HAL9000
Lifer
- Oct 17, 2010
- 22,021
- 3
- 76
OK, but that doesn't matter.
In your opinion. Don't state opinion as fact.
OK, but that doesn't matter.
Just because you think about the practicality of your shot doesn't really change my view on the morality of it...
An understandable viewpoint, but to my mind there is a difference between owning a kitchen knife and a gun, going out to buy a weapon to kill someone, is irresponsible if you ask me.
Well the initial investigation could lead to my holding them for police to arrive. And legally I can't shoot them in the back in Delaware, so I'd have to get them to face me. Which means warning. If I establish it's only one person and I believe I can hold them given my observations, I'll give them a chance.
Like I said every situation is different. I could armchair hundreds of situations where I would and would not fire all night. Doesn't change the fact that in the event of someone breaking into my house, a situation where lethal force could be my only option to end a lethal threat is much more likely to arise. In such an event, I'd like to be prepared.
Owning a gun and actively looking for opportunities to kill someone are two different things.
Having the power to defend yourself and using it irresponsibly are two very different things.
I understand, but my point is by buying a gun you are saying "I'm prepared to kill someone now" and "I'm capable of keeping a deadly weapon, nothing can go wrong" these are two irresponsible viewpoints. If you are saying "something could go wrong" that's even more irresponsible.
Of course they are.
I disagree, being prepared to kill is morally irresponsible to me. Saying that you are capable of owning a gun with no negative repercussions is irresponsible.
I disagree, being prepared to kill is morally irresponsible to me. Saying that you are capable of owning a gun with no negative repercussions is irresponsible.
I'm saying I'm not some crazed executioner dying for a kill.
So all that matters are baseless probabilities of my shooting someone wrongly? Probabilities based largely on your irrational fears no less.
Statistically speaking my car is more likely to kill someone wrongly than my guns, given the way I use them. Just because there is another use for it doesn't make the statement less true. Is the value of my owning a car worth more than the lives it may potentially kill, to you?
And just as it is impossible for me to say my guns will always be used 100% with no negative repercussions, it is also impossible for you to say that they will 100% definitely wrongfully endanger someone at some point. Personally, given my own proven level of gun discipline I'll gladly roll the dice on that with odds so great in my favor I could bankrupt Vegas with them.
Statistically speaking my car is more likely to kill someone wrongly than my guns, given the way I use them. Just because there is another use for it doesn't make the statement less true. Is the value of my owning a car worth more than the lives it may potentially kill, to you?
Then cops that carry weapons or a nation's armed forces are morally irresponsible. They are both prepared to kill if the situation requires it to defend themselves or the lives of others. I guess the real question is are you ok with other people making the decision to defend you when you aren't willing to make that decision yourself?
The difference is that a) they are making decisions based on reason and b) they are trained to make those decisions they are qualified to own those weapons. But personally? No, the police should not have guns with the exception of armed response units, highly trained officers who are called out in the worst case scenario.
Lol, my local police are required to shoot 3 times a year to qualify. I shoot at minimum 4 times a month and can personally out-shoot a lot of them (those that don't shoot on their own). I know more about the cops' weapons than they do in many cases. I also know gun law more extensively than some. Plus civilians are more restricted legally. We don't have some organization to help cover our asses if we mess up with our guns. An officer who accidentally shoots a civilian will get off with a slap on the wrist for acting in the line of duty. A civilian will get jailed for manslaughter or even negligent homicide in most cases.
Not saying I'm the norm, but police training only means so much. They are not some lofty elite warrior group, and civilians can be trained just as well or better.
And when seconds matter, the police are minutes away and not legally accountable to be there in time, especial in rural areas where even the fastest travel time can be 20 minutes or more.
Lol, my local police are required to shoot 3 times a year to qualify. I shoot at minimum 4 times a month and can personally out-shoot a lot of them (those that don't shoot on their own). I know more about the cops' weapons than they do in many cases. I also know gun law more extensively than some. Plus civilians are more restricted legally. We don't have some organization to help cover our asses if we mess up with our guns. An officer who accidentally shoots a civilian will get off with a slap on the wrist for acting in the line of duty. A civilian will get jailed for manslaughter or even negligent homicide in most cases.
Not saying I'm the norm, but police training only means so much. They are not some lofty elite warrior group, and civilians can be trained just as well or better.
And when seconds matter, the police are minutes away and not legally accountable to be there in time, especial in rural areas where even the fastest travel time can be 20 minutes or more.
The difference is that a) they are making decisions based on reason and b) they are trained to make those decisions they are qualified to own those weapons. But personally? No, the police should not have guns with the exception of armed response units, highly trained officers who are called out in the worst case scenario.
Why can't a private citizen make a decision based on reason? Are you unable to make reasonable decisions?
Why can't a private citizen get trained on how to use their weapons?
Also, the idea of having just a few armed response units isn't workable for most areas, especially in the less populated areas of the US. Response time would be much longer. When there's a life or death situation you don't want them to take an extra 20 - 30 minutes to get there.
Because police are being objective, they aren't emotionally involved in the decisions made.
The response time wouldn't be an issue if you guys didn't have guns.![]()
Wow, you really are naive. Police are people too, and if you think police acting up in the heat of the moment is uncommon... lol.
Because police are being objective, they aren't emotionally involved in the decisions made.
The response time wouldn't be an issue if you guys didn't have guns.![]()
If somebody attacks a cop or a cop sees someone else get attacked the are emotionally involved. They are people, not some detached robot.
The response time would still matter. Like I said before, there's plenty of things that aren't guns that can easily kill a person. A few minutes with a knife or a sledge hammer is plenty long to kill someone.
If somebody attacks a cop or a cop sees someone else get attacked the are emotionally involved. They are people, not some detached robot.
The response time would still matter. Like I said before, there's plenty of things that aren't guns that can easily kill a person. A few minutes with a knife or a sledge hammer is plenty long to kill someone.]
In those cases they don't need a gun.
Don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure shooting a guy with a knife or baseball bat is less risky than engaging him in a hand-to-hand fight, in the dark, during a break-in. If I'm in a fight for my life and/or family's life I'd like superior firepower thank you.
Don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure shooting a guy with a knife or baseball bat is less risky than engaging him in a hand-to-hand fight, in the dark, during a break-in. If I'm in a fight for my life and/or family's life I'd like superior firepower thank you.
True, but they are more emotionally detached than a Dad coming down in the night in his boxers with a pistol to find someone in his house.
In those cases they don't need a gun.
Don't care if it's "less risky" it's also less moral.
He would rather you watch your wife die than you own a gun.
That dad should have every right to defend himself and his family.
Yes, they do. Why shouldn't an officer have an advantage over a criminal? If somebody is attacking with something that can kill them why can't they attack back with something that is more effective?
