I am creating this thread to open the door to an intelligent discussion on the implications and morality of owning a gun in relation to self preservation and/or preservation of loved ones. Here we have a few quotes from Ra that are tied into the topic. I know we all desire to live in a world where there are no guns and no violence. Given that we do, however, live in a world where there are those wishing to do harm I feel this is a relevant (and very sensitive) topic worth discussing.
"33.11 Questioner: This motion picture brought out this point of which we have been talking. And the entity, the Colonel, had to make a decision at that point. I was just wondering, with respect to polarity, his polarization. He could have either knuckled under, you might say, to the negative forces, but he chose to defend his friend instead. Is it possible for you to estimate which is more positively polarizing: to defend the positively oriented entity, or to allow the suppression by the negatively oriented entities? Can you answer this even?
Ra: I am Ra. This question takes in the scope of fourth density as well as your own and its answer may best be seen by the action of the entity called Jehoshua, which you call Jesus. This entity was to be defended by its friends. The entity reminded its friends to put away the sword. This entity then delivered itself to be put to the physical death. The impulse to protect the loved other-self is one which persists through the fourth density, a density abounding in compassion. More than this we cannot and need not say."
"25.5 Questioner: You spoke of an Orion Confederation and a battle being fought between the Confederation and the Orion Confederation. Is it possible to convey any concept of how this battle is fought?
Ra: I am Ra. Picture, if you will, your mind. Picture it then in total unity with all other minds of your society. You are then single-minded and that which is a weak electrical charge in your physical illusion is now an enormously powerful machine whereby thoughts may be projected as things.
In this endeavor the Orion group charges or attacks the Confederation arms with light. The result, a stand-off, as you would call it, both energies being somewhat depleted by this and needing to regroup; the negative depleted through failure to manipulate, the positive depleted through failure to accept that which is given."
[font=sans-serif]"25.6 Questioner: Could you amplify the meaning of what you said by “failure to accept that which is given?”
Ra: I am Ra. At the level of time/space at which this takes place in the form of what you may call thought-war, the most accepting and loving energy would be to so love those who wished to manipulate that those entities were surrounded, engulfed, and transformed by positive energies.
This, however, being a battle of equals, the Confederation is aware that it cannot, on equal footing, allow itself to be manipulated in order to remain purely positive, for then though pure it would not be of any consequence, having been placed by the so-called powers of darkness under the heel, as you may say.
It is thus that those who deal with this thought-war must be defensive rather than accepting in order to preserve their usefulness in service to others. Thusly, they cannot accept fully what the Orion Confederation wishes to give, that being enslavement. Thusly, some polarity is lost due to this friction and both sides, if you will, must then regroup.
It has not been fruitful for either side. The only consequence which has been helpful is a balancing of the energies available to this planet so that these energies have less necessity to be balanced in this space/time, thus lessening the chances of planetary annihilation."
[/font]
[font=sans-serif]I am aware that there are many here who are against guns in general; Lets consider something. You are faced with a situation where you can either accept the gift of destruction of yourself and/or your loved one or you can eliminate/disable the entity desiring to cause destruction. [/font]
[font=sans-serif]What do you do and why?[/font]
[font=sans-serif]I am also wondering if there are any gun owners on the forum, and if so, I am interested in your perspective.[/font]
[font=sans-serif]Me, personally. I choose to not accept the gift of destruction. I do not, however, own a gun but it is something I have considered in my past.[/font]
[font=sans-serif]Thoughts?[/font]
I want a tranquilizer gun. I'd never own a lethal gun. I'd rather be killed than kill.
Like Isis my perspective is that I'd rather be killed than kill.
I can't have a gun. I have a mental illness.
It seems difficult to imagine the emotional impact of that sort of situation as I have not experienced such a thing in this life. I can imagine my state of mind would be completely different. Though, thinking of it now. I would agree that if I was in a situation where I would have to kill someone to prevent them from killing me, I would be inclined to say I would rather it be my life than having to kill them. Though, on the other hand, If it was a loved one who was to be killed and I could prevent the individual by taking their life, I think I might have to take action. I don't know how hard that would be honestly in the moment to kill someone, but I am not sure I could allow that person to kill a loved one. The thing is, if i did take that action, who knows the events that could follow... either way that is. We can not know of the triggers that may follow from each decision.
One thing I think might be helpful to this debate is pointing out that Ra was directly answering only the question asked: Which option is the most (personally) polarizing towards positivitiy? I'm assuming the "personally," but from the response it seems that's what Ra did as well. And he openly makes it clear that he's giving a very narrow answer, so to speak.
Basically, he's giving the min-max solution to the problem. The optimal solution, for those seeking pure positive polarization.
But I think it's worth keeping in mind that catalyzing events will pretty much always contain a mixture of positive and negative elements. The option to allow oneself to be sacrificed is the MOST positively-polarizing answer, but that doesn't imply all other options will have a negative outcome. To one who seeks positive polarization, it would simply be less-positive than the optimal solution of self-sacrifice.
And I think his example of Jesus is a good way of illustrating how tricky this point really is. From a personal standpoint, the entity we call Jesus gained much positive catalyst through his noble self-sacrifice. Yet... with JC dead so young, and with his ministry barely started, his message almost immediately became corrupted by those who had not time to truly understand it. Over the centuries, this ultimately led to a church Jesus wouldn't have wanted, launching wars that Jesus would have abhorred, in the name of dogmatic doctrines Jesus wouldn't have recognized and certainly wouldn't have followed.
So... what would have happened if Jesus had lived to a ripe old age? What if Christians had ended up with thirty years of sermons to study, rather than only three? What if Jesus had become well-known enough BEFORE his death that his life couldn't be so thoroughly mythologized and rewritten after-the-fact?
It's not hard to imagine a small negative act ultimately paying off with much greater positive long-term reward, in this case. Or at least a massive lessening of negative acts. Catalysts are funny that way. A+B rarely yields AB.
Either way, going back to what Ra said... The other thing he was trying to convey, I think, is that it's not THAT important for 3D beings to stress over this. His aside about the impulse to protect loved-others persisting through 4th Density basically means: "If you're 3D, you're not expected to have a grip on this and you've got an entire incarnative cycle ahead of you specifically for working that one out."
So basically, I'd say the answer is simply to do that which is in one's nature to do in such a situation, then seek the polarize the catalyst in the direction one seeks to grow.
Or, put another way, there's no "right or wrong" here because on the 3D/4D planes we'll have made that same choice over and over, through countless iterations, over the course of our evolution towards 5D and beyond. We've all pulled the trigger, and we've all watched loved ones die, and we've all thrown ourselves into pain for the sake of another. The individual action/decision/catalyst itself is less important than the polarizing growth that follows.
(05-18-2015, 03:03 PM)APeacefulWarrior Wrote: [ -> ]One thing I think might be helpful to this debate is pointing out that Ra was directly answering only the question asked: Which option is the most (personally) polarizing towards positivitiy? I'm assuming the "personally," but from the response it seems that's what Ra did as well. And he openly makes it clear that he's giving a very narrow answer, so to speak.
Basically, he's giving the min-max solution to the problem. The optimal solution, for those seeking pure positive polarization.
But I think it's worth keeping in mind that catalyzing events will pretty much always contain a mixture of positive and negative elements. The option to allow oneself to be sacrificed is the MOST positively-polarizing answer, but that doesn't imply all other options will have a negative outcome. To one who seeks positive polarization, it would simply be less-positive than the optimal solution of self-sacrifice.
And I think his example of Jesus is a good way of illustrating how tricky this point really is. From a personal standpoint, the entity we call Jesus gained much positive catalyst through his noble self-sacrifice. Yet... with JC dead so young, and with his ministry barely started, his message almost immediately became corrupted by those who had not time to truly understand it. Over the centuries, this ultimately led to a church Jesus wouldn't have wanted, launching wars that Jesus would have abhorred, in the name of dogmatic doctrines Jesus wouldn't have recognized and certainly wouldn't have followed.
So... what would have happened if Jesus had lived to a ripe old age? What if Christians had ended up with thirty years of sermons to study, rather than only three? What if Jesus had become well-known enough BEFORE his death that his life couldn't be so thoroughly mythologized and rewritten after-the-fact?
It's not hard to imagine a small negative act ultimately paying off with much greater positive long-term reward, in this case. Or at least a massive lessening of negative acts. Catalysts are funny that way. A+B rarely yields AB.
Either way, going back to what Ra said... The other thing he was trying to convey, I think, is that it's not THAT important for 3D beings to stress over this. His aside about the impulse to protect loved-others persisting through 4th Density basically means: "If you're 3D, you're not expected to have a grip on this and you've got an entire incarnative cycle ahead of you specifically for working that one out."
So basically, I'd say the answer is simply to do that which is in one's nature to do in such a situation, then seek the polarize the catalyst in the direction one seeks to grow.
Or, put another way, there's no "right or wrong" here because on the 3D/4D planes we'll have made that same choice over and over, through countless iterations, over the course of our evolution towards 5D and beyond. We've all pulled the trigger, and we've all watched loved ones die, and we've all thrown ourselves into pain for the sake of another. The individual action/decision/catalyst itself is less important than the polarizing growth that follows.
What a great reply. Thanks to everyone for sharing your thoughts.
Sabou- I feel similarly to you in that I don't feel as much of a need to protect myself, I don't think I have so much attachment to MY physical life but I have family (my mom) who I love very very much and I am very close with and would do ANYTHING for. I could not let her be hurt/killed if I could help it, in the name of Love. Also, I take this topic very seriously as killing is a very serious thing and not something that appeals to me, AT ALL.
Thanks Everyone
Awesomely put, APeacefulWarrior.
Suspicious and questionable first post here follows :p ;
I own guns. I CCW carry. I like guns, and have my entire life.
They are normalized and don't, I believe, hold a great deal of emotional power for me.
Concurrently, and with even more zeal and interest, I've searched for The Truth.
It does seem to provide quite the conundrum.
And as APW points out, Ra leaves it open.
Which makes sense to me.
I mean, it's kinda' like looking at something under a microscope at different powers.
There's different layers and perspectives.
And NONE of them are Wrong.
Guns are a part of our Age. A part of the Game here.
Tools.
There's a thousand ways to examine this.
One of the very topics I registered to explore.
And, VOILA' here it is. haha. synch...
I'll take the percentage cut hit to defend me and mine.
ETA: Of course, I'm always open to the evolution of this.... distortion.
As I am for all others.
"I stand before you a veteran of a thousand psychic wars."
Related thread:
Gun Laws
I have changed quite a bit since sharing my views in that thread. However, I still believe its perfectly fine to own and/or carry a firearm. I see them as a fire extinguisher or seatbelt: you have one but you hope you never have to use it. I am hoping simply having a firearm in my hands will deter someone from attacking myself or my family.
I had a dream where a guy overpowered me and was trying to steal my Stall Bombs. They were white with black spines coming off of them. I dreamed then I pulled a gun on him, and as I awoke I thought of shooting him in the jaw.
(05-17-2015, 11:19 PM)Zachary Wrote: [ -> ][font=sans-serif]"25.6 Questioner: Could you amplify the meaning of what you said by “failure to accept that which is given?”
Ra: I am Ra. At the level of time/space at which this takes place in the form of what you may call thought-war, the most accepting and loving energy would be to so love those who wished to manipulate that those entities were surrounded, engulfed, and transformed by positive energies.
This, however, being a battle of equals, the Confederation is aware that it cannot, on equal footing, allow itself to be manipulated in order to remain purely positive, for then though pure it would not be of any consequence, having been placed by the so-called powers of darkness under the heel, as you may say.
It is thus that those who deal with this thought-war must be defensive rather than accepting in order to preserve their usefulness in service to others. Thusly, they cannot accept fully what the Orion Confederation wishes to give, that being enslavement. Thusly, some polarity is lost due to this friction and both sides, if you will, must then regroup.
It has not been fruitful for either side. The only consequence which has been helpful is a balancing of the energies available to this planet so that these energies have less necessity to be balanced in this space/time, thus lessening the chances of planetary annihilation."
[/font]
I love the above quote.
To defend oneself, guns are not necessary. Analogy: driving in traffic. There are many aggressive drivers on the road. On a freeway during rush hour, people are changing lanes, cutting in front of you, etc. Protecting oneself in this situation is better done by getting out of way, letting people cut in front of you, which also protects those being aggressive. To engage in the game of aggression, by trying to hold your position in traffic, only adds to the possibility of a collision and the energy of anger.
I say use intellect instead of guns to avoid confrontation and live peacefully. If in the U.S. if it continues to move more toward a police state, start making plans to move elsewhere rather than holding your ground. You can also learn self-defense. When you become proficient in self-defense, it gives you a confidence which erases fears of being overcome. Also, don't watch TV and all the fear-mongering.
I like Isis's idea of a tranquilizer gun if one must have something like that. I've often wondered why a very fast-acting tranquilizing gun (or something even more affective but not harming) hasn't been developed for law enforcement instead of policemen carrying lethal weapons.
Especially because the bad guys sometimes steal the police weapons and use them against them. I've seen it happen on video.
It seems even the 4D+ Confederation aligns with the concept of "force on force". In extremis.
The appropriate "weapon" for the Density being of secondary consideration to the Concept.
At least for this discussion, seems to me.
Whether you're using guns, hands and feet, cars, love beams or feather pillows, it's all the same... mechanic at work.
I know I'll be perfect and live a perfect existence at some point.
Meanwhile I'm here. Enjoying the distortions and shortcomings of consensus reality.
I've wondered what it feels like to get shot in the head. Or in the heart.
A difficult dilemma, to be sure. There are a couple of threads about this topic. One is Acceptance and Will. The other is in the politics sub-forum but I don't remember what it was called.
For those who say "I'd rather be killed than kill" would you also rather see your loved ones killed, than kill to protect them?
(05-19-2015, 04:12 PM)Monica Wrote: [ -> ]A difficult dilemma, to be sure. There are a couple of threads about this topic. One is Acceptance and Will. The other is in the politics sub-forum but I don't remember what it was called.
For those who say "I'd rather be killed than kill" would you also rather see your loved ones killed, than kill to protect them?
That is a good question, I'd defend them.
Afterwards I'd probably view the kill as that it had some purpose in me being in the position to make it happen with the bias to make it happen and would probably not worry much about it.
I'm thinking about how to apply selflessness to this situation and can't even work out an answer as to what would be best to do. I'd probably shoulder doing the kill instead of being the dead person since I can't.
(05-19-2015, 02:24 PM)Diana Wrote: [ -> ]I like Isis's idea of a tranquilizer gun if one must have something like that. I've often wondered why a very fast-acting tranquilizing gun (or something even more affective but not harming) hasn't been developed for law enforcement instead of policemen carrying lethal weapons.
Its impractical and dangerous. Using a tranquilizer gun isn't like the movies. The right dosage needs to administered or it could either not be powerful enough, or worse yet be too powerful and kill the person.
The main issue is it wont be fast acting enough. If someone is attacking you with a weapon, they could probably use it before the tranq kicks in all the way. Plus hitting different portions of the body will dramatically effect how fast the tranq takes effect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tranquilliz...police_use
Furthermore, I think it is illegal to have a tranq gun without a license and it isn't possible to obtain a license unless you are working with wildlife.
If there was something available like something out of science fiction (ex: zat gun from Stargate or phaser from Stark Trek), I would gladly use that instead. But at the moment, nothing comes close to being as safe and effective as the portrayal of those weapons.
(05-19-2015, 06:48 PM)Parsons Wrote: [ -> ]If there was something available like something out of science fiction (ex: zat gun from Stargate or phaser from Stark Trek), I would gladly use that instead. But at the moment, nothing comes close to being as safe and effective as the portrayal of those weapons.
That's really what I mean. When you think of the energy and money spent on developing technology, if there was an interest in just self defense concerning guns, with all the brilliant minds out there, we would have something better by now.
@Berilac Sandydowns
Thank you for sharing your perspective.. and welcome!
Im grateful for all the replys!
You're welcome Zachary. And thank you!
It may seem that I've got this all figured out and nicely sorted.
While I've done my best, that's not the case at all. I still have a lot of conflicts about this whole thing.
Ra mentions Jesus telling his buddies to stand down.
In the context of this conversation, I don't believe this particular example can be used to plead non violence.
He knew what was going down. Had planned out his incarnation.
Was at least partially aware that what was about to happen would be one of the biggest things ever and would resonate and affect Reality for thousands of years.
Commitment to non violence was not the reason he wouldn't allow his destiny to be altered.
If we create a lesson plan for.our incarnations. And otherselves do the same, weaving and meshing into ours, then this all can get really weird and complicated.
Surely a violent confrontation would be part of that plan. It's a major hairy deal, right? I mean, if it were to happen.
So is it SUPPOSED to happen to further the evolution of self/otherself?
Our purpose is to provide Creator of creators with every possible experience in the exploration of All.
Only our localized reality determines whether a given experience is "good" or "bad".
And yet another Human/complex issue for me;
If I'm hauling around something as coarse and unsubtle as a projectile launcher, am I keeping some other possible Way from manifesting?
haha
It can be kinda' rough trying to keep your balance when you're walking in multiple Worlds.
(05-17-2015, 11:19 PM)Zachary Wrote: [ -> ]I am creating this thread to open the door to an intelligent discussion on the implications and morality of owning a gun in relation to self preservation and/or preservation of loved ones. Here we have a few quotes from Ra that are tied into the topic. I know we all desire to live in a world where there are no guns and no violence. Given that we do, however, live in a world where there are those wishing to do harm I feel this is a relevant (and very sensitive) topic worth discussing.
Ra did answer a question related to the original thrust of your query:
Question:
Quote:"33.9 Questioner: Yes, I do. Then from this I will extrapolate the concept which is somewhat more difficult because as you have explained before, even fourth-density positive has the concept of defensive action, but above the fourth density the concept of defensive action is not in use. The concept of defensive action and [chuckle] offensive action are very much in use in this, our present experience.
I am assuming that if an entity is polarized strongly enough in his thought in a positive sense defensive action is not going to be necessary for him because the opportunity to apply defensive action will never originate for him. Is this correct?"
Answer:
Quote:"Ra: I am Ra. This is unknowable. In each case, as we have said, an entity able to program experiences may choose the number and the intensity of lessons to be learned.
It is possible that an extremely positively oriented entity might program for itself situations testing the ability of self to refrain from defensive action even to the point of the physical death of self or other-self.
This is an intensive lesson and it is not known, shall we say, what entities have programmed. We may, if we desire, read this programming. However, this is an infringement and we choose not to do so."
in the end, it comes to life programming (as one scenario).
the question, also, of home invasion and sudden random acts of violence also invite the question of how strongly such scenarios are considered in the self. ie, what is the motivation for thinking and pre-empting such situations?
if one is living in a neighbourhood where such things are commonplace, it may be sensible to pre-empt such a scenario. If one has never encountered such a situation, or not had any friends/relatives who related such an event, it may be inner fears latching onto what one has seen on the news, or read in other parts of the world/country.
Then it may be symbol for something else. Ie red ray fears of survival, intangible threats that can't be articulated etc etc.
Great post Plenum.
Thank you.
Brought on a minor epiphany for me.
If "I" didn't plan on getting involved in some sort of action here/now, (pre incarnation) the chances of it happening seem to be very much reduced.
duh
haha ummm.... I wonder if I shoud be even more worried about it now? ACK!
No need to try to answer. I really do feel I have a pretty good grasp on all this.
Feel free, of course. I'm always up for some evolution.
Red ray, huh?
Shadows of the past?
Or the future?
(05-21-2015, 12:02 AM)Berilac Sandydowns Wrote: [ -> ]Great post Plenum.
Thank you.
np
(05-21-2015, 12:02 AM)Berilac Sandydowns Wrote: [ -> ]Brought on a minor epiphany for me.
If "I" didn't plan on getting involved in some sort of action here/now, (pre incarnation) the chances of it happening seem to be very much reduced.
duh
I guess the eternal question, for a 3d entity, is how much of catalyst is preplanned, and how much of it can be considered 'random', or subject to the Wheel of Fortune effect.
True fatalists would say that life is like a rollercoaster ride, and everything is just a result of karmic return, and you choosing how to respond to the experiences on the rollercoaster. At the end of the day, you are strapped into your ride ('your life journey'), and most of the markers and signposts are firmly in place. You really don't have much choice in where things go, and are just there to 'interpret'.
People who believe the opposite strand tend to favor a 'you create your own reality' approach, and that anything and everything can be determined by the incarnate personality. I do like the self-empowerment of this type of message, but I also acknowledge that there are certain parameters in place for any life incarnation, so that it stays on track with the goals set for that life. 3d just has too much variety and too many activities to scatter one's attention to the winds. I think of FDR's self-triggered polio when he started getting too involved in orange ray pleasures to the detriment of excluding his heart-based polarization. His life plan saw fit enough to cripple him, so that he would learn what he came here to learn. He chose that for himself before coming down - it wasn't a punishment. If he understood well enough later on in life, would the polio have suddenly reverted, and he would have had a miracle recovery? Or did the deeper self not see that as an issue for a human being to be so handicapped for the rest of their natural life?
there is a certain harshness and bluntness when we talk about the enforced limitations of incarnation; for eg, someone willingly and knowingly being born into a body that was blind, or a baby that has fetal-alchohol syndrome. It somehow doesn't seem 'fair'; and yet the parameters of each life are chosen specifically (and tailored) for the learning goals in that incarnation. Perhaps we suffer from acute short sightedness in trying to see perfection in each life; without seeing them as a sequence of a strand of lovely pearls, each life with it's own unique overlays and harmonies, the whole of which forms the final structure which leads to the perfect balance of the Higher Self.
(05-21-2015, 12:02 AM)Berilac Sandydowns Wrote: [ -> ]Red ray, huh?
Shadows of the past?
Or the future?
fears, especially of survival, are based on past traumatic incidents. They then project into the future as scenarios in which one is being threatened, intimidated, or physically coerced. One then gets paralyzed by those fears, and closes off potential new experiences.
No-one really wishes the destruction of their physical vehicle. But if one is self-convinced by depression/suicidal tendences that future experienes will only bring more pain and suffering, then the only viable option in such a person's mind is ending the possibility of any more future experiences. Ie, a total closing of red ray, and the attempt to nullify consciousness either through the deliberate act of physical self ending, or the numbing of consciousness into nothingness using things like alchohol. The actual physical acts are the way of enforcing a state of consciousness so that it becomes 'reality' for that person. The acts are secondary to the state of mind thinking those thoughts.
You can place me squarely in the "create your own reality" camp.
Yup. Personal parameters, the Game and the mass of consensus reality keeping us guided. Or contained. Depending on how you look at it. :p
Agreed on your thoughts on FDR.
I believe it's possible to heal. But it's incredibly difficult because something like that cascades and reinforces itself so powerfully that it must be near impossible to correct. To not believe in.
He might even have seen it as an advantage for his political career.
Interesting Red Ray thoughts.
Looking at myself in reference to them, I detect no major dysfunctions.
No inordinate fears or traumas.
At least not in the present incarnation.
But then, we have all been many things at many times.
An interesting, technical, hobby/skill that happens to have certain real world applications.
Here I must confess I haven't read near all of the LOO materials.
About the first 1 1/2 of the 5 and about half of Wanderers Handbook.
In the last week.
But WHOOEEE it was like I already knew everything. Every paragraph a clarification and affirmation of what I already knew. Very exciting.
I've been at this a very long time.
So I figured I'd blunder in here and start embarrassing myself.
(05-21-2015, 04:28 AM)Berilac Sandydowns Wrote: [ -> ]So I figured I'd blunder in here and start embarrassing myself.
You and me both friend. You and me both lol
Regarding 3D life or death, I call it FAIR GAME. When its unplanned conflict its truly up to you and your responsibility to maintain yourself enough to stay with your choice, but the wheel of fortune is spun so to say, and if you do end up murdering in defense, Fair Game, both entities were partaking, regardless of being forced into conflict.
That's my solution. The Wheel spins, if you die, you die. If you kill, you kill.
I always thought of approaching such events in a -neutralize- them sense.
I think that's be much easier with a gun for one reason.
If they have a gun and I don't. I lose. I want a chance.
Defend yourself or don't, applying Jesus' story isn't the same in the most general context of a violent person attacking rather than asking/forcing you to do ssomething. So I'd like to not use that example. Ultimately All is a service. If you kill, they learn violence has a down side. If you die, you learn defense has a plus side, prolonging an incarnation is a service to others in the long run if you're not programmed to die and a good person who met a bad person.
Working at a gas station at nights I had to literally devise a manner of how to act in congruency with my beliefs in such areas. I'd rather live and let live than die.
With a gun that means trying not to go for lethal hits (I do want to learn how to best down and incapacitate with body shots.)
Seriously, why not defend yourself with intent not to kill?
(05-21-2015, 05:48 AM)VanAlioSaldo Wrote: [ -> ]Working at a gas station at nights I had to literally devise a manner of how to act in congruency with my beliefs in such areas. I'd rather live and let live than die.
With a gun that means trying not to go for lethal hits (I do want to learn how to best down and incapacitate with body shots.)
Seriously, why not defend yourself with intent not to kill?
Why don't you learn self-defense? There are effective self-defense gun techniques even. It would change your feeling about being at a disadvantage. It doesn't mean you would no longer want to protect yourself with a gun perhaps, but you will feel less need for it. A few classes won't do it though. You must reach a point where you have accumulated enough muscle memory and confidence, and hopefully find a good teacher.
I once had a gun and came home to find my door open, but was afraid to pull it out. Turns out I had left it open.