Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
My intent was to put fourth a ridiculous example. Of course it IS comparable to the hypothetical situations we've been shooting back and fourth. If someone is intentionally trying to cut me off, then he is using a 3000 pouund weapon against me, giving me the right to defend myself and my family with whatever means necessary, right?
|
I have to apologize here. I was unaware that your example was someone 'purposefully' trying to cut you off. Knowing that, my answer would be IF you can feasibly get away and be safe, do so, just like people who carry guns for self defense. IF you can get away without firing, do so.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Yes, my way of simply giving the robber what he wants doesn't have a 100% success rate. Neither does pulling a gun, though.
|
but, in my opinion, having a gun increases my survival rate more than if i'm unarmed.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Security doors start at about $50 and can go as high as $1000, just like a gun. But why, baed on your logic, would ou have only one gun? What if you're in thre bathroom when a robber strikes? Odds are your gun is in a den, living room, bedroom, etc., not the bathroom. If you buy several guns for several locations in the house, how is that different than buying one security door for each door?
|
At the moment, I only have one gun. I carry it on me inside the house so it's everywhere that I go. I'd have two, but the wife refuses to deal with one so I see no need to have an extra just lying around. When my stepson gets to an age I feel he's responsible enough, I'll train him and get him his own.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
I missed the part where it said anything about the responsibility of citizens, as the ruling was about police officers alone. It implied no lagal responsibility to citizens.
|
which means that law enforcement is not responsible for your protection, you are. I don't want you to misunderstand or misconstrue this ruling. Police are NOT responsible for your safety as an individual, only to the public in general, therefore if you call the police and are then killed before they get there, they are not liable. YOU are the ultimate responsibility for your safety.
A sizable percentage? What size would that be? I don't have an accurate percentage because the FBI and most law enforcement are still categorizing home invasions as burglaries/robberies. By frequenting the few pro-gun sites that I do, I read at least 1-5 violent home invasions (on average) on a weekly basis and authorities say this is slowly increasing. You'll read more on this in that link I posted earlier.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
And what is your response to that? It's not safe to not have a gun, but it's also not safe to have a gun? How do you reconcile that?
|
reconcile what? that the odds of your families survival is higher against a home invasion if you have a gun? thats pretty easy to reconcile.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
I've studied the teachings of many religious figures, including Jesus Christ. My father is a Pastor, actually. We all know that an interpretation can't be argued with because we don't know who's right, therefore arguing over different perspectives of the bible and God's word is a big fat waste of time. Let's leave it at that.
|
interpretations can cause confusion, i'll agree.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Stopping people with the intent to hurt or kill is good. Killing people is not.
|
nobody wants to kill people when they defend themselves.....ok, maybe some do. I'm not one of them. I don't want to kill, or even shoot, anyone and I sincerely hope that I never have to. But if there is ever a time when I'm forced into a situation of kill or be killed......better them than me. I love my family and wish to spend as much time with them as I can.