Subject:
|
Re: My Gun Control Rant
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 8 Jan 2001 05:37:04 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
579 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Powell writes:
>
>
> If you aim a gun at me, (as my basic training would say), you'd better have a
> dammed good reason for wanting to kill me-or have you never had formal >firearms training?
>
> If you aim at someone, then the ONLY possible reason is that you intend to try
> and kill them.
>
> Nothing else, but to try and kill them.
I disagree profoundly. There is a huge difference between pointing a gun at
someone in order to prevent myself (or someone else) from being killed, and
pointing a gun at someone to kill them. My intent is not to kill them, it is
to stop them from killing me. In matters of self-defense, the other party
initiates the force and is responsible for all outcomes. Self-defense is not
killing, it is saving (and war is self-defense on a national level). The
definition of deadly force is: that force which you know, or reasonably
should know, will cause death *or serious bodily harm*. As someone who has
been in such situations on a frequent basis, the point that is driven into
ones mind is incapacitation - not killing. The aim is to incapacitate them,
to stop them, not kill them. If the perp dies as a result, so be it, I
merely incapacitated him. If I double-tap him and he is incapacitated and
poses no further threat then I am justified. If after incapacitating him I
continue to unload my firearm into his body, then I am killing. One can
attempt to argue "heat of passion" at this point but will usually be
unsuccessful.
> What else is the gun for? as a cuddly blanket, for your emotional security?
This gets back to what Lar said earlier, "Guns are designed to kill people."
I disagree. Guns are designed to fire ammunition. Period. More guns are
fired at targets or animals than people. If a person fires a weapon at
another person it has nothing to do with the weapon itself.
And I believe Lar bought his weapon for self defense, not because he's a
maniac who desires to kill people. If someone dies in the act of him
defending himself and his, that is a by-product, and not his intent. I know
he boasted of buying it to kill but, no rational human being who has ever
had the horrible misfortune of having been in a situation where his actions
have caused the demise of another human being will spout bluster or bravado
about such an act. Anyone who does is lying. And, God forbid, if Lar should
find himself in such a situation he would change his tone (I hope).
.02
Bill
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: My Gun Control Rant
|
| Mostly agree so mostly snipped. (...) Matter of semantics? I'm not a good enough bluffer to use a realistic toy in a standoff, so I bought something that's capable of killing, not just a BB gun or pea shooter. I need to have the real thing behind my (...) (24 years ago, 8-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: My Gun Control Rant
|
| (...) Very well put....I must thank you for this as I tend to somehow end up discussing gun control fairly regularily recently and I've never actually heard it put this way....I shall remember it. (...) I agree here. To kill another human being I (...) (24 years ago, 8-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: My Gun Control Rant
|
| (...) myself (...) If you aim a gun at me, (as my basic training would say), you'd better have a dammed good reason for wanting to kill me-or have you never had formal firearms training? If you aim at someone, then the ONLY possible reason is that (...) (24 years ago, 8-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
188 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
