reasons for opposing a handgun ban. 

  The policy implications of the Wright-Rossi survey should give lawmakers
  pause before inflicting restrictive gun laws on the law-abiding gun owner
  who plays a significant, proven role in curbing violent crime.  This policy
  implication is especially significant, coming as it does, from a man who
  admits to having taking for granted- before five years of studying guns,
  crime, and violence in America- that "gun control" laws would be
  beneficial. Today, Wright concurs with the National Rifle Association
  members in saying, "They oppose gun regulation because they don't believe
  it will help control crime, and so do I." 

    re: .42
    
         I'd like the source of the article.  Was their any bibliography
    with the article?
    
    ASP

    Borrowed, without permission, from The American Rifleman.  The file I
    placed that in is dated June 86, so I suspect it was an April or May
    issue.  Let me see if I still have it somewhere at home.
    
    - M

    THIS IS IN RESPONSE TO QUITE A FEW REPLIES ON THE "TOPIC(S)" HERE.
     
    FROM THE VERY BEGINNING OF THE FILE, JUST A NOTE TO BEAR IN MIND...A
    FELINE IS A VICIOUS KILLER?  WHAT?  THAT IS REALLY AN IGNORANT REMARK.
    TRY FINDING A BIT OUT ABOUT THE ANIMALS.  FOR ONE: THEY KILL TO
    EAT, FOR ANOTHER, WHEN THEY KILL TO EAT IT IS WITH THE UTTMOST CARE
    IN KILLING THEIR PREY QUICKLY SO AS NOT TO "MAKE THE ANIMAL SUFFER".
     READ UP ON THE SUBJECT A BIT.  ALSO, I WOULD SAY THAT HUMANS ARE
    VERY CAPABLE OF BEING THE OFFENDERS OF BEING VICIOUS KILLERS, HOW
    ABOUT THOSE WHO WOULD SHOOT AN INTRUDER IN THE CHEST TO KILL, RATHER
    THAN SAY SERIOUSLY MAMING THEM.  IN FACT MAMING THEM MIGHT BE A
    BETTER ALTERNATIVE IF YOU REALLY WANT THE JOB DONE RIGHT.  THEY'LL
    LIVE WITH IT FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES WITH SOMETHING TO THINK
    ABOUT.  CONSIDERING HEATED DEBATE ON THE LEGAL SYSTEM DOING ANYTHING
    CONSTRUCTIVE ABOUT SUCH CRIMES, YOU COULD DO ALL SORTS OF VICIOUS
    THINGS TO GET THE EVIL DOERS BACK NOW COULDN'T YOU.  
    
    GUNS...ANOTHER GOOD SUBJECT...THEY ONLY DO WHAT YOU MAKE THEM DO,
    I HAVEN'T SEEN ONE GET UP AND LOAD ITSELF AND HEAD RIGHT TO THE
    NEAREST PERSON OR ANIMAL IT DECIDED TO OBLITERATE YET! HAVE ANY
    OF YOU?  
    
    ANOTHER GOOD WEAPON...CARS...THAT'S THE BEST ONE YET...THOSE LIKE
    THE GUNS ARE ONLY WEAPONS...THEY CAN'T DO ANYTHING WITHOUT US "PEOPLE".
     
    WAR...WAR ALWAYS WAS, WILL ALWAYS BE...QUESTIONING WHY WE HAVE WAR
    IS LIKE QUESTIONING WHY WE ARE ALL HERE.  VERY, VERY TIME CONSUMING
    AND THERE REALLY ISN'T AN ANSWER THAT WE KNOW OF IS THERE?  WE CAN
    ALL HAVE OUR OPINION...SUCH AS THIS REPLY, BUT WHNE YOU THINK OF
    IT, WHAT WOULD WE TALK ABOUT IF EVERYTHING WAS EASILY EXPLAINABLE
    AND DOCILE, CORRECT, HAPPY, ETC...THINK ABOUT IT!!
    
    FOOD FOR THOUGHT!

"THEY KILL TO EAT, FOR ANOTHER, WHEN THEY KILL TO EAT IT IS WITH THE UTTMOST
CARE IN KILLING THEIR PREY QUICKLY SO AS NOT TO "MAKE THE ANIMAL SUFFER"."

Obviously you have never seen a cat playing with a mouse...

Jim. 

    Re .46:
    
    Correct. Both of my cats catch mice. Then let them go and chase them
    all over again. Catch them, pick them up and throw them into the air.
    When they land, chase them again. When the mouse is worn out, the cats
    bat them with their paws until they run again and can be chased. The
    mice die by being played to death, and then are not eaten. This isn't
    just the behavior of domesticated cats either. I've seen nature
    programs of wild (and mature) cats doing exactly the same thing. My
    cats aren't kittens; one is 8, the other is 14.

    
    My cat doesn't waste time jiving about with her dinner.
    She kills and eats quickly... even small rabbits.

    
    some people kill each other cus they are angry
    and some cus they weren't careful and caused a deadly accident
    
    but most people kill other people because someone sitting in
    a nice warm comfortable cosy and very safe large mansion protected
    and defended by hundreds/thousands of little boy with big guns and
    no mind told them to.....so they did.....

    

    
    People kill each other, mainly cause of pride. As long there is
    sin in this world it is very difficult for people to be at peace
    with each other.
    
    Murder is hate ripened into deed. C. Spurgeon
    
    
    
    
                                  RM

    
            Killing is a part of Nature.  Killing is natural.
    

>
>
>	Killing is part of nature.  Killing is natural.
>
>
>

Ah, but fearing death and striving to survive is part of nature too.

And when it occurs to a member of a species that *another* member might
also fear death and strive to survive...

    -1
    
    I don't disagree with that.  It goes hand in hand, and as a result,
    makes killing more natural. 
    

	imo...
	
	there is nothing natural about people killing people.
	
	Jay

    Hmmmmmm.....
    
    In nature when an animal kills it's for food.  Seldom will a speices 
    kill it's own speices.... (I know.... there are exceptions but in those 
    cases, provisions are made in either a high birth number so only the 
    strongest survive and such).
    
    When man kills man... its with a knowledge of what he is doing....
    (excluding accidental deaths) the beasts in nature to awaken one
    morning and say "I'm gonna kill all my family members today" or "I'm
    gonna kill the guy in the territory next to mine because I like it
    better"  He tends to do it out of a reaction to stimuli.
    
    Man on the other hand is a different story.... he allows himself to be 
    placed in situations to kill or be killed KNOWINGLY.  He plots to kill
    or be killed KNOWINGLY.... this isn't natural.
    
    Skip

>    Man on the other hand is a different story.... he allows himself to be 
>    placed in situations to kill or be killed KNOWINGLY.  He plots to kill
>    or be killed KNOWINGLY.... this isn't natural.
 
Oh?  Think about.  I believe based on your own quote that it is.

If he has allowed these things from the beginning of time, then one might
conclude that it is quite natural.

Also, animals don't always fight/kill for food.  They also claim territory.

db

    Nope.  There's nothing "natural" about it.
    
    Karen

Re: 4.57 by CARTUN::BERGGREN,

>	-< people killing people... >-
>
>	Nope.  There's nothing "natural" about it.

I'm afraid your are ignoring the facts. Look through the history of
mankind. From day one, human societies did it, groups did it and
individuals did it. 

It's OK to implore it, but the fact is, killing **IS** natural to
humans. 

-- Ron

    Ron .58,
    
    I'm afraid you are ignoring the "facts."  If we could somehow look 
    through the history of humankind and determine how many people have 
    lived (through adulthood) and of those numbers determine the percentage
    of those who actually killed another person, I believe we'd find the
    number to be EXTREMELY low.    
    
    Imo, you are over-generalizing your hypothesis.  Or perhaps we just
    have different notions of what constitutes "natural" behavior in human
    beings.
    
    Karen                     

Re: .59 by CARTUN::BERGGREN,

>    Or perhaps we just
>    have different notions of what constitutes "natural" behavior in human
>    beings.

Guess so. Just to set the record straight, I define 'natural
behaviour' as 'behaviour which stems from our nature'. You (based on
your argument that only a small percentage of us kill) seem to
define 'natural behaviour' as 'prevalent behaviour'. 

Actually, most aspects of our behaviour are learned, not natural.
For example, it is natural to walk about naked, yet the percentage
of people who do that (at least, in our culture) is rather small.

-- Ron

    
    re:  .58
    
    Exactly.  That's my point.
    

    re .59, statistics.
    
    On the contrary, given the existing anthropological and historical
    data, I would guess about half of all adult male humans ever living
    killed another person during their lives.
    
    Consider Napoleon Chagnon's data on the Yanomamo, or the fossil
    evidence of early human cannibalism; consider that the history we
    read is an almost unbroken sequence of wars; consider that each
    little village ruler used the death penalty until recently; consider
    the large fraction of men in modern times who have been in the
    military.
    
    As an example: World War II saw the death of some twenty or fourty
    millions, depending on how you count.  There were about that many men
    and woman in the military and police forces of the combatants.  On
    average, that's a one-for-one ratio.
    
    		-John Bishop

    re: .62 and .61
    
         Well, to muddy the waters even further I suppose...
    *I* would argue that while it may have been human, it might
    not have been a human spiritual being...perhaps a human animal
    or a human being, but not of the most highly evolved possibility.
         In any case, .62, if women make up half of all the species,
    (and if that has always been the case) then your argument gets
    shrunken or reduced quite a bit, for very few women (relative
    to the numbers...i.e., percentages) have run around killing
    people, either domestically or in war.  Maybe women are somehow
    more naturally human beings than men are?  Lots of arguments
    here, huh?  Also, citing what you do, more people (especially
    men) have *been killed* than have actually killed.  One determined
    killer can ruin the lives of scads and multiples of living things
    (witness Hitler, e.g., who alone was instigatorily responsible for
    the death of perhaps 15 million people...only perhaps as many as
    10 million others died at the hands of others during the same time
    frame.)
         Yes, it is something people have done.  As one approaches levels
    of human potential, that is, at a human spiritual potential level,
    however, other ways of dealing with people become more viable and
    practiced (a la Gandhi, e.g.) than by the expediency and convenience
    of killing.
    
         Stick to it, Karen.
    
    Frederick
    

    I said "half of male humans".
    
    Hitler did not kill 15 million people.  He, personally, may not
    have killed anyone.  Giving orders to kill may make you just
    as responsible legally as actually pulling the trigger of the
    gun, but the actual killer is still a person who has killed another
    person.
    
    The largest number of victims of a single killer that I know of
    would be on the order of several thousand victims claimed by the
    bombadiers who dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
    
    Along more traditional lines, a certain gladiator of Imperial Rome
    was famous for having killed around three hundred men.  Audey Murphy
    was famous more recently for killing only about forty men.
    
    I'd guess that the typical war-time killer only killed a few others.
    
    As for "human spiritual being"--it sounds to me like you have a
    conclusion you want ("highly evolved humans don't kill"), and are
    defining terms until you get that conclusion.
    
    		-John Bishop

      Ron .60,
      
      	Thanks for setting the record straight.  As for your 
      definition of natural behavior that it is 
      
      > ...'behavior which stems from our nature'. 
      
      	This infers to me that all behavior is natural, since it is 
      difficult to imagine that any behavior would not "stem from our 
      nature";  and yet you seem to contradict this statement with the 
      following: 
      
      > Actually, most aspects of our behavior are learned, not 
        natural. 
      
      	Contradiction aside, I agree with you, and imo killing others 
      is a perfect example of *learned* behavior.  For if it was 
      natural for human beings to kill each other, how would the 
      species have survived as long as it has?  Why all the counseling 
      and training for service people who are confronted with the 
      experience of killing the "enemy?"  Which brings up another 
      question.  If killing others is natural, why has our society 
      created laws against it?  And although there are laws against 
      it, a moral dilema arises for many people when that same society 
      turns around and sanctions killing in other situations.
      
      	But this discussion does raise a central issue that people 
      have wrestled with throughout history.  Many make it their 
      profession to define and understand human behavior.  To me, what 
      influences and molds various facets of human behavior is a 
      complex web of social, economical, cultural, political, 
      religious, and individual influences, not easily cleaved apart 
      to determine what is "natural" and what is not.  
      
      	But imo, just because groups of people have *allowed* 
      "situational" killing, that does not necessarily equate to 
      killing as a "natural" aspect of human behavor.  The primary 
      concern I have about this line of reasoning and conclusion, is 
      that in its extreme, it tends to foster an apathetic or 
      denial/avoidance reaction when killing occurs.   This in turn, 
      can override our option to invoke our more developed mental 
      capabilities -- those that help us to discern the moral and 
      spiritual implications of such actions and our ability to 
      transform the attitudes which source them.  I think our future 
      and quality of life depends largely upon these attitudes and our 
      awareness as to how we evolve them.
      
      Thanks Ron, I appreciate your thoughts and candor.
      
      Karen
      

    
    Thanks very much for your perspective, Frederick (.64).  
    I agree with you.  And thanks also for the encouragement. 
    
    :-)
    
    Kdpty

    re: .64 (John)
    
          Okay, John, I'll let the "point/counter-point" go...
          Now, then, get to the "half" of humanity that doesn't
    seem to have the same prediliction to killing that the other
    half does.  That is, why don't women kill in the same percentages?
    They, as repressed as they've always been, have at least as much
    reason to be angry and to displace that anger vis a vis killing
    as men do; yet they don't.  Why don't men value life as much
    as women do though women get a much shorter end of the stick?
          Actually, never mind, I can answer this myself.  Because
    of social pressures, because men are *physically* stronger and
    women more afraid to get involved, because, because, because...
    but these same social pressures should work in reverse, as Karen
    has pointed out.  These same social pressures should be enough
    to keep us from killing in the first place.  
          Grunt!  You hit me!
          Wheeze!  But you were taking my porridge!
          Grunt!  Yeah, well, I'll do it again, too.  But for that,
    I'll kill you!
          Wheeze!  No you won't!  I'll kill you first!
    
          Sigh...You made me spill the porridge.
          Whew!...Yes, I'm sorry, but it is my porridge.
          Sigh...Oh, well, I'm hungry and I don't have any but I don't
    want to cause hardship.
          Whew!...Look, I'll share it if you help me clean up afterwards.
    
          Wheeze! (aside)  [Damn, this person wants to fight...I better
    get them before they get me!]
          Grunt! (aside) [Damn, this person wants to fight...I better get
    them before they get me!]
    
          Sigh! (aside)  [I don't want to fight...I might get hurt or
    for sure somebody will...maybe I can avoid a fight.]
          Whew! (aside) [I don't want to fight...I might get hurt or
    for sure somebody will...maybe I can avoid a fight.]
    
          Grunt! and Wheeze!--typical human animal responses...
    
          Sigh! and Whew!--human beings who have an ability to empathize
    and show compassion, to envision another alternative...
    
    
    Frederick
    

    re.65
    When Cain killed Able in the garden who do you suggest he learned
    the act of killing from? Killing is as much a part of human nature
    as is our disdain for the act of killing it is not a learned behaviour.
    
    -j

    Good point Jerry.  Some of these notes were getting too 'war related'
    and thereby creating confusion.  I was thinking of cave men as I read
    those notes, but you've come up with an excellent example.

    Someone mentioned psychology groups and that was amusing.  I guess
    Cain didn't have a shrink to go to!

    It's just as natural to kill as it is for little children to get angry
    on the playground and push each other around.

>>>>If killing others is natural, why has our society  created laws against it?


	Man-made-laws to not govern natural behavior.

    Frederick raised an interesting point a few notes back about which 
    gender does the vast majority of killing -- men.  
    
    Therefore, let me shift my perspective for a moment and ask you this:
    
    For those of you who believe killing *is* natural behavior, would you 
    say it is natural MALE behavior, (as opposed to natural HUMAN behavior)?
    
    Why or why not?
    
    Karen

    Re:  .69 & .70
    
          As far as I'm concerned, you've simply given support to the
    concept I mentioned in regards to human animals versus more evolved
    states.  Cain and Abel, (playing along with this bit of fiction)
    would hardly qualify as evolved human spiritual beings, in my version
    of that novel.  Killing may be "natural" for human animals...I will
    admit to that.
    
    Frederick
    

Re: .65 and .71,

Karen,

You make some intriguing points. For instance:

>      > ...'behavior which stems from our nature'. 
>      
>      	This infers to me that all behavior is natural, since it is 
>      difficult to imagine that any behavior would not "stem from our 
>      nature";  and yet you seem to contradict this statement with the 
>      following: 
>      
>      > Actually, most aspects of our behavior are learned, not 
>        natural. 

No contradiction, since I truly do not agree that 'all behavior is
natural'. I believe that mostly, the reverse is true: most of our
prevalent behaviour is NOT natural. For instance, Homo Sapiens is
polygamous **by nature**, yet many societies dictate monogamy.


      
>      ... killing others is a perfect example of *learned* behavior.

I think this is the crux of our difference. I believe that killing 
is natural and not killing is a learned behaviour. See how we can 
both use your argument to defend our opposing positions:


>      If killing others is natural, why has our society created
>      laws against it?

Exactly because it is natural. Otherwise, laws would not be 
necessary. But to insure the survival of our culture (not the race - 
it will withstand free for all **natural** killing, just like other
species do), we put in force requirements that curtail out natural 
inclinations.


>      Why all the counseling 
>      and training for service people who are confronted with the 
>      experience of killing the "enemy?" 

Because out learned behaviour overpowers our innate natural 
inclination. The same reply applies to such behaviour as cleanliness 
(yes, we are dirt-inclined by nature), dressing in public, etc.


>    For those of you who believe killing *is* natural behavior, would you 
>    say it is natural MALE behavior, (as opposed to natural HUMAN behavior)?

Frankly, I don't know. 'Psychology 101' went only this far... Let's
ask Pam Smart :-).

I would surmise that the whole idea of femininity is a societal ruse
to take advantage of the physically weaker half. In cultures where
this did not happen (not too many, I guess, but think of the
Amazons), women probably kill just as willingly as men do in
male-dominant society. 

-- Ron

    re .59 statistics....
    
    According to what you've said... half the human race has killed the
    other half off and the only people left alive today are those who
    killed.  I have yet to kill another human being and doubt that many 
    in here ever have.... kinda blows those stats all to heck.
    
    Besides... I learned a long time ago that statistically speaking 
    numbers can be made to report and prove any point you want if you 
    use them correctly.  
    
    Skip

    re: .73 (Ron)
    
         An interesting finding of some studies done a bunch of
    years ago (I met the man who was a part of them) was that
    "Goddess" oriented peoples were less violent than "God"
    oriented people (this study included Margaret Mead's works
    and Congressional voting records, etc.)  Matriarchal
    societies (and there were very few examples of this)
    had no rape, long lives, no "God-fear," and were not warrior
    oriented.  Conversely, a look at the world as a whole today
    can show us what the result of a patriarchal, "God-worshipping"
    set of cultures brings us.  
         To carry that into a touch of depth, one could resonably
    argue that women tend to reflect "Goddess energy" more than men
    do (whom we could equally argue reflect more of "God energy.")
    Therefore, if we were to assume that the doing energy of "God"
    and the being energy of "Goddess" were put side by side, the
    doing energy "wins."  (Wins what? would be the most logical follow-up
    question.)  Voila our dear planet Earth!  Men, being the resourceful
    and benevolent beings that they are, in fear of losing their 
    aforementioned "power," can continue to dominate the corresponding
    and balancing energies "out of the way."
         Anyway, this is clearly headed into other areas of belief, but
    if you *really* want an answer, it would behoove us to look at all
    possibilities, including this.  Obviously I cannot substantiate
    part of this, but anthropological evidence is at hand to demonstrate
    the partial validity or at least the viability of these contentions.
    Learned behaviors?  Yes.  Does it have to do with genetics or
    gender?  Also a qualified (asterisked) "yes."  Can these damaging 
    ways of viewing life be altered to produce harmony and peace?  Yes.
    
    Frederick
    

    I'd like to point out something else in the "Statistics"  (that note 
    bugged me for a LOT of reasons)....
    
    How many of the men that did kill became ill afterwards?  If it's a 
    "natural" act, then why do so many of the those who have killed during 
    wars, etc.  end up showing all the classic examples of mental stress
    and illness afterwards?  Everything from denial, selective amnesia, and 
    drug/alcohol abuse, to illness and lose of mental capacity afterwards?
    
    In animals killing for ANY reason does not result in such behavior.
    
    Man may have been violent and a killer once... but he is evolving in
    some ways faster then any other species on earth.
    
    Skip

    Frederick .75,
    
    Thanks for your thoughts about matriarcal vs. patriachal societies.  I
    haven't had time to respond to Ron's note, but you addressed the
    general theme of my thoughts.
    
    Skip .76,
    
    You mentioned an important point I hadn't gotten to yet - that of the
    various post-war trauma syndromes.  I agree with you Skip; if killing
    was natural, then why are there so many incidences of dis-ease
    associated with it?  
    
    Thanks for your thoughts,
    
    Karen 

>>>If it's a  "natural" act, then why do so many of the those who have killed
during  wars, etc.  end up showing all the classic examples of mental stress
and illness afterwards?  Everything from denial, selective amnesia, and 
drug/alcohol abuse, to illness and lose of mental capacity afterwards?

Many don't.  But for those that do, keep in mind that as man has become
civilized, he's been taught that killing is bad, and that it is against the law
of man and of God.  He has 'learned' this, therefore it's quite conceivable
that would account for your comment about those that have problems after
killing in times of war.

Also note, more people are murdered on America's streets than in any war, by
people of all ages.  Even teens are killing others, sometimes for nothing more
than some silly gang nonsense.  Others are murdered for a couple of dollars,
etc, etc.  And you know, they ain't having the problems you mentioned.  Many of
them will kill you and not blink an eye.  I've seen some on talk shows say
from prison that they weren't sorry they killed, just that they got caught.

>>>In animals killing for ANY reason does not result in such behavior.

Well, they may not be seeing a shrink, or they may not be having drug/alcohol
abuse, but as for the selective amnesia... how can we prove that?  Perhaps they
do suffer some mental stress.  I would think that a mountain lion gets worked
up somewhat for his kill and would also have to *come down* after he has
killed.  Seems natural to me.  But as you can't prove they have mental stress,
I can't prove they do.
    
>>>Man may have been violent and a killer once... but he is evolving in some
ways faster then any other species on earth.

Thus, as I explained above, this could be the reason for some men experiencing
'guilt' after having killed.  Repeat, SOME men.

    Wow, I see this note is still going 5 years after I started it. I
    remember the day I opened this note. I came to check out this new
    conference; this conference started up straight after SEXETERA got
    booted off the ENET. I thought I'd enter a note that was bound to
    provoke discussion, I guess it has.
    
    It seems like nothing has changed in 5 years in regard to man's
    inhumanity to man (please excuse the tautology here). We still have
    dictators that march into adjacent countries and kill a load of babies.
    And individuals of highly industrialized countries who take great pride
    in carpet bombing 10s or maybe even 100s of thousands of Iraqi humans
    to death.
    
    I wish the human race would advance to the next level of civilization
    but I fear I won't see it in my lifetime.
    
    Dave

    There are no laws that state that Killing an individual is breaking the
    law. It comes to a moral decision that everyone knows that killing is
    wrong so man created laws defining the degree and type of retribution
    that must be enforced on the killer. 
    
    MF

    Re-1
    
    And if you buy that I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'll be willing to sell 
    you as well.
    
    Skip

    I am absolutly serious about this. My father is a lawyer. There are no
    laws in the United States that state that Murder is illegal. The fact
    is everyone knows it is wrong and the laws reflect a punisment that is
    congruent to the crime.
    
    MF

    
    That makes a warped kind of sense to me.
    
    I believe that we have a scale of "morality", if you like....
    At one end, there are things that are objectively true.
    For example - the sun is hot.
    There is no value judgement - "good" or "bad" - attached to this.
    
    At the other end of the scale are very personal value judgements
    that are subjective and "IMO" views.
    
    In the middle there are things that society has generally agreed
    to stick a "good" or "bad" label on. Society has the power to
    make laws, so the law upholds these generally "agreed" views.
    The fact that these may clash with your personal views, or that
    these laws now enshrine what was the general opinion hundreds
    of years ago (and therefore arguably irrelevant) seems to have
    little bearing - I believe that it's with issues in this arena
    that people get to "take things personally" and misunderstandings
    frequently occur.
    
    The other thing is that these publically enshrined moral judgements
    cramp the thinking of people growing up in our society. Many people
    will agree with most of them, but it makes it so easy to default
    on contemporary or heated issues (IE legalising dope).
    
    Society has agreed that killing other people is "bad" and you will
    be punished for this behaviour. Personally, I support this.
    
    'gail

    the appearance that we cannot agree on whether killing is bad supports
    the idea that the purpose of being human is to explore such ideas.  If
    we were omniscient, the question would be irrelevant.

Re: .82 by GSMOKE::MFLICK,

>    There are no laws in the United States that state that Murder
>    is illegal ... the laws reflect a punisment that is congruent
>    to the crime

Oh, I see. The law does not prohibit murder, but imposes punishment 
on murderers...

Ask your dad again.

-- Ron

    If you want to go along those lines then there are no laws that state 
    ANYTHING is illegal... becasue none of them do.  
    
    That's everything from j walking to manslaughter/murder and everything 
    inbetween.
    
    Skip

	If murder was illegal, wouldn't soldiers be criminals?

Re: .87 by NOPROB::JOLLIMORE,

>	If murder was illegal, wouldn't soldiers be criminals?

Murder **is** illegal. Killing by order, during a military action,
is covered under a separate code and is not defined as a crime.
Soldiers who kill on their own are, indeed, murderers and are dealt
with, rather severely, under military law. 

-- Ron

re. -1


>>Murder **is** illegal. Killing by order, during a military action,
>>is covered under a separate code and is not defined as a crime.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^



	OH! *that* makes it different!!!

	I'm depressed..8-\

    You're confusing killing with murder.  Murder is a crime.  Killing
    under military order isn't murder.  That doesn't mean it isn't a crime.
    
    But then I sit and ask about the man who went to jail for helping is 
    cancer inflected wife commit suicide.  I watched my mother die slowly 
    from cancer and beleive me when she was in the last week of it, if I 
    could have thought of a sure way to do it, I would not have hesitated.
    Unfortunatly, I was never left alone with her.  
    
    You can condemn or condone me for that, but ONLY if you've gone through 
    it as well.  THEN you can speak of the morality of it to me.
    
    SKip

    So, I said... way back... that killing is natural.  I believe that it
    is.
    
    But Skip has also surfaced another reason that people "sometimes"
    kill... for passionate reasons.
    
    Sorry you had to see your mother suffer, Skip.  I know it had to have
    ripped your heart apart.  I could never condemn you for your feelings
    on that situation.  Star Trek V had Dr. McCoy face his dad with that
    same kind of scenario.  I wondered how I would/could deal with it.  But
    as you say, until you've been there... you don't know for sure.
                                                  

    Is this really so complicated?  Gosh after 91 plies and replies, you
    fellas still haven't figured out what is right and what is wrong about
    killing?  I can understand that in soapbox, but here in H_R?  Ya fellas 
    must be really bored.
    
    Eugene

    Eugene,
    
    It's an interesting question, one that's plagued philosophers,
    humanitarians, tacticians, poloticains, and in general the entire
    human race probably back as far as when the first cave man picked up 
    his club and crushed another's skull.  
    
    Sometimes I think it's man's nature to kill man, other times, I think
    It is not so much his nature as it is his tendency.  Peace is a
    beautiful concept, but until the day comes that each of us lay down 
    beside each other openly and completely trusting, with out envy or 
    desire, or need, it will always be an open ended question because its' 
    always going to be there, starring us in the face, every day.
    
    Like so many other things in life, if a person doesn't explore it
    within themselves and outside themselves, then they simply accept it 
    and we are that much worse off for it.
    
    So much for my 2 cent lecture... for twenty cents more I'll send you 
    the tape version.
    
    ;-)
    Skip 

    -2
    
    Eugene,
    
    It wasn't so boring that you couldn't keep yourself away from reading
    91 replies!  Else, how would you know it wasn't really settled
    somewhere....
    
    Heck, even I didn't read'em all, though I added a few comments.

    re .94,
    
    Me reading all those 91 replies?  You got to be kidding.  Usually, 
    a philosophical debate is a sign of extreme bordem.  Come to think of
    it, what is going on here isn't even philosophy.  It is totally
    pointless and mindless, if you would excuse me for the expression.
    
    How many angels can stand on the point of a needle?  Now that's
    interesting philosophy.
    
    Eugene
                                                                      

    RE: -1
    
>	Come to think of
>	it, what is going on here isn't even philosophy.  It is totally
>	pointless and mindless, if you would excuse me for the expression.
    
    I'm not sure whether your are referring to the base question or the
    various perspective, but it might be neither pointless or mindless if
    you had ever killed or even considered killing another person.
    Dismissing the question might be a way of dismissing the part of
    yourself that could (and might even enjoy) killing.  Pontificating on
    how unimaginable such acts are might be a way of denying this part of
    yourself.

    I have hesitated to reply to this note because, well, perhaps I don't
    want to hear the answer .. however .. I'm a big boy now and can take
    the bad with the good.

    Background: I have killed.  I have killed many times.  I have killed
    with my rifle and with my bayonet.  I have killed from a distance (as a
    sniper) and I have held a man against me while I cut his throat ...

    Two rules of war:  (1) people die and (2) you can't change rule #1.

    Question:  Am I a murderer?  Tell it like it is.  Don't worry, the
    nightmares will continue irrespective of what you say.

    Jerry

    From personal experience, no... especially when you consider ALL the 
    alternatives during a war..... If you fail to fulfill your orders,
    it is quiet possible tht you will be brought before a fireing squad
    during periods of war.  Which can also happen if you fall asleep on 
    watch.  NO, you aren't the murderer.... you're the instrument of the 
    murder.... those who gave the command are the murderers and you are 
    nothing more then there weapon of choice.
    
    At least that's what I keep telling myself.
    
    Skip

    Oh BTW, you're right.... it doesn't affect the nightmares either way.
    
    Skip

re. 97    Jerry



	You certainly made me sit up and take notice!  NO! Jerry you are
not a murderer - You are a hurting person that society has let-down.  I do
not wish to punish you anymore nor should you allow anyone else to.

	Thank you for your honesty - I was really moved.

	Peace,

	Meredith

    re.97
    No, not in my opinion. 
    
    -j

Re: .100 by ROYALT::NIKOLOFF,

>	NO! Jerry you are not a murderer - You are a hurting person
>	that society has let-down.

Please clarify the above. Is he a not a murderer just because he is
hurting?

I have also killed during war (though I never held anyone while
cutting their throats), yet I cannot ever recall having nightmares
--or even qualms-- over it. Does that make me (and millions of
soldiers just like me) murderers? 

-- Ron

    I don't believe that a soldier who kills fro his country is a
    murderer.  There is the small percent that are killers within
    this group, but they'd be that way in any situation.
    
    Killing in the name of war sucks...but it doesn't make you a murderer.
    
    
    
                                L.J.

    Because everything else runs too fast.
    
    Ray

    IF PEOPLE DIDNT DEFEND THEIR HOME SOIL, IT WILL SURELY BE TAKEN FROM
    THEM. KILLING IS NOT THE ANSWER, BUT WHEN ONE IS IN THE POSITION TO 
    FIGHT OR FLEE, FOR LOVED ONES AND WHAT IS RIGHTFULLY THEIRS, SOMETIMES
    THERE IS NO CHOICE. THERE IS NO OTHER WAY. IT IS THE WAY OF LIFE ON
    THIS GREAT PLANET. IT IS EITHER DEFEND OR DIE. IN NATURE, AND IN THE 
    SO CALLED CIVILIZED WORLD.
    

    re .105, well, that doesn't answer the question as to why the first
    person, who attacked the second person, forcing the 2nd person to
    defend themselves, tried to kill.  Everyone who kills doesn't kill in
    self-defense.  In order for one person to have to defend themselves,
    somebody else had to attack them.  Why does the attacker kill or
    attempt to kill?  Because they're selfish, greedy pigs who want
    everything for themselves and don't care about anybody else, I guess. 
    So, I don't think people, in general, really kill to defend themselves,
    that's just a reflex.  People, in general, kill because they're
    shelfish greedy bastards, I think.  And, some people kill because they
    are unthinking pawns (like soldiers), and some people kill because they
    are mentally ill.
    
    Lorna
    

    re .-1

    <People, in general, kill because they're shelfish greedy bastards, I think.
    	<some people kill because they are unthinking pawns (like soldiers), 
    	<and some people kill because they are mentally ill.
    
    Should one conclude that you do not consider that there are ANY
    laudable -or at least non nasty- motivations for killing?
    
    i.e.  Were those who executed Ted Bundy 
    
    		selfish greedy pigs
    		selfish greedy bastards
    		unthinking pawns
    		mentally ill
    		none of the above	
    
    I certainly would try very very hard to kill somebody if I caught him
    (or her) in the act of raping one of my daughters, or my wife.

    re .107, I believe that both self-defense and getting rid of Ted
    Bundy-like killers, are justifiable.  But, we wouldn't have to do
    either of those if somebody else hadn't already acted, and killed
    somebody else.  I know why people kill in self-defense and execute
    murderers.  To me that's not the question.  The question is why do some
    people choose to kill even when it's not a matter of self-defense or
    ridding society of crazed killers.
    
    Lorna
    

    Easy. They have no feelings for other people. It doesn't bother them
    that they ended another life. I don't even think they care if they
    themselves get killed. These serial killers are the worst. I put them
    right up there with terrorists. 

    Crimes of passion differ in the sense that the person doing the killing
    is distraught or too angry to deal with people and lashes out at the
    nearest person(s) and commits the crime. Still not excusable.

    Then you have the gang shootings in which they only want "revenge" for
    something that happened to them and they go around killing family
    members related to the real person they want to get.

    Then you have the good old terrorists. They think they have a cause and
    stop at nothing to kill innocent people to get their point across no
    matter the cost.
    
    None of these are self defense. And none of them are excusable.

    "Man" can be quite the animal sometimes.

>
>    Then you have the good old terrorists. They think they have a cause and
>    stop at nothing to kill innocent people to get their point across no
>    matter the cost.

Everyone has some cause or other.  'Innocent' is in your eyes; in their eyes
perhaps the 'victim' is not innocent (based on what they perceive the rules
to be).  As an example, the gang shootings.  That matches this description
as well. 
    
>    None of these are self defense. And none of them are excusable.

Nor is it really self defense for the country A to go against country B because
country B attacked/wronged/whatevered country C.  However, a lot of society 
views that as 'good'.  


-Joe