| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/16/2012 11:03:49 AM · #651 |
Originally posted by jagar:
If this was true then America would have one of the lowest Inocent bystander death rates in the world, this is not the case, we now have no option but to conclude that's it's totally not true. |
i dont think he was making a point, merely classifying the sides.
|
|
|
|
08/16/2012 01:07:37 PM · #652 |
Originally posted by jagar:
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by Flash:
Meaning - that both sides on this issue have a point. One - due to the rarity, the risk is worth it to society to ban firearms - although some will pay the ultimate price via violence against them. And Two - even though rare, some will choose to be prepared anyway - although in doing so, others may pay the ultimate price by having firearms accessible to those who would mis-use them. It really does come down to who you feel is the expendable group to place at risk.
|
well said. |
If this was true then America would have one of the lowest Inocent bystander death rates in the world, this is not the case, we now have no option but to conclude that's it's totally not true. |
Surely you have some stats that support your position that America has a high innocent bystander death rate (similar to the stats that support there is no rape in France nor any women that get beaten by drunken boyfreinds or husbands). Regardless, I don't see any connection to that and my claim that both sides have a point and then paraphrasing the position of each.
Further - there are other things different between France and the US besides firearms laws. One is the attitude towards mistresses. The French accept it while US women for the most part find it disrespectful to the marriage.
Message edited by author 2012-08-16 13:36:30. |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 01:46:24 PM · #653 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by jagar:
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by Flash:
Meaning - that both sides on this issue have a point. One - due to the rarity, the risk is worth it to society to ban firearms - although some will pay the ultimate price via violence against them. And Two - even though rare, some will choose to be prepared anyway - although in doing so, others may pay the ultimate price by having firearms accessible to those who would mis-use them. It really does come down to who you feel is the expendable group to place at risk.
|
well said. |
If this was true then America would have one of the lowest Inocent bystander death rates in the world, this is not the case, we now have no option but to conclude that's it's totally not true. |
Surely you have some stats that support your position that America has a high innocent bystander death rate (similar to the stats that support there is no rape in France nor any women that get beaten by drunken boyfreinds or husbands). Regardless, I don't see any connection to that and my claim that both sides have a point and then paraphrasing the position of each. |
First off I'm not French, secondly I watch the international news every week.
Why is it when anybody outside of America thinks of America, one of the first things they think of is gun crime and massacres like the sorts we see on a regular basis ? is it some sort of huge anti American conspiracy you think, or do they not really happen ?
You must understand that on a personnel note, I believe that America is truly a great nation, that's its people are some of the friendliest and most open minded people one could possibly wish to meet and converse with, if i had any anti American sentiment whatsoever, I would certainly not be taking part in this site. It's just like with anybody you like very much, you only want what you think is best for them. I know I should probably not be participating in this thread because of me not being able to project myself into your culture but it does sadden me when I hear of such atrocities being committed in a great land like yours. |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 01:59:35 PM · #654 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Further - there are other things different between France and the US besides firearms laws. One is the attitude towards mistresses. The French accept it while US women for the most part find it disrespectful to the marriage. |
I know of no women here that would accept that, of course i havent had the pleasure of meeting them all yet :) maybe the presidents wife would but that would be for obvious political reasons, does that not happen there ?
|
|
|
|
08/16/2012 02:01:30 PM · #655 |
Originally posted by jagar:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by jagar:
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by Flash:
Meaning - that both sides on this issue have a point. One - due to the rarity, the risk is worth it to society to ban firearms - although some will pay the ultimate price via violence against them. And Two - even though rare, some will choose to be prepared anyway - although in doing so, others may pay the ultimate price by having firearms accessible to those who would mis-use them. It really does come down to who you feel is the expendable group to place at risk.
|
well said. |
If this was true then America would have one of the lowest Inocent bystander death rates in the world, this is not the case, we now have no option but to conclude that's it's totally not true. |
Surely you have some stats that support your position that America has a high innocent bystander death rate (similar to the stats that support there is no rape in France nor any women that get beaten by drunken boyfreinds or husbands). Regardless, I don't see any connection to that and my claim that both sides have a point and then paraphrasing the position of each. |
First off I'm not French, secondly I watch the international news every week.
Why is it when anybody outside of America thinks of America, one of the first things they think of is gun crime and massacres like the sorts we see on a regular basis ? is it some sort of huge anti American conspiracy you think, or do they not really happen ?
You must understand that on a personnel note, I believe that America is truly a great nation, that's its people are some of the friendliest and most open minded people one could possibly wish to meet and converse with, if i had any anti American sentiment whatsoever, I would certainly not be taking part in this site. It's just like with anybody you like very much, you only want what you think is best for them. I know I should probably not be participating in this thread because of me not being able to project myself into your culture but it does sadden me when I hear of such atrocities being committed in a great land like yours. |
I don't know why you think the way you do. I do not see your newscasts or coverage of American events. I do know that I lived in an industrial city, worked for decades in an industrial plant in the "slum" area of the city. Have witnessed stabbings and shootings and drugs and gambling and prostitution in and around the factories. Have also witnessed amazing compassion from neighbors and friends and willingness to be generous to those less fortunate or down on their luck. I do not expect to be robbed or shot or assaulted and agree those events are rare. It is also rare for my house to catch fire. Yet I carry Fire insurance. It is rare for me to have a flat tire - in fact - having driven hundreds of thousands of miles (maybe millions) and via 30 or 40 vehicles, I have yet to have a flat tire. But I would not dream of leaving in my vehicle without one. A flat tire is rare - yes. But I choose to carry a spare as what I consider to be a reasonable safeguard. My attitude towards firearms is the same. I do not expect to EVER need it. I pay special attention to my surroundings. I avoid places with a higher risk of danger - the same as I avoid driving over nails or broken glass. I - however, choose to be prepared for some things that may happen to me. If you choose to be prepared for those things - great. If not - that's OK too. My ire gets warm when folks tell me that I cannot have a spare tire for my vehicle since a flat tire is rare. |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 02:02:18 PM · #656 |
Originally posted by jagar:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by jagar:
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by Flash:
Meaning - that both sides on this issue have a point. One - due to the rarity, the risk is worth it to society to ban firearms - although some will pay the ultimate price via violence against them. And Two - even though rare, some will choose to be prepared anyway - although in doing so, others may pay the ultimate price by having firearms accessible to those who would mis-use them. It really does come down to who you feel is the expendable group to place at risk.
|
well said. |
If this was true then America would have one of the lowest Inocent bystander death rates in the world, this is not the case, we now have no option but to conclude that's it's totally not true. |
Surely you have some stats that support your position that America has a high innocent bystander death rate (similar to the stats that support there is no rape in France nor any women that get beaten by drunken boyfreinds or husbands). Regardless, I don't see any connection to that and my claim that both sides have a point and then paraphrasing the position of each. |
First off I'm not French, secondly I watch the international news every week.
Why is it when anybody outside of America thinks of America, one of the first things they think of is gun crime and massacres like the sorts we see on a regular basis ? is it some sort of huge anti American conspiracy you think, or do they not really happen ?
You must understand that on a personnel note, I believe that America is truly a great nation, that's its people are some of the friendliest and most open minded people one could possibly wish to meet and converse with, if i had any anti American sentiment whatsoever, I would certainly not be taking part in this site. It's just like with anybody you like very much, you only want what you think is best for them. I know I should probably not be participating in this thread because of me not being able to project myself into your culture but it does sadden me when I hear of such atrocities being committed in a great land like yours. |
I may disagree with you largely on the issue, but I am glad you're participating, your viewpoint is valid and valued. |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 02:12:14 PM · #657 |
Originally posted by jagar:
Originally posted by Flash:
Further - there are other things different between France and the US besides firearms laws. One is the attitude towards mistresses. The French accept it while US women for the most part find it disrespectful to the marriage. |
I know of no women here that would accept that, of course i havent had the pleasure of meeting them all yet :) maybe the presidents wife would but that would be for obvious political reasons, does that not happen there ? |
1. I hope you get to meet them all if that is a goal of yours. ;-)
2. Perhaps we both have misconceptions of each other's country based on news reports.
3. Personally - I find your posts illiminating and hope you choose to stay engaged in this thread. I already know what I think. It is important to read others views. |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 02:21:27 PM · #658 |
Originally posted by Flash:
It is also rare for my house to catch fire. Yet I carry Fire insurance. It is rare for me to have a flat tire - in fact - having driven hundreds of thousands of miles (maybe millions) and via 30 or 40 vehicles, I have yet to have a flat tire. But I would not dream of leaving in my vehicle without one. A flat tire is rare - yes. But I choose to carry a spare as what I consider to be a reasonable safeguard. My attitude towards firearms is the same. I do not expect to EVER need it. I pay special attention to my surroundings. I avoid places with a higher risk of danger - the same as I avoid driving over nails or broken glass. I - however, choose to be prepared for some things that may happen to me. If you choose to be prepared for those things - great. If not - that's OK too. My ire gets warm when folks tell me that I cannot have a spare tire for my vehicle since a flat tire is rare. |
The difference being that if you don't have fire insurance or a spare tire, there's absolutely no chance anyone else getting harmed. Whether you had them or not, nothing changes the outcome while the action is taking place. The same is not true with you carrying a firearm. Your examples are disjoint. |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 02:24:03 PM · #659 |
Thanks guys.
I was wrong on the French women thing, I'd forgotten that i met a girl only yesterday that I'm sure would be willing to participate in extramarital relations :) and she's not even the presidents wife.
 |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 02:33:41 PM · #660 |
Originally posted by jagar:
I met a girl only yesterday that I'm sure would be willing to participate in extramarital relations :) and she's not even the presidents wife.
|
That is just *SO* wrong!!!
LOL!!!
|
|
|
|
08/16/2012 02:35:24 PM · #661 |
Originally posted by Flash:
It is also rare for my house to catch fire. Yet I carry Fire insurance. It is rare for me to have a flat tire - in fact - having driven hundreds of thousands of miles (maybe millions) and via 30 or 40 vehicles, I have yet to have a flat tire. But I would not dream of leaving in my vehicle without one. A flat tire is rare - yes. But I choose to carry a spare as what I consider to be a reasonable safeguard. My attitude towards firearms is the same. I do not expect to EVER need it. I pay special attention to my surroundings. I avoid places with a higher risk of danger - the same as I avoid driving over nails or broken glass. I - however, choose to be prepared for some things that may happen to me. If you choose to be prepared for those things - great. If not - that's OK too. My ire gets warm when folks tell me that I cannot have a spare tire for my vehicle since a flat tire is rare. |
Originally posted by Venser:
The difference being that if you don't have fire insurance or a spare tire, there's absolutely no chance anyone else getting harmed. Whether you had them or not, nothing changes the outcome while the action is taking place. The same is not true with you carrying a firearm. Your examples are disjoint. |
Nobody's going to steal your spare tire and rob a bank with it, either.....
|
|
|
|
08/16/2012 02:39:57 PM · #662 |
Originally posted by jagar:
Thanks guys.
I was wrong on the French women thing, I'd forgotten that i met a girl only yesterday that I'm sure would be willing to participate in extramarital relations :) and she's not even the presidents wife.
|
i dont think it counts if you have to do all the work. |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 02:43:26 PM · #663 |
Originally posted by Venser:
Originally posted by Flash:
It is also rare for my house to catch fire. Yet I carry Fire insurance. It is rare for me to have a flat tire - in fact - having driven hundreds of thousands of miles (maybe millions) and via 30 or 40 vehicles, I have yet to have a flat tire. But I would not dream of leaving in my vehicle without one. A flat tire is rare - yes. But I choose to carry a spare as what I consider to be a reasonable safeguard. My attitude towards firearms is the same. I do not expect to EVER need it. I pay special attention to my surroundings. I avoid places with a higher risk of danger - the same as I avoid driving over nails or broken glass. I - however, choose to be prepared for some things that may happen to me. If you choose to be prepared for those things - great. If not - that's OK too. My ire gets warm when folks tell me that I cannot have a spare tire for my vehicle since a flat tire is rare. |
The difference being that if you don't have fire insurance or a spare tire, there's absolutely no chance anyone else getting harmed. Whether you had them or not, nothing changes the outcome while the action is taking place. The same is not true with you carrying a firearm. Your examples are disjoint. |
In the examples of the spare tire and fire - no one else is involved. In the case of the firearm, no else needs to be involved either - unless they choose to engage me in a life threatening manner or one involving grave bodily injury to myself or those under my immediate care. The gun doesn't jump out of its holster on its own and start discharging rounds and there zero reason for it to ever leave its holster as long as myself and those under my care are safe and secure. No risk to anyone. With the thousands and thousands of citizens carrying now in 38 states without any injury to the general public - I say that speaks volumes that responsibility is taken seriously and that law abiding citizens generally obey the law.
If you are to claim that if I were assaulted and engaged a firearm then others could potentially be in harms way - I would agree and say that it is one reason to be armed in the first place and the person(s) doing that assualting SHOULD be in harms way. |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 02:48:05 PM · #664 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Flash:
It is also rare for my house to catch fire. Yet I carry Fire insurance. It is rare for me to have a flat tire - in fact - having driven hundreds of thousands of miles (maybe millions) and via 30 or 40 vehicles, I have yet to have a flat tire. But I would not dream of leaving in my vehicle without one. A flat tire is rare - yes. But I choose to carry a spare as what I consider to be a reasonable safeguard. My attitude towards firearms is the same. I do not expect to EVER need it. I pay special attention to my surroundings. I avoid places with a higher risk of danger - the same as I avoid driving over nails or broken glass. I - however, choose to be prepared for some things that may happen to me. If you choose to be prepared for those things - great. If not - that's OK too. My ire gets warm when folks tell me that I cannot have a spare tire for my vehicle since a flat tire is rare. |
Originally posted by Venser:
The difference being that if you don't have fire insurance or a spare tire, there's absolutely no chance anyone else getting harmed. Whether you had them or not, nothing changes the outcome while the action is taking place. The same is not true with you carrying a firearm. Your examples are disjoint. |
Nobody's going to steal your spare tire and rob a bank with it, either..... |
Unless you know something about my firearms that I don't know, pretty unlikely somebody will steal mine. Possible. About as much possibility that they will steal my spare tire and throw it through a window.
If theft is your primary reason for further restricting firearms that are already restricted, then there are a lot more items to be included. |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 02:51:10 PM · #665 |
Originally posted by Flash:
In the examples of the spare tire and fire - no one else is involved. In the case of the firearm, no else needs to be involved either - unless they choose to engage me in a life threatening manner or one involving grave bodily injury to myself or those under my immediate care. The gun doesn't jump out of its holster on its own and start discharging rounds and there zero reason for it to ever leave its holster as long as myself and those under my care are safe and secure. No risk to anyone. With the thousands and thousands of citizens carrying now in 38 states without any injury to the general public - I say that speaks volumes that responsibility is taken seriously and that law abiding citizens generally obey the law. |
Thanks for the update on how inanimate objects work. I was confused for a short while.
Originally posted by Flash:
If you are to claim that if I were assaulted and engaged a firearm then others could potentially be in harms way - I would agree and say that it is one reason to be armed in the first place and the person(s) doing that assualting SHOULD be in harms way. |
If you were Deadshot from Batman, I'd have no problem. Going to guess not every bullet you shoot hits its intended target. The others highlighted could be innocent bystanders, that's my problem.
|
|
|
|
08/16/2012 02:56:51 PM · #666 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Unless you know something about my firearms that I don't know, pretty unlikely somebody will steal mine. Possible. About as much possibility that they will steal my spare tire and throw it through a window. |
Flash, your particular views and situation are not unilateral. Guns *are* stolen, and used in the commission of crimes. And your analogy has no basis or substantiation......it's not the same thing and you know it.
Originally posted by Flash:
If theft is your primary reason for further restricting firearms that are already restricted, then there are a lot more items to be included. |
Sigh......
When & where did I say that? Please stop running off somewhere with an assumption that nobody put forth.
It was pretty much a rhetorical statement.
|
|
|
|
08/16/2012 03:02:50 PM · #667 |
Originally posted by Flash:
In the examples of the spare tire and fire - no one else is involved. In the case of the firearm, no else needs to be involved either - unless they choose to engage me in a life threatening manner or one involving grave bodily injury to myself or those under my immediate care. The gun doesn't jump out of its holster on its own and start discharging rounds and there zero reason for it to ever leave its holster as long as myself and those under my care are safe and secure. No risk to anyone. With the thousands and thousands of citizens carrying now in 38 states without any injury to the general public - I say that speaks volumes that responsibility is taken seriously and that law abiding citizens generally obey the law. |
I wish you'd quit comparing guns with things that cannot be used as a deadly weapon in the hands of virtually anyone. It simply isn't the same thing.
A spare tire is used to put your car back on the road if another tire goes flat.
A fire extinguisher is used to, hopefully, stop a fire that has started.
When you get your gun out, the chances are, it's to wound or kill someone. And don't even try to tell me that it's as a display of force, you know perfectly well that no one should ever get a gun out unless they intend to pull the trigger.
Cars, toasters, kitchen knives, baseball bats, couches, or anything else that you want to drag into the conversation *can*, or *might* be able to be used as a deadly weapon, but that is not their first and foremost purpose.
Guns are a deadly weapon.
|
|
|
|
08/16/2012 03:19:17 PM · #668 |
Originally posted by Flash:
In the examples of the spare tire and fire - no one else is involved. In the case of the firearm, no else needs to be involved either - unless they choose to engage me in a life threatening manner or one involving grave bodily injury to myself or those under my immediate care. The gun doesn't jump out of its holster on its own and start discharging rounds and there zero reason for it to ever leave its holster as long as myself and those under my care are safe and secure. No risk to anyone. With the thousands and thousands of citizens carrying now in 38 states without any injury to the general public - I say that speaks volumes that responsibility is taken seriously and that law abiding citizens generally obey the law.
|
the fact that you are able to be careful with gun doesn't take away the fact that becuase you are allowed to own one, others can get them easily. you have already stated that you are ok with the risk that right poses to others who aren't ok with it, hence the circle this thread keeps going in, can we go back to talking about mistresses? |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 03:28:40 PM · #669 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by Flash:
In the examples of the spare tire and fire - no one else is involved. In the case of the firearm, no else needs to be involved either - unless they choose to engage me in a life threatening manner or one involving grave bodily injury to myself or those under my immediate care. The gun doesn't jump out of its holster on its own and start discharging rounds and there zero reason for it to ever leave its holster as long as myself and those under my care are safe and secure. No risk to anyone. With the thousands and thousands of citizens carrying now in 38 states without any injury to the general public - I say that speaks volumes that responsibility is taken seriously and that law abiding citizens generally obey the law.
|
the fact that you are able to be careful with gun doesn't take away the fact that becuase you are allowed to own one, others can get them easily. you have already stated that you are ok with the risk that right poses to others who aren't ok with it, hence the circle this thread keeps going in, can we go back to talking about mistresses? |
;-) |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 03:35:13 PM · #670 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Flash:
In the examples of the spare tire and fire - no one else is involved. In the case of the firearm, no else needs to be involved either - unless they choose to engage me in a life threatening manner or one involving grave bodily injury to myself or those under my immediate care. The gun doesn't jump out of its holster on its own and start discharging rounds and there zero reason for it to ever leave its holster as long as myself and those under my care are safe and secure. No risk to anyone. With the thousands and thousands of citizens carrying now in 38 states without any injury to the general public - I say that speaks volumes that responsibility is taken seriously and that law abiding citizens generally obey the law. |
I wish you'd quit comparing guns with things that cannot be used as a deadly weapon in the hands of virtually anyone. It simply isn't the same thing.
A spare tire is used to put your car back on the road if another tire goes flat.
A fire extinguisher is used to, hopefully, stop a fire that has started.
When you get your gun out, the chances are, it's to wound or kill someone. And don't even try to tell me that it's as a display of force, you know perfectly well that no one should ever get a gun out unless they intend to pull the trigger.
Cars, toasters, kitchen knives, baseball bats, couches, or anything else that you want to drag into the conversation *can*, or *might* be able to be used as a deadly weapon, but that is not their first and foremost purpose.
Guns are a deadly weapon. |
Your interest in training is good. You should take some. If you did, you would learn that shooting to "wound" is not a good choice. If your intent was to wound then the threat was likley not imminent nor was it grave (crippling) injury. You would learn that your intent is to stop the assault. Yes death may result due to a poor choice of victims on the assailants part, but life is full of choices. As a fire extinguisher is used to hopefully stop a fire, so is a firearm used to hopefully stop an assault. The parallel is identical. Each is trying to safeguard either property or life. No difference. Only the tool selected for the job.
sp edit
Message edited by author 2012-08-16 15:38:30. |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 03:46:13 PM · #671 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Your interest in training is good. You should take some. If you did, you would learn that shooting to "wound" is not a good choice. If your intent was to wound then the threat was likley not imminent nor was it grave (crippling) injury. You would learn that your intent is to stop the assault. Yes death may result due to a poor choice of victims on the assailants part, but life is full of choices. As a fire extinguisher is used to hopefully stop a fire, so is a firearm used to hopefully stop an assault. The parallel is identical. Each is trying to safeguard either property or life. No difference. Only the tool selected for the job. |
Really, so killing another human is akin to putting out fires?
|
|
|
|
08/16/2012 03:48:38 PM · #672 |
Originally posted by Venser:
Originally posted by Flash:
In the examples of the spare tire and fire - no one else is involved. In the case of the firearm, no else needs to be involved either - unless they choose to engage me in a life threatening manner or one involving grave bodily injury to myself or those under my immediate care. The gun doesn't jump out of its holster on its own and start discharging rounds and there zero reason for it to ever leave its holster as long as myself and those under my care are safe and secure. No risk to anyone. With the thousands and thousands of citizens carrying now in 38 states without any injury to the general public - I say that speaks volumes that responsibility is taken seriously and that law abiding citizens generally obey the law. |
Thanks for the update on how inanimate objects work. I was confused for a short while.
Originally posted by Flash:
If you are to claim that if I were assaulted and engaged a firearm then others could potentially be in harms way - I would agree and say that it is one reason to be armed in the first place and the person(s) doing that assualting SHOULD be in harms way. |
If you were Deadshot from Batman, I'd have no problem. Going to guess not every bullet you shoot hits its intended target. The others highlighted could be innocent bystanders, that's my problem. |
You are correct regarding the potential injury to innocent bystanders. If you attended training on this matter you would learn that every round discharged is the responsibility of the person discharging it. In other words, if you (or I) miss the intended target and injure/kill an innocent bystander, you/I are/am liable for that injury. Liable both criminally and civily. Thus one restraint on the "wild west" shoot outs put forth by the anti-gun proponents. It simply doesn't happen - as is evidenced by the thousands and thousands of citizens carrying in 38 states today. No wild west shoot outs by those lawfully carrying. Yes innocent's are at risk. One reason to use hollowpoint bullets that are retained in the torso and are less likely to pass through. A responsible person will select rounds based on the least endangerment to others. That said - it still is true that innocents can be impacted and one reason training curiculums stress that along with the liability. |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 03:49:51 PM · #673 |
Originally posted by Venser:
Originally posted by Flash:
Your interest in training is good. You should take some. If you did, you would learn that shooting to "wound" is not a good choice. If your intent was to wound then the threat was likley not imminent nor was it grave (crippling) injury. You would learn that your intent is to stop the assault. Yes death may result due to a poor choice of victims on the assailants part, but life is full of choices. As a fire extinguisher is used to hopefully stop a fire, so is a firearm used to hopefully stop an assault. The parallel is identical. Each is trying to safeguard either property or life. No difference. Only the tool selected for the job. |
Really, so killing another human is akin to putting out fires? |
In context - stopping an asaailant intent on harming me or those under my care is akin to stoping a fire threatening me or those under my care. |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 03:51:14 PM · #674 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Your interest in training is good. You should take some. If you did, you would learn that shooting to "wound" is not a good choice. If your intent was to wound then the threat was likley not imminent nor was it grave (crippling) injury. You would learn that your intent is to stop the assault. Yes death may result due to a poor choice of targets on the assailants part, but life is full of choices. |
My interest in training has to do with its being used as a requirement, and a qualification for, the purchase of a firearm, ANY firearm.
I have had firearms training, and I also have firearms experience. I'm not sure what the relevance that has to the issue at hand.
I still maintain that the ture relevance of a firearm in our society is *VERY* limited. I'm all for rights, but at what cost?
Originally posted by Flash:
As a fire extinguisher is used to hopefully stop a fire, so is a firearm used to hopefully stop an assault. The parallel is identical. Each is trying to safeguard either property or life. No difference. Only the tool selected for the job. |
Again.....the parallel is nowhere close to the same.
Safeguarding your property or life with your fire extinguisher is not going to have the same resulting loss of life as with the firearm.
I guess I just don't understand if you don't get it or you think some of us are stupid. I honestly don't know how this premise makes sense even to you....
As a fire extinguisher is used to hopefully stop a fire, so is a firearm used to hopefully stop an assault. The parallel is identical. Each is trying to safeguard either property or life. No difference. Only the tool selected for the job.
That's an honest truth to you?
|
|
|
|
08/16/2012 03:53:54 PM · #675 |
Originally posted by Flash:
In context - stopping an asaailant intent on harming me or those under my care is akin to stoping a fire threatening me or those under my care. |
But if killing another human being is the result, the context is most definitely changed.
|
|
