That's What Katanas Are For

[Ariovistus Maximus]

You assume I think policemen are safe with firearms. I don't.

Give them to civilians, people get shot.

Give them to policemen, people get shot.

Give them to soldiers, people get shot.

In only one instance is that the intended outcome.

Flawed logic.

When you give cars to the general public, people get run over.

When you give cars to law enforcement, people get run over.

When you give cars to the military, people get run over.

Somehow the fault is the cars?

Doesn't this suggest to you that people are bad and they will ever be harming each other regardless of the hardware they use?

Whilst, on the other hand, here we have hardware that can PREVENT innocent people from being endangered. Although, admittedly, it means that serial killers, rapists, and burglars run a higher fatality risk.

Entitled to shoot people?

Get a grip, no one is entitled to shoot anyone. In every circumstance it should be the last resort.

That's the very point of the issue.

You said it yourself: The last resort is shooting people. When there are no options left, his life or mine, we already have to come to grips with the fact that someone will die.

It may indeed be necessary, that does not entitle you to snuff out a life.

You said yourself that it's necessary, yet we shouldn't do it? Interesting.

So the very fact that it's necessary means that the alternative is probably that my own life will be snuffed out.

Difference is, I'm a law-abiding citizen promoting the general wellfare and contributing to society; he's out to do the exact opposite and is putting people in danger, perhaps on a regular basis.

When is killing itself not an evil act?

When the only alternative is a different killing.

Somehow, because somebody has to die in this scenario, you're making it a "hitter's game" and giving the CRIMINAL the benefit of the doubt? Why should HE get all the advantages and lifelines when he's intentionally going out of the way to do harm to me and people like me???

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Killing is not a priori an evil thing. There are reasons for killing, just as there are reasons for breathing - first and utmost being the utter guarantee of self preservation.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

When it is just or absolutely necessary it is not evil. It is terrible that it must happen in these cases, but not evil. Then again, you appear to be a moral absolutist, so I don't think you'll agree.

No, because necessity is not justification. If you kill someone you are succumbing to necessity through weekness. You are allowed a certain amount of leeway under the law, but technically you should be able to resolve any situation without killing someone.

Flawed logic.

When you give cars to the general public, people get run over.

When you give cars to law enforcement, people get run over.

When you give cars to the military, people get run over.

Somehow the fault is the cars?

Doesn't this suggest to you that people are bad and they will ever be harming each other regardless of the hardware they use?

Seriously? Guns, particularly handguns, have only one purpose; it isn't to help you compensate.

Whilst, on the other hand, here we have hardware that can PREVENT innocent people from being endangered. Although, admittedly, it means that serial killers, rapists, and burglars run a higher fatality risk.

Guns don't protect people, body armour does.

That's the very point of the issue.

You said it yourself: The last resort is shooting people. When there are no options left, his life or mine, we already have to come to grips with the fact that someone will die.

You said yourself that it's necessary, yet we shouldn't do it? Interesting.

Necessity is necessity, doesn't make it right. If you have no options left but to kill someone, you aren't good enough, you should be better. That doesn't mean you don't have a reason to do something, it does mean you aren't justified.

So the very fact that it's necessary means that the alternative is probably that my own life will be snuffed out.

Difference is, I'm a law-abiding citizen promoting the general wellfare and contributing to society; he's out to do the exact opposite and is putting people in danger, perhaps on a regular basis.

Kill a killer and you become what you kill.

When the only alternative is a different killing.

Somehow, because somebody has to die in this scenario, you're making it a "hitter's game" and giving the CRIMINAL the benefit of the doubt? Why should HE get all the advantages and lifelines when he's intentionally going out of the way to do harm to me and people like me???

No, but don't pretend you're morally justified, or you won't have night mares about it.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

No, because necessity is not justification.

If you're going to cling to that, there's nothing to debate here.

Nonetheless:

If you kill someone you are succumbing to necessity through weekness.

Hardly. The odds of killing even two different criminals in self-defense are quite low.

You are allowed a certain amount of leeway under the law, but technically you should be able to resolve any situation without killing someone.

Impossible.

You really think that criminals are the type to sit down and have a deep discussion with you? You don't seem to realize the nature of breaking and entering. You've got less than a minute to figure out what to do, and it ain't giving a speech.

Seriously? Guns, particularly handguns, have only one purpose; it isn't to help you compensate.

In the US, there are about 50,000 gun-related deaths annually. 50,000 is the HIGHEST number I've seen in my research, so I'm being generous.

The experts seem to agree that about HALF of those deaths are suicide. And there are a variety of methods to kill one's self other than with guns, so banning guns solves nothing. Thus 1/2 of firearm deaths would have occurred anyway.

Now we have 25,000 deaths from firearms.

About 15,000 of these were GANG-RELATED. However, to be generous (again) to the anti-gun side, let's say only 10,000 were gang-related. Now, gangs kill each other for the sake of killing each other; they will do it with whatever they can find that's handy. In fact, this website says that 2 out of three gun deaths are gang or drug-related, so I am being very generous. So now we see that about 3/4 of gun deaths would have been committed without guns.

Now we have 15,000 deaths caused by firearms.

Now, an estimated 1.5 million crimes are stopped by gun owners annually. It is reasonable to assume that, say, 1% of these crimes would have resulted in the death of the victim.

The true number is probably about 10% of the victims in these cases would have died.

Basically, the fact that the crime was stopped by a civilian indicates that it wasn't a traffic violation or shoplifting. Thus, they are in all probability much more serious things such as assault or rape.

Now, back to our 1%. Guess what 1% of 1.5 million is?

15,000. Look at that; a tie. But... what if you take TWO percent?

30,000 lives saved.

And if we take the realistic percentage? 10%?

150,000 people saved!

Guns don't protect people, body armour does.

Hardly. Ironically, I do believe that body armor is illegal.

Unless you'd like to argue that it would be FAR better to embrace your philosophy (because you couldn't possibly be wrong), and thereby endanger thousands and thousands?

If you have no options left but to kill someone, you aren't good enough, you should be better.

What?!

Women. Senior citizens. People with health issues.

Your going to strip them of protection, watch them get maimed by some maniac, and blame them for not going to commando school or something?

It's a terrible thing to set restrictions, especially important ones, starting with the assumption that everyone in the world is like you.

OK, maybe you could beat up a criminal. How dare you force that on other people? How can you assume that I can. Or my parents, or my GRANDPARENTS!

That doesn't mean you don't have a reason to do something, it does mean you aren't justified.

Kill a killer and you become what you kill.

KillER, etemollogically speaking, indicates that killing is a way of life, a habit.

Self-defense is hardly habitual. As I said before, not many people have to do it twice. In fact I've not heard of anyone who had to do so, although I wouldn't doubt that a few out of 300 million people have.

Furthermore, even if you're a killer, that doesn't make you a murderer.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You missed the part where I said I'd kill a man to protect my family. Get off your high horse, stop with the personnal attacks and stop being so childish. You want to laud the virtues of a society which is so defective that it cannot protect its most vulnerable and they feel the need to carry concealed weapons?

Get off it.

I'm perfectly willing to kill to protect the people I love and those who are vulnerable. Nevertheless, unlike you I am not going to pretend that makes me some sort of big hero any more than my ability to put a bullet through someone's head at 200 yards.

It's not a skill I'm proad of.

[Cute Wolf]

I think from now, we should think some other way to create less "friendly fire" accidents on home defense. A good alarm system is the best things, yet, if all are clear, we should just slam our axe onto the intruder's head with no other responsibility other than feeling a bit guilty "and just clean up some evidence, as well explain anything to the police"....

Wait..... I think, what did you do if you spot an unknown female in the night in your garage? are you just say, STOP OR I'LL SHOOT!?!

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I think our previous discussion about burglars are assumed in "The burglars are male". If you are face female burglars and kill her, some feminist will undoubtly sued you and trying to sent you to jail.....

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think from now, we should think some other way to create less "friendly fire" accidents on home defense. A good alarm system is the best things, yet, if all are clear, we should just slam our axe onto the intruder's head with no other responsibility other than feeling a bit guilty "and just clean up some evidence, as well explain anything to the police"....

Wait..... I think, what did you do if you spot an unknown female in the night in your garage? are you just say, STOP OR I'LL SHOOT!?!

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I think our previous discussion about burglars are assumed in "The burglars are male". If you are face female burglars and kill her, some feminist will undoubtly sued you and trying to sent you to jail.....

WHY do you have to be so trigger happy. Take a stick instead of an axe, you don't have to make someone bleed to stop them, you certainly don't have to kill them.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

You missed the part where I said I'd kill a man to protect my family.

Apparently. Perhaps it was because that statement was buried by these:

Necessity is necessity, doesn't make it right. If you have no options left but to kill someone, you aren't good enough, you should be better. That doesn't mean you don't have a reason to do something, it does mean you aren't justified.

Kill a killer and you become what you kill.

When is killing itself not an evil act?

It may indeed be necessary, that does not entitle you to snuff out a life.

How are you saying that you would kill to protect your family and then say all that? I don't understand how this is consistent at all.

Get off your high horse, stop with the personnal attacks and stop being so childish.

Childish, indeed, to present facts and statistics instead of rants and pontification.

I'm perfectly willing to kill to protect the people I love and those who are vulnerable.

Interesting point that you are willing also to protect THOSE WHO ARE VULNERABLE.

That is the essence of conceal&carry. It's about protecting the people around you as much as protecting yourself.

Nevertheless, unlike you I am not going to pretend that makes me some sort of big hero any more than my ability to put a bullet through someone's head at 200 yards.

What were you saying about high horses, personal attacks, and childishness?

When was I proud of killing a human being? When did I say anything except that the life of a human being is a serious thing, and not to be taken lightly or flippantly?

It's not a skill I'm proad of.

I don't appreciate the implication that the rest of us glory in bloodshed.

No one has said that; you stuffed it in our mouths.

I mean, if you really honestly thought that we felt that way, then you'd be totally legitimate to say the things you've said. That being the case, we can come to the point that really we don't disagree here; it's simply a matter of miscommunication of sorts.

Essentially, we are defending the point that CCL is actually to preserve life, not to take it so flippantly as you infer.

If, however, you're just spouting stuff like that to make a point, that's a different matter entirely.