I think you'd win simply because those words where in an Elvis song"Fools rush in where angels fear to tread." -- Alexander Pope
My simplistic but catchy quote is three hundred years older. Does that mean I win?
I think you'd win simply because those words where in an Elvis song"Fools rush in where angels fear to tread." -- Alexander Pope
My simplistic but catchy quote is three hundred years older. Does that mean I win?
It's for self-defense only.
That's a very good description of the objective of the lawful use of deadly force.Posted by Apachedriver:....the only proper response to brutal violence in a civilian culture is to use the force necessary to stop the evildoer. If he dies, he dies. But that's not anyone's call here, to make them pay. If he lives, that's a call for the judge and jury to make, regardless of how inadequate our justice system can appear at times.
That refers to an ill advised post advocating killing, which has been deleted. Those who believe such comments to be appropriate had better read the forum rules.Comments like these will get some young, inexperienced individual in trouble one day. And then he'll be treated no different than the evildoer he went gunning for on poor advice.
Actually, that's a great example and one that I was considering posting a couple days ago. One maxim shared -- in lifeguard training, no less -- was that when a person without good training (and a PFD) enters the water to retrieve a drowning person, neither comes out alive. Many are compelled to act because they can't just stand there and let someone else drown. So instead of A tragic death, TWO families mourn and suffer the loss of their loved ones, bread-winners, husbands, fathers, etc.
And yet you get people like Lenny Skutnik who jumped into a freezing river to save a stranger from certain death in airplane crash. He has no training. He could have, even should have, died. And yet he still did the right thing and jumped into the freezing water. How many other people sat there and secretly though "well at least it's not me" or "I'm glad my wife's not in there" while they watch the wives of other men die from ashore.
I don't see how that point is cancelled. If I MUST defend myself, I surely accept that I may risk injury to others, and usually would also expect that I'd see a reduction in that risk due to the fact that if I MUST defend myself, the attacker is quite likely very close to me, whereas in a "hunting the bad guy" scenario that is much less likely to be true.But if we're willing to use a gun in a public place to defend ourselves, that could also put more than just you and the criminal at ask. So that cancels that point out. The public at large is always somewhat at risk when you use a firearm again a criminal, whether you're defending yourself or other. So that point is canceled.
Sure. That is a phenomenon that sometimes happens. As I said, many things can and should inform such a decision. It is a beautifully altruistic notion, isn't it?But the point of risking your life to save strangers, knowing full well you may die, remains.
I don't see how that point is cancelled. If I MUST defend myself, I surely accept that I may risk injury to others, and usually would also expect that I'd see a reduction in that risk due to the fact that if I MUST defend myself, the attacker is quite likely very close to me, whereas in a "hunting the bad guy" scenario that is much less likely to be true.
Eh...what?Are you implying something is wrong with that?
Well, considering that we're all, every one of us, discussing utterly hypothetical cases with each of us proposing and counter-proposing "what-ifs" by the bucketful, yup it sure is speculation.Anything to back that up? Sounds like pure speculation to me.
... I think I would break the intent of what a concealed carry permit allows me to do.
Oh, come now!Posted by 1911 guy: One side is advocating acting under a strict, and even over-conservative interpretation of the law to remain in the good graces of society and avoid legal hassle.
The "other side" has put forth three arguments:The other side is arguing from a position that there's a bad person hurting people and I have the means to stop it. Morally, there is no reason not to act.