justruss Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
R.H. Johnson wrote:
if you don't know i can't tell you. but it is better to have it and not use it. than to need it and not have it. better safe than sorry. gentlemen get over it. it is not an ideal world we live in. expect the unexpected. sh!t happens just be safe and prepared. it is not like one is out to be a predator like George Zimmerman did when stalked and killed Trayvon Martin. don't get caught slippin'.
here is the problem. none of you idealist have been put in a live or die situation with your life and your wife and childrens lives on the line. you don't even know how you would react. what you would do. would you kill or be killed. you have no experience. all that comes out of your mouth is speculation. until you walked that walk and lived through it to give testimony. there is no common ground.
Czech Republic is good. one can buy a key gun off the streets they're legal over there.
i hate being right. the thread was moved.
oh, by the way who gives a hoot bout money when your life is on the line.....
end of line........Show more →
I only want to say: I respect your experience and view on this subject immensely, based on your posts here, even if we don't necessarily agree on every point (given my life, and my travels-- exceedingly wide, and at times in conflict zones-- I will not be carrying). I tend to be on the high regulation/reduction side politically.
That said, I absolutely respect a right-- within the bounds of law, and within the context of statistically proven crime prevention-- for other people to make their own decisions regarding self-preservation.
In order to enact smart, effective gun laws and regulations mature, thoughtful people on both sides of the issue have to see the other for their honesty and integrity and good arguments. And those people have to be able to work together to attempt to find the best possible means of moving forward, despite potentially holding opposing views on some aspects of the matter.
Morally, and pragmatically (self-preservation physically and psychologically), I would take every possibility to avoid killing unless faced with no choice. If that means a loss of property or pride (in not standing up to a threat), I'll take it. That doesn't mean that there aren't scenarios where I would act. This conversation came up recently when the city I live in faced its first mass shooting in years. Given a large and obvious advantage/opportunity, and the knowledge that nobody else, namely law enforcement, had any opportunity (something anyone with any sort of training knows is a very, very unlikely scenario)-- I would act against such a shooter with lethal intent without any moral compunction.
At the same time, I'd still value that person's life. I'd prefer that person survived-- and justice was left to the judicial system to weigh and respond.
When it comes to theft, there is no question in my mind. The most remorseless, repeat thieves don't deserve to die even in the heat of the moment. They may, because of their use of physical threat, or the lack of clarity about their intent and willingness to injure or kill (nobody knows if a bank robber with a gun is himself willing to pull the trigger; we assume he is as an operating procedure).
It's just so much more complicated-- and the ramifications so much more long lived and themselves so much more complicated (such as what it does to us)-- than a lot of people realize, I think. But you get it.
|