9,146 gun homicides in US. 16,885 killed by drunk drivers.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-01-2013, 04:21 PM
RE: 9,146 gun homicides in US. 16,885 killed by drunk drivers.
(21-01-2013 12:04 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  
(20-01-2013 10:26 PM)Chas Wrote:  I do not understand your concept of right to defend oneself. No right to block a punch? WTAF?
Quote:Do I believe that if a person is capable of blocking, there should be laws that punish that person for doing so? Absolutely not. If that is what you mean by right to defend yourself (or something similar), I believe it is something that should be allowed, without laws against it.

I don't understand what was so tough to get about that.

If that is what you mean by a right to self-defense, that's okay with me. If you mean that every individual should have the right to own a gun and take an offensive action with that gun, like murder or assault with a deadly weapon (gun), against someone who they come into any number of hypothetical conflicts with, then I don't think that should be labeled as defense, first of all (because it's not defense), and I don't think that should be allowed in society.

Simple.

(20-01-2013 10:26 PM)Chas Wrote:  Your other concepts of self-defense is completely unrealistic. How does a small or weak or disabled person defend against larger, stronger, or multiple assailants?


So, I'm being unrealistic, while you have just provided a hypothetical scenario, or implicitly trying to imply one, in which you are randomly assuming, irrationally, that only allowing owning guns to be an individual right, would bring about different results.

To easily answer: In any way they can, which probably isn't in many ways, naturally. They are pretty close to defenseless, so sorry about their luck, if attacked in that way. They might want to stay away from any activity that could lead to conflict and pray that the 'senior citizen killer' isn't on the loose. If you are small, weak, disabled (or all three), allowing guns to be a right, only allows you to be a small, weak, disabled person with a gun; however, while also allowing big, strong, able people the same right (now it's even). It doesn't also make it mandatory for someone to let you win a fight or give you a fair warning or chance, to either defend yourself or take offensive action in retaliation.

If you are taking offense against anyone, the main objective is to render that person defenseless and unable to take an offensive action, as quickly and effectively as possible. Are you trying to say that all attackers are incompetent, with guns around? Against a competent attacker, unless you are very highly trained and able, you're going to still be pretty defenseless even with a gun (keeping in mind: unarmed =/= defenseless; and that owning a gun =/= automatically having access when you need it). Otherwise, in a situation where they are either incompetent and/or don't want to kill or hurt you, the argument for a gun then kind of fades.


I disagree with almost everything you have said on this. Lethal force is an ethical response to a lethal threat.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
Post Reply

Messages In This Thread
RE: 9,146 gun homicides in US. 16,885 killed by drunk drivers. - Chas - 21-01-2013 04:21 PM
Forum Jump: