Legal to have firearms in your house

[0Spawn0]

There's a reason every police officer has to see a councilor every time they discharge their firearm at someone. Shooting at another human being has psychological ramifications, no matter how justified the action may be.

That is Debatable. Not everyone is going to have psychological ramifications for discharging there firearm at another human, its same as when you go hunting some people have problems with killing animals some will not.

[Rodri]

You are right, sociopaths have no problem with killing another human being.

[logrus]

Sociopaths are a rare exception to a lot of rules though.

They simply have no filters at all towards doing anything at all.

~L

[FoxyBunny]

My understanding is that police psychologists are trained to look for complete lack of remorse in the process of these counseling sessions. Should they feel that this police officer has no concern over ending human life, they have the power to pull that person from the streets.

[Rota]

That is Debatable. Not everyone is going to have psychological ramifications for discharging there firearm at another human, its same as when you go hunting some people have problems with killing animals some will not.

Killing animals has a psychological impact on everyone, too. The simple act of taking a life (or just attempting to take a life) affects everyone. The impact may be larger or smaller on certain people. It may be positive or negative, but there will be an impact. Someone may hit a deer on the road. An experienced hunter will shrug it off or even feel an ego boost for taking out one more. But, a completely non-violent, peacenik, hippie, chick might break down crying for the loss of life and incredible guilt.

[0Spawn0]

Killing animals has a psychological impact on everyone, too. The simple act of taking a life (or just attempting to take a life) affects everyone. The impact may be larger or smaller on certain people. It may be positive or negative, but there will be an impact. Someone may hit a deer on the road. An experienced hunter will shrug it off or even feel an ego boost for taking out one more. But, a completely non-violent, peacenik, hippie, chick might break down crying for the loss of life and incredible guilt.

Well Yes a impact for sure, but significant impact, well not for everyone.

[Gnerphk]

Mh... I'd agree with Rodri on this. In modern society, only a sociopath has zero or minimal impact. Granted, there are no pure sociopaths known to science; even the most sick and jaded has some societal connection... and that goes to demonstrate the point.

I wouldn't go so far as to stretch the definition to cover all killing. There are many societies that are conditioned to accept animal death for food use, and they are considered healthy by those that define such things. Some may argue that certain societies are conditioned to accept casual human death, and that in those societies a non-sociopathic killer may emerge; these societies, however, have been determined to be unhealthy and therefore likely populated by sociopaths.

[abracax]

Mh... I'd agree with Rodri on this. In modern society, only a sociopath has zero or minimal impact. Granted, there are no pure sociopaths known to science; even the most sick and jaded has some societal connection... and that goes to demonstrate the point.

I wouldn't go so far as to stretch the definition to cover all killing. There are many societies that are conditioned to accept animal death for food use, and they are considered healthy by those that define such things. Some may argue that certain societies are conditioned to accept casual human death, and that in those societies a non-sociopathic killer may emerge; these societies, however, have been determined to be unhealthy and therefore likely populated by sociopaths.

I would have to disagree with you here. Not so far back in history mankind had to hunt for any meat they wanted, and killing another person wasn't all that uncommon with territorial wars and such. Yet even then the majority of mankind understood how killing each other is not natural and it has a huge impact on the physical but also the mental health. As nations began to build war began to have rules, to this day we attempt to make war a more civilized event to prevent as many casualties as possible and lessen the loss of life in as many ways as we can. So to say certain societies are "conditioned to accept casual human death" is a wrong evaluation of how far the world has come from smashing someones head in with a rock to take their woman or food, to having rules of engagement.

[Gnerphk]

It's all in how one defines "sociopath". A good working definition would be "a person with a pathological inability to follow the rules of society".

Confusion arises once the professionals get involved. A formal definition includes qualifications on 'society', 'rules', 'inability', and in all likelihood 'person'.

According to the ASPD DSM IV (TR) {American Psychiatric Association (2000) - pages 645–650}, "Antisocial personality disorder" is defined as "...a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others that begins in childhood or early adolescence and continues into adulthood."

(And yes, that's the diagnosis of a sociopath. Don't bug me with trifles.)

If we presuppose that a person has a right to their life, a frequent killer of humans (presumably adult) would likely by definition be a sociopath, regardless of the tenets and mores of their society.

Of course, before the rights of humankind were universally recognized and accepted, and in societies outside this recognition, one might argue that this definition would be invalid. One would be wrong; for further discussion of this, I'll refer you to the works of John Stuart Mill, Hume, and my post elsewhere on coffee.

---

Apologies, Ab; I'd misread you. I'd thought you disagreed with me; instead, it seems we're coming at the same point from two different directions.