Some people think that situations where they can rely on others’ strength are normal.
Thus they may agree with need for weapons and self-defense, because “it’s a dangerous time”, but not when everything is in order again. Not even thinking that said “dangerous time” somehow happened and will happen again.
Guns are similar to fire extinguishers and defibrillators in that most of time they are not needed.
The law distinguishes between the life of an attacker and the life of a victim. Any reasonable moral or ethical code will do the same.
The reality is that the attacker forfeits their right to life for the duration of their attack: the life saved holds greater legal, moral, and ethical value than the life wasted on the attacker.
Guns are meant to extinguish threats, not lives. They do, indeed, save lives.
The most common way they extinguish a threat is by convincing the attacker to fuck off with great rapidity, when they realize their intended victim is capable of returning harm. This “fucking off” saves the life of the intended victim.
But I suspect you’re referring to the taking of the attacker’s forfeited life, which extinguishes the threat posed by that attacker, saving the life of the victim.
You do realize that the law does not criminalize “justifiable homicide”, right? You do realize the amorality of counting a “justifiable homicide” as the “taking of a life”? You do realize the deceit required to conflate criminal and justifiable homicide, right?
I’d like you to show me these “fucking off” stats. I am also not sure why you are following up with a legal argument as if “if it’s legal it’s right” was ever an acceptable moral justification.
A gun solves a problem by killing it. You’re purposely dodging this obvious truth with word salads and faux-technical sounding bullshit.
I’d like you to show me these “fucking off” stats.
No.
While certainly true, I don’t need that fact to be true to demonstrate the more important point. I elect not to support that point. For this discussion, you are free to consider that a concession.
The law distinguishes between the life of an attacker and the life of a victim. Any reasonable moral or ethical code will do the same.
This was the first line of my initial response to you. There is no moral or ethical dilemma with using deadly force to stop a deadly attack.
I am also not sure why you are following up with a legal argument as if “if it’s legal it’s right” was ever an acceptable moral justification.
You’ve got it backwards. The law on justifiable homicide arises from moral and ethical grounds: It is morally and ethically permissible to use deadly force against an attacker. It is not morally or ethically permissible to punish a victim for killing their attacker. Those two points demand a narrow exception to the general rule that “killing is wrong”. The laws on self defense and justifiable homicide reflect the morality and ethicality of using deadly force on an attacker.
Likewise, it is immoral and unethical to count the death of an attacker as a “killing”, at least for purposes of denouncing the use of the tool used to cause their death. Conflating the deaths of attackers with the deaths of victims is deceitful, immoral and unethical.
“No”? Then kindly fuck off. I have no desire to waste my time having a discussion with somebody who refuses to back their claims with evidence like some right wing tinfoil hat election denier. And no I did not read a word after “no.” Why waste more time?
Feel free to have the last word, I’m sure it’s very important to you
Yes, they are. It’s like demolishing dangerous construction. Guns to extinguish lives on firm trajectory to extinguishing yours are part of just guns to extinguish lives. When you solve this human problem with some technology or philosophy smart thing, let me know.
Some people think that situations where they can rely on others’ strength are normal.
Thus they may agree with need for weapons and self-defense, because “it’s a dangerous time”, but not when everything is in order again. Not even thinking that said “dangerous time” somehow happened and will happen again.
Guns are similar to fire extinguishers and defibrillators in that most of time they are not needed.
Guns are meant to extinguish lives. The others are meant to save them.
The law distinguishes between the life of an attacker and the life of a victim. Any reasonable moral or ethical code will do the same.
The reality is that the attacker forfeits their right to life for the duration of their attack: the life saved holds greater legal, moral, and ethical value than the life wasted on the attacker.
Guns are meant to extinguish threats, not lives. They do, indeed, save lives.
How do they extinguish threats?
Seriously this is the same bullshit “the civil war was about states’ rights” argue.
The most common way they extinguish a threat is by convincing the attacker to fuck off with great rapidity, when they realize their intended victim is capable of returning harm. This “fucking off” saves the life of the intended victim.
But I suspect you’re referring to the taking of the attacker’s forfeited life, which extinguishes the threat posed by that attacker, saving the life of the victim.
You do realize that the law does not criminalize “justifiable homicide”, right? You do realize the amorality of counting a “justifiable homicide” as the “taking of a life”? You do realize the deceit required to conflate criminal and justifiable homicide, right?
I’d like you to show me these “fucking off” stats. I am also not sure why you are following up with a legal argument as if “if it’s legal it’s right” was ever an acceptable moral justification.
A gun solves a problem by killing it. You’re purposely dodging this obvious truth with word salads and faux-technical sounding bullshit.
No.
While certainly true, I don’t need that fact to be true to demonstrate the more important point. I elect not to support that point. For this discussion, you are free to consider that a concession.
This was the first line of my initial response to you. There is no moral or ethical dilemma with using deadly force to stop a deadly attack.
You’ve got it backwards. The law on justifiable homicide arises from moral and ethical grounds: It is morally and ethically permissible to use deadly force against an attacker. It is not morally or ethically permissible to punish a victim for killing their attacker. Those two points demand a narrow exception to the general rule that “killing is wrong”. The laws on self defense and justifiable homicide reflect the morality and ethicality of using deadly force on an attacker.
Likewise, it is immoral and unethical to count the death of an attacker as a “killing”, at least for purposes of denouncing the use of the tool used to cause their death. Conflating the deaths of attackers with the deaths of victims is deceitful, immoral and unethical.
“No”? Then kindly fuck off. I have no desire to waste my time having a discussion with somebody who refuses to back their claims with evidence like some right wing tinfoil hat election denier. And no I did not read a word after “no.” Why waste more time?
Feel free to have the last word, I’m sure it’s very important to you
Thank you for leaving me the last word in this discussion.
In future discussions, I suggest you remember the moral and ethical ramifications of conflating justifiable and non-justifiable killings.
Yes, they are. It’s like demolishing dangerous construction. Guns to extinguish lives on firm trajectory to extinguishing yours are part of just guns to extinguish lives. When you solve this human problem with some technology or philosophy smart thing, let me know.