Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ratbastid
That's actually very much NOT longbough's policy.
longbough's policy isn't about killing someone with anything. His policy is about stopping an act of violence. He said, "the aggressor's health is a secondary consideration." It IS a consideration. It just comes after his own safety or the safety of those he's protecting.
|
But it's a little different with a knife. A gun actually gives you more options. If I shoot you in the leg it's gonna hurt like hell, and you'll know you've been shot. If I slice you in the leg (and miss the femoral artery of course) and it's a well-sharpened knife, you might not even know you've been cut until later. That's why if I pull my knife, I'm not going to be aiming for targets that won't physically drop him without relying on pain. And since targets that will physically drop him tend to be ones that will also kill him. . .
Quote:
|
This is off topic, and I don't mean to threadjack with it, but I have to say, I'm deeply conflicted about the personal ownership of guns. On one hand, I hear sombody like longbough talk about the rigor and discipline and responsibility they approach gun ownership with, and I'm ALL for it. On the other, I see people talking and behaving totally the other direction about their guns--full of pompous grandstanding and swaggar--and I want laws and rules and regulations to keep weapons way far away from those people. I don't know. Maybe there's nothing to to but to take the good with the bad, but... "the bad" results in lost lives. I'm very, very torn about it. I don't mean to turn this into a gun control thread at all, just to respond to the (excellent) OP.
|
I think you're probably in the majority there. Even die hard NRA members surely don't want idiots to be running around with guns. What we can do about that while still allowing non-idiots to have guns, that's a pretty tough question.