Concealed carry of firearms reduces crime, period (crime rates, election, vs)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If he stumbles onto a railroad track by mistake in his stupor, he might wind up injured or dead.
If he stumbles near a cliff by mistake, ditto.
If he tries to break into someone's house by mistake, ditto.
He owes himself the responsibility of keeping enough control of himself, that he doesn't do something fatally stupid.
If he doesn't take that responsibility, he might wind up injured or dead. Not because I want it that way (I don't), but because it is that way.
That's life. I can't change the world for him, to make his own stupidity less dangerous to him. I don't owe him that. I owe my family their protection and safety, much more than I owe a drunk stranger anything.
How much less should I do to keep my family safe, in order to devote more of my time and effort to keep a drunken stranger free of the results of his own stupidity? And why, exactly, should I devote that time and effort to a drunken stranger instead of to my family?
Interesting how cold you people come across... Of course you don't owe him anything. So? Do you only do things if you owe someone? And what is some time and effort when a human life is at stake? A human life is a human life. And I am not even a Christian, but an atheist...
If you would attempt to answer the last two questions I asked in my post (you even quoted them), you will find the answers to your own questions.
Interesting how cold you people come across... Of course you don't owe him anything. So? Do you only do things if you owe someone? And what is some time and effort when a human life is at stake? A human life is a human life. And I am not even a Christian, but an atheist...
If someone breaks into my house and is a threat to my children or my wife, he has made a decision that places himself in danger. It has nothing to do with compassion, Christianity, or owing anyone anything. It is my responsibility to ensure the safety of my family, and anyone who threatens that safety brings any consequences upon themselves. This isn't being cold, this is being realistic about the situation.
If you would attempt to answer the last two questions I asked in my post (you even quoted them), you will find the answers to your own questions.
That is the point, that is why I wrote what I wrote. It is not a waste of time or effort when you try to incapacitate someone instead of killing them. Nor does calling it a mistake justify that attitude in my view.
It is simply an attitude that is much harder to find in Europe. I don't know where that divergence has come from historically, but I can imagine some possible reasons. I am not blaming anyone for their views, just stating the differences...
Interesting how cold you people come across... Of course you don't owe him anything. So? Do you only do things if you owe someone? And what is some time and effort when a human life is at stake? A human life is a human life. And I am not even a Christian, but an atheist...
Interesting how you feel the victim of the crime in that scenario has some obligation to protect the perpetrator. Excuse me Mr. Man who's in my house at 3AM....are you just drunk and in the wrong house or are you a threat to my safety?
Oh....well in that case let me get my shotgun. I'll be right back.
That is the point, that is why I wrote what I wrote. It is not a waste of time or effort when you try to incapacitate someone instead of killing them. Nor does calling it a mistake justify that attitude in my view.
It is simply an attitude that is much harder to find in Europe. I don't know where that divergence has come from historically, but I can imagine some possible reasons. I am not blaming anyone for their views, just stating the differences...
Don't mistake my saying "if I wound him" as a statement of attempt. In a tense situation you shoot to hit, not to maim. At the very least he would be double-tapped with frangible rounds and if he's not down by then the next shot is likely a head shot which is something I practice often and effectively at the range. Having spent time in combat against real men and time in law enforcement I have all the compassion of Attila the Hun toward anyone who enters my home unbidden and unwanted.
That is the point, that is why I wrote what I wrote. It is not a waste of time or effort when you try to incapacitate someone instead of killing them. Nor does calling it a mistake justify that attitude in my view.
It is simply an attitude that is much harder to find in Europe. I don't know where that divergence has come from historically, but I can imagine some possible reasons. I am not blaming anyone for their views, just stating the differences...
We are a divided people with no cohesion or bond. The govt has divided all of us into race, and taxed us (the workers) to death.
The drug culture preys upon us and the police are no help, since they serve the state and not the people.
In turn this leaves us We the People paying taxes that do us no good what so ever and with the system of Injustice, which is a catch and release system to feed the state.
It is what it is. it wasn't always this way, but this IS the way it is now.
Did you look up the NH town I mentioned yet?
Then this is CD, and today I put up a thread in respect for MLK and before it got to page 2 that thread was closed for the bitchin' and whining of proggy *******s.
The real problem with the USA is the progressive liberals. There is nothing progressive or liberal about them.
Real Liberals are Liberty minded people not Sheep.
We are a divided people with no cohesion or bond. The govt has divided all of us into race, and taxed us (the workers) to death.
The drug culture preys upon us and the police are no help, since they serve the state and not the people.
In turn this leaves us We the People paying taxes that do us no good what so ever and with the system of Injustice, which is a catch and release system to feed the state.
I wasn't...... he is wrong about what he thinks he knows. In the USA anymore you won't get a NYC second from most strangers.
We are a divided nation.... This BS about everyone being equal is plain non sense. No one is equal to anyone else and the govt likes it that way. if you like Freedom and Liberty you take it. No one else is going to give it to you.
Even in NH we have a saying that 'One can be stupid in the day time , but will be considered criminally ignorant at night'
When something goes bump in the night here the first thing I do is get my gun.
We are a divided people with no cohesion or bond. The govt has divided all of us into race, and taxed us (the workers) to death.
The drug culture preys upon us and the police are no help, since they serve the state and not the people.
In turn this leaves us We the People paying taxes that do us no good what so ever and with the system of Injustice, which is a catch and release system to feed the state.
It is what it is. it wasn't always this way, but this IS the way it is now.
Did you look up the NH town I mentioned yet?
Then this is CD, and today I put up a thread in respect for MLK and before it got to page 2 that thread was closed for the bitchin' and whining of proggy *******s.
The real problem with the USA is the progressive liberals. There is nothing progressive or liberal about them.
Real Liberals are Liberty minded people not Sheep.
They are not "progressive liberals" they are regressive statist..parasites that would disarm and enslave all if they had a chance..
But don't you think there is something fundamentally wrong with society if you feel like you have to be armed in order to be safe?
No, the only reason anyone would think it is wrong let alone fundamentally wrong is some underlining plan or agenda to disarm and enslave them...
I dont care about what other feel or thing, my rights are not subject to the opinions of any group or elected officials.
"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's . . . fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
West Virginia State Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.