|
I don't see anyone defending Joe Horn ITT
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 13:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 14:29 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:As said, I accept that death may occur during self defence, it is hardly a controlled situation and I don't see much point in prosecuting people for it. What exactly are you saying here? Are you advocating for a change in law, and if so, what change?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 14:22
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I'm certainly not going to claim that once someone deprives another human of any right, that they immediately forfeit all their rights including a right to live. Because that is very obviously disproportionate. As cathartic as it may be to take someone's life and feel justified about it, it does not seem very moral? If someone tries to steal from or injure someone else, how does that justify killing them? I can accept that they may be killed accidentally, but to set out with the intent to kill someone in that situation seems severely disproportionate. OwlFancier posted:As said, I accept that death may occur during self defence, it is hardly a controlled situation and I don't see much point in prosecuting people for it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 14:47
|
|
|
I am suggesting that the idea that guns are the ideal form of self defence is flawed. Self defence, ideally, should not generally require lethal force. Part of the reason it frequently will require lethal force is because assailants may also carry guns, which is a symptom of general gun proliferation. If fewer people have guns overall, there is less need for a gun as a weapon, it increases the relative effectiveness of less-lethal weaponry in resisting an attack. Suggesting that guns should be the primary tool of self defence is to suggest that it is perfectly acceptable for self defence to result in death, which is only true if you believe that the life of an attacker has no value, and I see no moral justification for that belief. Therefore, guns are not sufficient for self defence, not because they fail to secure the life of the defender, but because they fail to secure both the life of the defender and the attacker. There are better options to secure both, and some of them are incompatible with the idea of prolific gun ownership. Armed defenders and attackers may be an improvement over only armed attackers, but it is gravely short sighted to suggest that this should be the fundamental and unchanging basis for a society. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 15:04 on Jul 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 15:00
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:See, this is the kind of thing I'm talking about. The whole life as a Deathwish fan-fic psychosis, where only your trusty *insert one of your dozen guns here*, steely unflinching gaze, and steady hand can keep you safe. It's not based on anything resembling a real cost-benefit analysis of gun policy, it's based on the fact that there's a certain sort of person who gets off on the idea of being able to own a highly lethal weapon. It's not about prudent self-defense measures, it's about indulging in an adolescent power fantasy of being able to carry around on your person throughout the day the ability to kill. Except I don't carry a gun, never have, don't want to, and don't even have a CCW (and yes I'm eligible before Effortronica starts in on the personal attacks again) I shoot sporting clays as a hobby with a double barrel shotgun. It's about the worst weapon imagineable for self defense - you get two shots, it's a long gun, it's not well suited for defense loads, but it's the gun I shoot 99% of the time. You keep making personal assumptions about the people you're arguing against based on their statements - should I assume you're a football hooligan who will glass someone if Chelsea or whatever your soccer team is loses next week, just because you're British?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 15:24
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I am suggesting that the idea that guns are the ideal form of self defence is flawed. Self defence, ideally, should not generally require lethal force. Part of the reason it frequently will require lethal force is because assailants may also carry guns, which is a symptom of general gun proliferation. I disagree with your premise that guns are only necessary because the attacker has a gun - guns are not required to constitute a lethal threat. A larger, more physically capable attacker, or numbers or attackers, or frailty of the victim, etc, all can lead to a lethal component. Take two people, one of whom is young, healthy, and large in stature and another who is older, smaller, and frail. Put them in an arena and see who ends up strangled to death. Most weapons, like knives, bats, clubs, even bows all favor the strong. OwlFancier posted:If fewer people have guns overall, there is less need for a gun as a weapon, it increases the relative effectiveness of less-lethal weaponry in resisting an attack. This statement arises from the flawed premise that a gunless attacker is not a lethal threat, which is wrong. OwlFancier posted:Suggesting that guns should be the primary tool of self defence is to suggest that it is perfectly acceptable for self defence to result in death, which is only true if you believe that the life of an attacker has no value, and I see no moral justification for that belief. You're taking it a bit far. It isn't that the attacker's life has no value, its that when weighing the two against each other, the victim is given more weight. After all, the victim did not create the situation, they did not violate the law, they did not introduce violence, they were minding their own business. OwlFancier posted:Therefore, guns are not sufficient for self defence, not because they fail to secure the life of the defender, but because they fail to secure both the life of the defender and the attacker. There are better options to secure both, and some of them are incompatible with the idea of prolific gun ownership. Until you import SLAP drones from The Culture, your advocacy for the disarming of victims and ultimate choice to side with violent predators will not be morally correct.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 15:28
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:Until you import SLAP drones from The Culture, your advocacy for the disarming of victims and ultimate choice to side with violent predators will not be morally correct. So you would be in favor of laws that restrict violent predators from obtaining firearms, because it ultimately improves the ability of victims to defend themselves with their firearms, correct?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 15:33
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I am suggesting that the idea that guns are the ideal form of self defence is flawed. Self defence, ideally, should not generally require lethal force. Part of the reason it frequently will require lethal force is because assailants may also carry guns, which is a symptom of general gun proliferation. This is asinine. The guy who busted into my house and started attacking people in their beds had his bare hands, not a gun. When I walked in he was successfully strangling a perfectly healthy young man, and had been for a couple minutes, without any help from society's terrible proliferation in firearms, because when someone jumps you and you don't immediately fight them off they can pretty much ruin your poo poo with their bare hands. I don't know whether his intent was specifically murder or just to kick the poo poo out of the guy and maybe murder him cause he got caught up in the moment, and by your rubric, to the extent you are saying anything at all which is very little, I shoulda just hung back and waited to see how things played out before acting as though the guy was killing somebody. Every time this topic comes up on the forums there's somebody who seems deeply concerned with the value of violent attackers' lives to all exclusion of value of the person in the equation who didn't voluntarily bring about a life-threatening emergency, who should accomodate his killer on the off chance he's really a nice guy deep down. Thankfully, your utter contempt for that portion of humanity that isn't assaulting the rest of humanity is not ever going to be reflected in law, but this sort of exemplifies why the legal system has decided to err on the side of castle law rather than trusting to not get a jury of misanthropic pricks playing CSI from the comfort of their chairs and trying to prosecute the victim for fighting off the poor misunderstood guy whose surely benign intent in placing his hands around another person's neck we will now never know. And why gently caress the numbers I'm way more inclined to trust some random schmo to make reasonable moral decisions in how to lead their own life than I am to trust an opinionated internet dictator to make decisions for them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 15:33
|
|
|
That rationale only holds if you believe that someone not armed with a gun is as lethal as someone who is, which, I think, is patently false. Certainly you can kill people without firearms, however I trust you will not dispute that firearms are significantly more lethal than say, fists, muscle, and knives? If your attacker is using something less lethal than a firearm, then so can you. Self defence training and less lethal weaponry becomes more effective when people aren't using them to fight attackers with guns. I have also previously stated I see no benefit in prosecuting people for killing in self defence. However I also don't see why, when structuring a society, we should encourage people to end up killing or being killed in self defence by encouraging everyone to be lethally armed all the time. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 15:36 on Jul 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 15:34
|
|
|
Are you seriously advocating 'Fair Play' in a self-defense setting?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:Are you seriously advocating 'Fair Play' in a self-defense setting? Call it a need for an "Equalizer"
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 15:37
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:So you would be in favor of laws that restrict violent predators from obtaining firearms, because it ultimately improves the ability of victims to defend themselves with their firearms, correct? I think all of us are in favor of keeping guns out of the hands of violent criminals, some of us just question the efficacy of certain specific laws in accomplishing that goal without unduly burdening law abiding citizens.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 15:40
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:If you're not afraid of them escaping why do you keep them locked up? Because there are kids in the house occasionally, and I'd rather be responsible for locking the safe than for one of then shooting someone. Same reason the knives are on the high counter and we don't leave car keys lying around.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 15:40
|
|
|
Rewrite the legal codes to trial by combat, if you successfully kill somebody fairly matched it is because your cause was just and theirs was not, case closed. Just think of the savings!
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 15:40
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Call it a need for an "Equalizer" That is completely absurd. What is the basis for this 'Equalizer' system? Is it point based? Should the would-be victim carry something on them for whatever potential attacker that they could theoretically be facing should they feel the need to carry self defense? Why does the the would-be victim have to show restraint? And why do they need to waste time evaluating the threat that they are facing before they act in self-defense?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 15:42
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I think all of us are in favor of keeping guns out of the hands of violent criminals, some of us just question the efficacy of certain specific laws in accomplishing that goal without unduly burdening law abiding citizens. Can you suggest some laws you think would be effective at restricting violent criminals from obtaining firearms that you believe would also not unduly burden law abiding citizens and which you would be willing to support?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 15:43
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:Rewrite the legal codes to trial by combat, if you successfully kill somebody fairly matched it is because your cause was just and theirs was not, case closed. Just think of the savings! Isn't that broadly what you're advocating? If you kill someone in a fight and they started it then that's fine, not only in the sense that you incur no personal liability, but also that this is a good basis for a society? I agree with not prosecuting people for it, but not at all with the idea that this is a perfectly acceptable resolution to the issue of violence.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 15:43
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:That rationale only holds if you believe that someone not armed with a gun is as lethal as someone who is, which, I think, is patently false. Wait, are you really arguing that lethality is anything other than binary? Less lethal is a legal term for specific self defense weapons that can still kill. Have you looked at various force continuum models and rules of engagement to understand how these situations are approached?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Isn't that broadly what you're advocating? If you kill someone in a fight and they started it then that's fine, not only in the sense that you incur no personal liability, but also that this is a good basis for a society? maybe you shouldn't be starting fights if you don't want people to react as though you're fighting them. One of the people in this scenario has all the time in the world to think through how they're going to set this situation up to accomplish their goals as safely as possible for all parties whose safety they care about, and the other is reacting to an event someone else created with a few seconds to potentially save their lives. Yeah, until we invent Star Trek phasers you can set to stun I'm pretty fine with this setup.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Because there are kids in the house occasionally, and I'd rather be responsible for locking the safe than for one of then shooting someone. Same reason the knives are on the high counter and we don't leave car keys lying around. It was tongue-in-cheek because your "I've never seen my guns run out and kill people themselves" comment was written as though it was some sort of masterful commentary on the topic. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 15:48
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:That is completely absurd. Of course it's absurd, but how is it any less absurd than the idea that we should consider it a fundamental pillar of our society that all people should, at all times, be equipped to kill anyone else, and that all violence should result in death? I live in a country where people cannot carry weapons for self defence. Astonishingly, we don't have a particularly bad problem with people killing each other. Society hasn't devolved into anarchy without that ability. I'm not proposing something wildly outlandish, there are plenty of countries in the world that operate on this system. Shooting Blanks posted:Wait, are you really arguing that lethality is anything other than binary? Less lethal is a legal term for specific self defense weapons that can still kill. Have you looked at various force continuum models and rules of engagement to understand how these situations are approached? Of course lethality is something other than binary, otherwise everything is lethal and a rock should be regarded equally to a gun. Legally the concept is different but in terms of "ease of killing" you can absolutely deduce that some things are more or less lethal than others. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 15:50 on Jul 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 15:48
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Of course it's absurd, but how is it any less absurd than the idea that we should consider it a fundamental pillar of our society that all people should, at all times, be equipped to kill anyone else, and that all violence should result in death? It's not a fundamental pillar of American society either - it's our personal choice, in most areas, to decide whether or not to carry a concealed weapon. You're making up arguments here. OwlFancier posted:Of course lethality is something other than binary, otherwise everything is lethal and a rock should be regarded equally to a gun. Legally the concept is different but in terms of "ease of killing" you can absolutely deduce that some things are more or less lethal than others. Lethal force is lethal force, doesn't matter if it's a rock, a gun, a katana, or a car. I'm having a hard time grasping where you're getting this from, should people who carry guns also have a flowchart to explain what circumstances they're justified in using them? Shooting Blanks fucked around with this message at 15:55 on Jul 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 15:51
|
|
|
What's the legality of having a gun that runs out and kills people itself anyway, I mean we are in the age of drones and self-driving cars. Is it like when your dog bites somebody?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 15:53
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:maybe you shouldn't be starting fights if you don't want people to construe your intent poorly. One of the people in this scenario has all the time in the world to think through how they're going to set this situation up to accomplish their goals as safely as possible for all parties whose safety they care about, and the other is reacting to an event someone else created with a few seconds to potentially save their lives. Yeah, until we invent Star Trek phasers you can set to stun I'm pretty fine with this setup. I'd personally prefer mechanical traps. Being face-to-face with a someone who has the advantage of surprise and timing puts me at risk, and there shouldn't be a burden upon me to determine whether or not the person breaking into my home is intent on killing me or just hurting me. It would be a net benefit to potential victims to be able to legally setup simple devices to shoot anyone who enters a door or window after they lock up for the night. Hell it doesn't even have to be lethal, I'd settle for being able to deploy less lethal devices as traps first to see if that presents a positive outcome to my case. If a criminal breaks my window and is immediately electrocuted when they climb through as an alarm is triggered I'd probably be in much better shape than having to taze them myself. A Wizard of Goatse posted:What's the legality of having a gun that runs out and kills people itself anyway, I mean we are in the age of drones and self-driving cars. Is it like when your dog bites somebody? I imagine it's something they'll have to figure out for Google's self driving cars. Nothing is perfect, so I have a hard time believing one of them won't suddenly plow through a school crosswalk or take their passengers into a ravine some day.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 15:53
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:It's not a fundamental pillar of American society either - it's our personal choice, in most areas, to decide whether or not to carry a concealed weapon. You're making up arguments here. If people don't carry guns then all the arguments about their value are invalid. You can't defend yourself with a gun you don't have. If you are arguing that you don't need to carry guns, then surely we are in agreement?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 15:54
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:That rationale only holds if you believe that someone not armed with a gun is as lethal as someone who is, which, I think, is patently false. It's also a false premise. Knives, baseball bats and screwdrivers are all significantly more lethal than fists. Should a victim not be permitted anything more dangerous than their own two hands because such means are far more likely to result in the death of the attacker? Why is the line drawn with guns on one side and aluminum baseball bats on the other? quote:If your attacker is using something less lethal than a firearm, then so can you. Self defence training and less lethal weaponry becomes more effective when people aren't using them to fight attackers with guns.  No they don't. Again, you're assuming some sort of bizarre equality. If a 5'0", 120 lbs. woman is fighting a healthy, 6'0", 200 lbs. man intent on killing her, the confrontation is going to be just as deadly for her whether or not he has a gun and whether or not she has spent five years studying at the feet of the ghost of Bruce Lee.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 15:54
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:I'd personally prefer mechanical traps. Being face-to-face with a someone who has the advantage of surprise and timing puts me at risk, and there shouldn't be a burden upon me to determine whether or not the person breaking into my home is intent on killing me or just hurting me. It would be a net benefit to potential victims to be able to legally setup simple devices to shoot anyone who enters a door or window after they lock up for the night. Can I get like a big boxing glove that shoots out of a panel in the wall and knocks them into a pit? Let's think 'outside the box' here, how elaborate can your deathtraps be before it's just a torture room?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 15:55
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:It's not a fundamental pillar of American society either - it's our personal choice, in most areas, to decide whether or not to carry a concealed weapon. You're making up arguments here. Actually up until a few years ago I was assured by law that the police would be very interested in apprehending individuals who decided to walk around in public with a concealed weapon, instead of "training" them and giving them a piece of plastic that says they can just do that
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 15:55
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:I'd personally prefer mechanical traps. Being face-to-face with a someone who has the advantage of surprise and timing puts me at risk, and there shouldn't be a burden upon me to determine whether or not the person breaking into my home is intent on killing me or just hurting me. It would be a net benefit to potential victims to be able to legally setup simple devices to shoot anyone who enters a door or window after they lock up for the night. Maybe he's only trying to break into your house to give you a hug since he felt that you really did not have enough hugs in your life. Did you ever think of that? Your vicious murder-trap of chainsaws and flamethrowers would deprive this world of a free hugger!
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 15:57
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:Can I get like a big boxing glove that shoots out of a panel in the wall and knocks them into a pit? Let's think 'outside the box' here, how elaborate can your deathtraps be before it's just a torture room? I think as long as the objective is not inflicting pain but rather defending yourself and your family we're all good. Leg hold traps aren't intended to kill, rather to incapacitate, and I see no problem with that as a viable first alternative to shooting someone. You'll see less risk for the victims who have more time to get a police response, ready their own firearm, etc. and less deaths for assailants who aren't being immediately shot as well. Taerkar posted:Maybe he's only trying to break into your house to give you a hug since he felt that you really did not have enough hugs in your life. Did you ever think of that? Your vicious murder-trap of chainsaws and flamethrowers would deprive this world of a free hugger! Unsolicited touching is bad touching. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 15:58
|
|
|
As a gun owner I would like to point out that I do not think there is a strong argument for the legality of firearms to be found in their use for shooting other people
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 15:58
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I am suggesting that the idea that guns are the ideal form of self defence is flawed. Self defence, ideally, should not generally require lethal force. Part of the reason it frequently will require lethal force is because assailants may also carry guns, which is a symptom of general gun proliferation. I think you have a vast misunderstanding of how firearms are used in self defense. Even among people carrying a gun, the vast majority of incidents they might need it are resolved without violence. It is very rare for a CCW holder to have to actually shoot an attacker, either because they have other options they prefer such as getting out of the situation, or because the attacker is dissuaded by the discovery that their target is armed. You seem to be under the impression that everyone who carries a gun is just salivating to up their body count, which is not born out by the statistics on CCW use.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 15:59
|
|
|
The issue with this 'disproportionate/lethal self-defense' is that it presumes A) Psychic abilities on the part of the victim B) Equal capability, C) A 'continuum' of accepted force and D) Generates the issue where hindsight and prosecutorial discretion will adversely affect minorities. Let me expand. A) The victim cannot know the capability, intent, or probable success of the attacker. An unassuming attacker might be a well-skilled boxer, or possessing a concealed weapon they will use. They do not know if the attacker intends to 'merely' break their bones and put them in the hospital or kill them, or even if the attacker has enough finesse to manage the line between grievous harm and fatal injury. Finally, the victim has no means by which to determine how 'proportionate' the attack will end up being. B) It also assumes that the attacker and victim stand on equal ground and can present equivalent force in combat. This works fine at the local boxing ring with weight classes and all, but in the real world the 'proportionate' capability varies wildly. C) Also, that there is a continuum of accepted force on which the victim is obligated to meet the attacker on. An unarmed attack must be met with an unarmed attack, a crowbar with a cricket bat, and so on. This assumes that each 'level' is equivalent between attacker and victim (B) but also that every level of the continuum is accessible to the victim. D) Finally, these factors have the potential to be ground out in a trial, subjecting anyone making a claim to the powers of the state with the ability to nitpick and grind down at the citizen. So if we go back to the example of the petite lady, say 105 pounds and five foot two, being attacked by her hulking abusive ex-husband who is a former boxer we can see issues that demanding 'proportionate self-defense' will create. Must she defend herself unarmed when he wraps his hands around her throat? Does she have to wait until he punches her in the face? How does the victim determine at the time of their attack exactly how much force they can bring to bear and in what manner they are allowed to bear it? What if they cannot exactly match the force of their attacker? Must they use less force and face the possibility of death/injury, or will they use 'excess' force and gamble on the prosecution being lenient?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 16:00
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:If people don't carry guns then all the arguments about their value are invalid. You can't defend yourself with a gun you don't have. If you are arguing that you don't need to carry guns, then surely we are in agreement? Already responded to this question. And you can't invalidate someone's arguments about guns just because they don't carry one - does that mean I can't disagree with racism because I'm white? Does that mean I can't sympathize with the handicapped because I'm not? That's ridiculous on its face and you know it. I'm not arguing that people need to carry guns, but that if they want to, they should be allowed to do so assuming it is legal where they live.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 16:00
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:Maybe he's only trying to break into your house to give you a hug since he felt that you really did not have enough hugs in your life. Did you ever think of that? Your vicious murder-trap of chainsaws and flamethrowers would deprive this world of a free hugger! I think we should mandate a sliding scale response system of hugs, then back pounds, then noogies, then grappling, then punches, then stabbing, then shooting. In this manner the attacker and the victim can negotiate a level of engagement that suits the both of them, without any unfortunate misunderstandings. Mo_Steel posted:I think as long as the objective is not inflicting pain but rather defending yourself and your family we're all good. Leg hold traps aren't intended to kill, rather to incapacitate, and I see no problem with that as a viable first alternative to shooting someone. You'll see less risk for the victims who have more time to get a police response, ready their own firearm, etc. and less deaths for assailants who aren't being immediately shot as well. Cool I always wanted landmines
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 16:00
|
|
|
Palace of Hate posted:Actually up until a few years ago I was assured by law that the police would be very interested in apprehending individuals who decided to walk around in public with a concealed weapon, instead of "training" them and giving them a piece of plastic that says they can just do that Depends on where you're from. Some places have had concealed carry for decades, some places have only legalized it more recently.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 16:01
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Telling the family of someone who has been beaten, stabbed, or bludgeoned to death that their assault would have been more deadly if conducted with a gun is certainly cold comfort. Appeal to emotion doesn't make it any more right. It is irrelevant whether or not a gun might make those people feel better, if giving people guns would result in more deaths. Dead Reckoning posted:It's also a false premise. Knives, baseball bats and screwdrivers are all significantly more lethal than fists. Should a victim not be permitted anything more dangerous than their own two hands because such means are far more likely to result in the death of the attacker? Why is the line drawn with guns on one side and aluminum baseball bats on the other? Because you can conceivably incapacitate someone with a bludgeon or stun gun, without killing them. In fact it is probably rather easier to incapacitate them than kill them with a weapon not designed to kill. There is a reason police carry batons and not machetes. There is a reasonable ground somewhere between a shotgun and tying your own arms behind your back when responding to an attacker, and in my country we decide what that is all the time. Our police don't carry guns because it is assumed they should not need to shoot people very often. They do carry less lethal weaponry, training, and protective clothing, because those are considered to aid the police officer in subduing someone and protecting their own life, without significantly increasing the risk of killing or maiming the offender. Dead Reckoning posted:
Yes, they do. In extremis, self defence training and less lethal weaponry may not be realistically enough to protect everyone all the time. I don't dispute this. However we operate a society on the basis that they are enough, enough of the time, and that giving everyone firearms wouldn't make us safer. Liquid Communism posted:I think you have a vast misunderstanding of how firearms are used in self defense. Even among people carrying a gun, the vast majority of incidents they might need it are resolved without violence. It is very rare for a CCW holder to have to actually shoot an attacker, either because they have other options they prefer such as getting out of the situation, or because the attacker is dissuaded by the discovery that their target is armed. If their response to threat is to escape (a good response) then they don't need to carry a gun to do that. I don't dispute that carrying a gun doesn't mean you have to use it, only that if you don't use it, you didn't need it to begin with. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 16:07 on Jul 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 16:03
|
|
|
What the gently caress back assward hickhole do you live in where the cops still carry clubs
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 16:04
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:What the gently caress back assward hickhole do you live in where the cops still carry clubs He's British.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 16:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 14:29 |
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:He's British. This explains a lot about the victim's life being so cheap, they're probably gurgling out a 'thank you' in their final moments
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2015 16:07
|
|