Hey JR the following became too long to reasonably expect anyone but yourself to respond but it was a comment originally so it may sound like I am adressing more than one person here but I am quite sure you could explain, you’re pretty into your right to bear arms or at least like me happy for would be rape victims that have a real means to defend themselves from physically being overpowered.
I was raised with gun control, being from Europe. But then I grew up and realized how the very laws outlawing guns for civilians are only held in place by coercion of armed enforcers using… guns.. and I dont believe people no matter what they want me to call them are magically more responsible by nature. Their training may be better funded than civilian one though. It seems stranger the more I think of it. I am not against deadly force absolutely speaking.. sometimes it is that, or be raped by physically stronger assailant. Personally I would go with rubber or beanbag because I prefer not to kill someone if I am given a choice. I wouldnt personally want to kill someone just for say robbing a store in my presence or even do more to a would be rapist than stop him using nonlethal force, and get him arrested. Even if he disgusts me I just dont feel like its a mess worth the trouble, entirely aside from how I might feel about it which is probably sick because I think bleeding to death looks gross.
Anyway my point; Is playing dirty Harry, just wanting to kill someone legally, because the idea excites someone, all there is to it? I guess that might actually be true for some but ofcourse I dont believe thats always true. I’d like someone to take a minute to explain without saying ”because its my right, because I can” -what is the idea behind using potentially deadly force on someone that isn’t himself likely to be a lethal threat? What makes it considered necessary or adequate, when rubber and beanbags have as far as I am told sufficient and equally disarming and incapacitating stopping power?
Or is it more about the socially propagated threat of lethal force with the purpose of that threat alone discouraging armed criminals from being criminal? I see how that might work for some wannabe gangsters but it might end up killing more of them than it scares off. I dont think ”crime leads to death” is really that scary to people that deal with lethal violence on the daily like someone from a rough neighborhood.. and no one wonders whether there are hp or rubber bullets when they stare down a barrel in person.
Also, someone truly willing to kill a store owner for being a hassle, I wager they can’t be scared by telling them maybe someone will kill them.. MAYBE. Someone that crazy, wild, or stupid, I doubt they care. I don’t necessarily oppose trying fear as discouragement, I just doubt its effectiveness on the actually dangerous trigger happy ones. And yeah maybe I dont really have that much of a problem with the world losing someone like that. I still wonder what the main idea behind it all is. If it wasn’t already obvious just to clarify, I am not asking the questions I am asking to attack gun rights or right to use hollowpoints or even be subversive, I am sincerely curious.
I expect it to be likely to fall under scary threat for discouragement, I just think people dont quite understand the mess they are getting into with what I expect to be a visceral psychological effect of shooting someone and watching them bleed to death. It can’t be that great unless well, someone is themselves not far off from being the same murdering madman they want to legally kill.. someone with a lust for the idea of killing a ”bad man”. I never quite followed how murdering murderers out of sincere condemnation and not as an example to others, made much sense. Just doesn’t seem like something that just blows over. I can’t say for sure I just think humans killing humans isnt psychologically healthy for the killer and often unwarranted when someone isnt even making threats but is ”ignoring” loud demands because they have earbuds in and cant hear the man saying stop or I will shoot. I dont like the cops are good cops are bad debate.. cops are people.. people sometimes are justified and sometimes they make mistakes. Shooting someone before they make a move and actually attack, or in that earlier case is just someone seeming to disobey when they just cannot hear the warnings. Does a deaf man even get a chance?
Where does it stop being something that can be explained by reasoning and start being about lust for blood or being so unreasonably and unprofessionally caught by the horror of an unarmed man for not ceasing to walk. Why is no one training these people, no matter civilian or not, to aim for the legs? Its a common thing for dutch fire arms training, cops tend to aim for the legs, only use rubber bullets, catch the bad guy, cannot recall a cop having to use deadly force to arrest gun toting underworld gangsters. We have mobsters or something of the like, still. Maybe the situations are far to different to compare, in the end I am ignorant of the reality so I figured I would inquire. So yes I may reason against it but I dont seek to outlaw anything, can’t really stop the type inclined to extreme means justified by the idea that otherwise it would have been deadly for the civilian or cop. In some cases that is probably true, but I prefer not.. taking a life out of fear. What is your personal take on it and what do you gather others’ reasons are? I might just not know that rubber bullets fail to properly incapacitate, I dont know, I just know dutch cops use them and if one of them gets shot it would be first time in like a decade.
N like I said those mafiosis are packing and there are sometimes reports of hits happening, underworld people ”disappearing”, so they are not shy of murder.. just doesn’t happen on cops (the only ones here allowed to use guns on other humans) as far as I can recall. All that said I think self regulating and having guns around daily life isnt a bad call.. saves rape victims and makes it hard to rob anyone when the other people in the store might just put a gun to the back of a robber’s head. I am all for the threat and use of guns.. including training that makes one adept at shooting someone in the leg or shoulder as second nature. The concept of necessary is a lot different from what I think would suffice as necessary.