Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The_Dunedan
Manx,
keepandbeararms.com doesn't exactly make this stuff up, you know. They're a "news clearinghouse" site; every day ( except Sundays ) they have a huge collection ( 100+ links, on most days ) worth of gun-rights related news, collected from "mainstream" media around the world. They aren't pulling this stuff out of their arseholes, much as you'd obviously like to think they were. Unlike the drek spewed by the likes of The Brady Bunch or the VPC, all of their information is heavily sourced and easily verifiable; not to mention not being outright lies such as those that Victim Disarmament groups like to use.
As for your "emotionally based" slam, you haven't exactly got any room to complain. Your entire arguement has been based upon "I don't see it, so it doesn't happen." This is the same rationale as that of a child who thinks that covering his eyes makes whatever-it-is that frightens him disappear; "If I can't see it, it's not there." You asked for examples; they were provided. Your response was "Not the right examples." and "Not enough examples." Instead of actually addressing the points that have been made, you hace decided to evade them and attack either their sources or to simply insist, in spite of the evidence, that "there is no problem." This is called "Denial."
As for "Avoidance," as you put it; every instructor I've ever met teaches their students to avoid conflict if possible. They tell you not to goto obviously sketchy places, don't confront belligerant people, etc etc; IOW, not to go looking for trouble. However, if trouble finds you, which it sadly does in our world, I fail to see any reason why anyone should be required to retreat, thereby placing themselves at a tactical disadvantage. I, after all, am not a sociopathic predator; the jackass trying to divest me of my wallet is, or he wouldn't be robbing me. I fail to see why I, or any other honest person, should be required to accomodate any such creature by running away. Such is the attitude of a coward, a person lacking in both dignity and moral fortitude.
|
I'm not claiming keepandbeararms.com makes anything up. There is a vast difference between making something up and culling information that suits an agenda. If the reports they cull regarding prosecutions for defensive actions are anything like those reports culled by ziadel, they're nothing more than the prosecution of people
claiming to have used their gun in self-defense. It may sound scary to you - but since you WANT to believe the individual arrested was only acting in self-defense, I should expect it would sound scary to you. I don't care either way - so to me it sounds like DAs who do not believe the claim of the defendent - in other words: par for the course.
In regards to emotionally based arguments. Yes, that is precisely what you are arguing. You have not listed any studies of wrongful prosecution that demonstrate that people unequivocally involved in defensive measures are being significantly prosecuted. Instead, you are relying on the word of a defendent as to their guilt or non-guilt, as reported to you by a website called
Keep and Bear Arms. As long as you desire to use such non-evidence as the purpose for changing laws, you will be arguing from an emotional level, void of relevancy.
I'm not sure what instructors and what instructors teach have to do with this discussion.
Dignity and moral fortitude? Is that what you call crazy? Given the option of avoiding a violent situation or partaking in a violent situation, anyone who chooses the latter is crazy - not dignified or morally strong. Any rational person who is unfortunate enough to have had trouble find them will attempt to avoid the situation. You added the word "required" where it never existed in an attempt to claim that such a person is then
prevented from defending his/herself if they needed to. People are not prevented from defending themselves - which is why this legislation is a solution to a non-problem, advocating violent resolutions over non-violent resolutions.