Shooting in self-defense is illegal because it denies criminals a 'fair trial'

[Yellowfin]

Don't attack someone and you won't be shot while doing it. What could be fairer?

[Smilez226]

Sorry judge and jury, I have bad aim.. I did not mean to pump that much lead into ones skull and chest...

[Coops]

So police officers cannot defend themselves or others from attacks? How does this moron think the criminal will be apprehended to stand trial if nobody can shoot him or even threaten to do so?
I guess he would rather a madman gets to kill 30 or 40 people, run out of bullets and turn himself in than one citizen defend his own life in any manner.

Sometimes I think liberal's brains stop maturing at 11 years old.

[Sgt.K]

Sometimes I think liberal's brains stop maturing at 11 years old.

Sooner. Definitely sooner...

[GunLawyer001]

Our rights are not limited by what the worst of us would do with them. If that were the case, nobody would be permitted to produce children, because child abuse happens. Nobody could own a car, because drunks drive. Nobody could go out on a date, because date rape occurs. And best of all, we would end the Welfare State to the last dime, because some people cheat and get benefits they aren't eligible for.

Yes, allowing people guns means that some of them will screw up and take a life while not permitted; they'll shoot some perp AFTER he robs their house and is running away. But taking guns away means that a whole lot more women will be raped, old people will be terrorized, children will be abducted, pedestrians will be stabbed and punched and abused and killed for sport; because the bad guys will be without fear. And none of these murders will wait for a trial or other due process to see if the victim deserves it.

[GeneCC]

Moreover, one may argue this is an analogous argument and yes it is because the United States government is lobbied to not study or fund research that observes the effects of guns. This cripples the chance of evaluating a proper policy to deal with gun violence. But, there was one study by ABC, which observed using guns in a classroom. All the participations poorly performed at the mock situation.

Of course they performed poorly.... the scenario was rigged to make them fail.

1. Police "issued" the "gun owner" firearm.
2. They were given perfunctory "training".
3. They sat in a room where a "shooting incident" was to happen.
4. Trained professional entered, knowing "gun owner".
5. Gun owner got creamed.




The gun control lobby peddles lies for the most part. Which is why it is hard to structure any bargains with them. Who trusts a liar?

[GeneCC]

Our rights are not limited by what the worst of us would do with them.

If you don't consider something a "right" but a privilege, then that is exactly how you treat a population. "You've been bad with your toys, give them to us". Such paternalism is degrading and insulting.

And none of these murders will wait for a trial or other due process to see if the victim deserves it.

Due Process is something that Governments should do. Private citizens do not have the power of Due Process.

This author is stating that Governments must the only ones to kill anyone. Such a situation works with decent and law abiding people, who would not assault others. Reasonable people don't need to be threatened. Unreasonable people sometimes need deterrence from violent death, especially human predators.


This author is nicely tying up a lot of Progressive values..

1. Crime is caused by poverty or "inequality of wealth".
2. Criminals are "victims of society", child abuse, etc.
3. One source of violence is "racism".

Many poor people do not commit crimes. Many wealthy people do commit crimes, including fraud that destroys people's lives. Wealthy people murder. The "Affluenza Boy" in Texas or the Menendez Brothers being an example. Such persons can afford better lawyers than the poor so they do not always get convicted or have to accept plea bargains. This means that Justice isn't fair, not that poverty causes crime.

Society is not responsible for child abuse. Child abusers are responsible for child abuse. Victims of abuse are responsible to get help, not to inflict their pains onto innocent third parties. "help" can be professional or talking things out with other sufferers. Lots of such help online today.

Hundreds of thousands of people come to the US from East Asia or South Asia. They are not "white". They are often poor. Both immigrants in one generation often out earn "whites" and do better in school. In some colleges there are quotas for peoples from Asia, discriminating against them. If America is "racist" why are these non white people doing better than whites? What is the excuse of native born Americans to be poor or criminals if people who cannot even speak English can make a good living?

This author is justifying foolish policies based upon suppositions and half truths.

[GeneCC]

The main problem with the notion of self-defense is it imposes on justice, for everyone has the right for a fair trial.

So if this character caught someone raping one of his kids he would be wrong to even push them off of the child. Shoving someone is assault. The rapist has the right to do their thing without physical interference unless a Court orders it. We cannot take the law into our own hands by stopping the rape of a child using a shove.

This logic would also mean that you may not snatch a child being kidnapped out of the kidnapper's hands. You might hurt the child in doing so. The child has rights. So does the ACCUSED kidnapper, who has not been convicted of a crime.

If someone is pouring gasoline on the side of your house you may not punch them. That is assault. You do not have the right to take the law into your own hands. The ACCUSED arsonist has committed no crime.

One can take this "logic" to all sorts of ridiculous extremes. The Gun Control Person will say, "Yes, but guns kill!" So do fists, so do clubs, so do knives, so do fireplace pokers, shovels, rake handles and screwdrivers.


Comes a point where we have to trust that the majority of people are going to make the right decision the majority of the time. Most people in the US do not die of gun shot wounds. Most die of heart disease or cancer. We are not killing one another like these people suggest. In spite of have a fifth to a third of a billion firearms in private hands.

[Qtrborecrazy]

If someone comes and violates my rights, I can't can violate his/hers in return? OOOOOOOOOKKKKKKKKKK.

[Kramer]

Yep, Dindu logic...