If you are going to consider the roll of guns in today's society, you might want to reflect on how Warren Smith Potter handled his in -- oh, I don't know -- 1925 or so.
Warren Smith Potter -- I heard this story from his great-grandson. Potter laid out salt licks for the deer. Now, when hunters learned he had a lot of deer on his land, of course they wanted to do their hunting there. Potter wasn't much of a gunman, but he did have a shotgun. So, he pulled it out, suggesting to the deer hunters that they best not cross onto his property.
Here's the thing. What if Potter had shot them? Of course, they -- having their hunting rifles with them -- might have won in a shootout.
But, what if Potter had shot them?
Does keeping someone off your land justify putting a hole in them? Thou shalt not kill is one of the Ten Commandments. It's a pretty big deal. The idea is, you never kill unless you have to. So, does keeping others off your land justify your taking their lives?
Even if you are so kind-hearted, that you're just trying to save a few deer?
Saving the deer makes a little better of an argument. Shooting someone just to keep them off your property holds little value with me. What have you won and lost? Someone loses their life and you become a killer in exchange for the pride of keeping them off space that belongs to you.
So, what if Potter had shot the hunters?
I think of my own father. He, like Potter, wasn't much of a gunman, but he had a gun. We lived on some of the best pheasant hunting land in all the country, I would guess. But, Dad never reached for his rifle to go confront the hunters.
Someones crossing onto your property isn't a good thing. But, is it such a harm that we should shoot anyone who does venture onto our property uninvited?
Whether it is 1925 or 2018, I say, No.
No comments:
Post a Comment