Skip to main content

View Diary: Regarding Guns... (95 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Defend yourself with something other than a gun. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    You don't need a gun to defend yourself. It's the lazy coward's way out of that problem.

    The moment you're ready to kill another person to "defend" yourself is the moment that I no longer take you seriously. You passed that point a while ago.

    "Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism." - Hubert Humphrey

    by Killer of Sacred Cows on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 06:58:10 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Now you're being stupid. (0+ / 0-)

      What's a 110 pound woman supposed to defend herself with? Or an 60 yr old man?

      We can't all have fantasies of besting 20 ninjas with our bare hands, like liberal college hippies daydream about.

    •  does that mean you would not take anyone (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      seriously in a debate who has killed before, albeit in a socially accepted context such as self defense or in war?
      After all it seems to me that many here may say they would kill in self defense but would hesitate for their own safety  but would not hesitate to use any means to hand to defend others

      •  Yes, that's what I mean. (0+ / 0-)

        Killing another person or being willing to will absolutely strike you off my list as a "moral" person. Find another way to defend yourself that doesn't involve killing others.

        I have already said that if confronted with a gunman trying to kill my children, I will throw myself on him to stop him. I will not, however, attempt to kill him. For one thing, I will not kill. For another, I'd rather see him pay for his crimes in some way that makes him have to consider them for the rest of his natural life instead of getting the coward's easy way out by being shot.

        War is abhorrent to me. That should be enough said. I realize that those who are on the front lines rarely have a choice in that moment, but I would be a conscientious objector long before it ever came to that.

        "Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism." - Hubert Humphrey

        by Killer of Sacred Cows on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 09:12:44 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  He (she?) means... (0+ / 0-)

        That you shouldn't kill the rapist, you should be willing to let him force his penis into your orifices and very ungently jackhammer you until you bleed, after which point he can slice your throat open or stomp on your head.

        We have to think of the rapists, their lives are just as valuable as anyone else's. Anyone that says otherwise is a horrible person.

        •  No, I mean that you shouldn't shoot or kill him (0+ / 0-)

          I mean that you can and should find some other way to stop him because frankly his victims deserve the justice of knowing he's rotting in prison for the rest of his life.

          And frankly, at this point, I'm dismissing anything else you say as deliberately inflammatory and openly pro-gun ideological. When you can talk about facts instead of dragging in your continued logical fallacies and Fox-News-inspired garbage, we'll talk. Until then, I'm ignoring anything else you say.

          "Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism." - Hubert Humphrey

          by Killer of Sacred Cows on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 10:24:00 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You don't know what you mean. (0+ / 0-)

            If your attacker is bigger than you are to any great degree, there is no other way to stop him. If you vigorously defend yourself, he may flee... and certainly if he does so I don't condone the victim shooting him in the back after the danger has passed.

            But should he not flee (and there are many reasons he might not), there is little choice.

            The elderly, women... hell, even men like myself, how can I defend myself from a larger attacker intent on doing me harm? God forbid there are more than one.

            It is not a holy or moral thing to forego killing such a person. Even if you would sacrifice your life for theirs, their next victim is on you.

            I have loved ones, I have a wife, a young daughter, and another child on the way. If the choice is between some maniac and one of them... that's no choice at all. To worry about trying to preserve the life of their would-be-murderer is so absurd it doesn't even truly deserve a response. Something's wrong with you, something in your brain, and I pray to whatever fictional deities might be listening that all your political proposals fall flat and never be acted upon.

          •  I have had several CVAs, granted small ones (0+ / 0-)

            but ones that left neurological deficits.  Should anyone attempt to injure one of my granddaughters, I would try to stop him by whatever means at hand to whatever extent is necessary.

            If I could I would retreat to the safe room and call 9-11 but assuming he breaches the room and threatens the grandkids, I will try to stop him.  I have an ewisa I use as a cane as well as various edged weapons but I also have several firearms which I would use in a heartbeat if necessary.

            I consider myself a pacifist dating back to 1973 but, while I have the right to decide if I should personally die in lieu of injuring another human being, I have no right to make that decision for my granddaughters.  If they wish to live, it is my duty to ensure that they are as safe as I can make them.

            Sadly, I guess that means you will dismiss anything else I say which is a pity because I have enjoyed our discussions.  However, I must assert that I have a responsibility to my family which supersedes my personal philosophies

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site