Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????
It occurs to me your argument is a mirror image of a favorite gun nut assertion: "If only somebody had a gun, the outcome would have been different." They're referring to mass shooting incidents, like Virginia Tech. And they're saying how great it would have been if somebody had plugged Woo Tang Klan early on. And they're right, if the shooter hits what he's aiming at. There's just as much chance, maybe more, that the shooter would have hit another student or a teacher. That would have made the outcome different, only not in the way they mean. The point is, gun nuts NEVER consider the downside possibilities, only the upside.
You, on the other hand, only consider the downside of stand your ground: innocent people are going to get killed for no good reason, and the shooters are going to claim self-defense, and hesto presto, they're released. What you never consider (at least you don't share it with us) is the upside: that by using lethal force instead of trying to run away (a neat trick in your own home) some innocent people will avoid being killed because they will have defended themselves by killing the bad guy.
In it's own way, your arguments here have been as pig headed and one sided as any gun nut. Just from the opposite direction.
Originally posted by 5mn_Major
View Post
You, on the other hand, only consider the downside of stand your ground: innocent people are going to get killed for no good reason, and the shooters are going to claim self-defense, and hesto presto, they're released. What you never consider (at least you don't share it with us) is the upside: that by using lethal force instead of trying to run away (a neat trick in your own home) some innocent people will avoid being killed because they will have defended themselves by killing the bad guy.
In it's own way, your arguments here have been as pig headed and one sided as any gun nut. Just from the opposite direction.
Comment