by nathan28 » Fri Jan 14, 2011 7:03 pm
To throw my two cents in, I don't have a problem with guns but I do with the retards who earnest to god think that guns "prevent crime" for all the reasons articulated here. It's one thing to have a shotgun or rifle (even an "assault" rifle) at home*. It's another to just walk the fuck around with one.
The irony is that, as Nordic suggests, the guy with the CCW *didn't* fire on anyone at all. Some "crime prevention", huh? Even the term "crime prevention" is bullshit, because the only justifiable homicides are as a rule of thumb** those executed in attempting to stop murder, rape, manslaughter, robbery (i.e., theft by force or threat of force, not simple theft) and those executed while facing an armed, dangerous and approaching assailant. Someone uses a crowbar to break into your house with you in it, you can't shoot him if he learns you're there and starts running away.
Not only that, but in my present understanding in urban America most murders are drug-related. If you're not in the drug trade, you don't get shot. Some crime prevention, huh?
But what really puts the lie to this "crime prevention" nonsense is the simple fact that basic firearms safety says never point a gun at something you aren't going to shoot. The moment Johnny "Jr. Crimestopper" Birch pulls out his special All-American InfoWars-stamped Colt 1911 (why spend $250 on a Kel-Tec or $500 on a Glock when you can get it American-Made at three times the price?) he has to fire on whomever he pulled it out on. He escalated the level of force (even if he did so in justified circumstances), and if he doesn't follow through he's going to end up dead. That's how it works. And when he shoots it has to be to kill, because present combat dogma (since the 1986 Miami shootout, when two ex-Army Rangers robbed a bank and killed something like half a dozen cops and wounded more because the robbers had actual combat training and experience and were better-armed) holds that the only way to ensure an armed opponent is incapacitated and no longer a threat is by putting enough holes into him that he loses the blood pressure needed to stay conscious, i.e., "bleeding out". Compare that to laws civilians have to follow and face, where once someone ceases to be a threat you become legally liable. Someone runs at you with a knife and you shoot him, fine. But if he runs at you with a knife, you shoot him, he falls over and you shoot him again, the second shot is an assault with a deadly weapon at best, and more likely a manslaughter or 2d degree homicide. BUT EVERY SINGLE "CRIME PREVENTION" ADVOCATE KNOWS ALL THIS ALREADY.
*Nearly all accidental/mistaken gun homicides in the home involve handguns
**I'm still not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, don't point guns at people
„MAN MUSS BEFUERCHTEN, DASS DAS GANZE IN GOTTES HAND IST"
THE JEERLEADER
