0 sats \ 46 replies \ @Public_N_M_E 13 Feb \ parent \ on: ABORTION and GUNS poll culture
Then I'd propose that you're not pro life, if you're willing to take theirs or lose yours over something covered by insurance.
But don't get me wrong or feel as though I am undermining the importance of that business to you, I am just suggesting that in a riot scenario the threat to your life (in my view) takes priority over the threat to your business. Businesses can be rebuilt, you can't be. Should you find yourself in that situation, I hope you come out ok. And I am sorry you have to live in an environment where those situations are not just theoretical debate but real expected situations.
What I am saying is sort of about what I feel is worth dying for. That building, will be taken over by another business owner and it'll last, it'll see new days, you may not. Prioritise you as best you can. (I'm not advocating for not defending your livelihood, I'm ex military, I know what it means to want to defend your way of life.)
Once a sufficient level of violence or violent intent has been shown, I am not leaving the decision to them on whether I live or die. The fact is, if you have an armed response, you are MUCH more likely to survive a violent encounter.
reply
I agree, on the the principle. You can attempt to de escalate. Or you can hope that you're more capable than they are. As someone with training, (as I mentioned earlier) I can guarantee you I have been taught to disarm an opponent and make their weapon mine. Do you want to run the risk that your aggressor can't do the same thing to you?
I'm with you on the them or me stance. It's going to be them everytime. But if you try to de escalate and become less of a threat, you are more likely to survive than if you gambled on if you could shoot first. You also stand a shot as you try to de escalate for them to get comfortable, theyll come in close and you now have your shot to strike and disarm.
If you're in a stand off. They're not going to shoot you, they'd have already done so. De escalate and you stand to make them believe they're in control and you're not a threat whilst what you've done is taken full control of the situation. If they were going to shoot they'd have shot the moment they saw you had a weapon. Be unthreatening and you live long enough to actually come out on top.
reply
I guess you misinterpreted my meaning, I was not advocating for drawing from the drop (though there are situations where that might be the only choice).
Yes, if there is already a gun drawn on you, feign compliance and hopefully disarm or draw and shoot as appropriate.
Its always good to de-escalate social situations, but if a gun is in play, that is my red line where action is required. That is when a person has shown that they don't care if you live or die.
reply
I'm with you here, but I think it's key to be able to assess whether the holder of that gun is really a threat. Sure take control but putting them down because they have a gun, is a very swift escalation of events, you've not given any chance at all for them to volunterily put their gun down. Stay focused and any advancement from them sure. Do what you have to, but there are clear rules of engagement, those should apply in civvie street too.
reply
Imagine you are a small business owner who has lost his business due to arson and riot.
How do you pay the bills while your business is being rebuilt?
Better to deter rioters than rebuild.
Better to defend your property than watch it burn down
reply
Don't get me wrong. I do understand. Replace business with job or any livelihood and I've been there. After leaving the military, I found myself entirely out on my ass. But I did rebuild. Granted I didn't have bills to pay, not really and I was able to sleep on friends sofas for a while. So I was fortunate I had support to allow me to rebuild.
There are other deterrents for rioters than the threat of getting shot and ones that don't put you in a position to also get shot.
Yes those can be expensive, but from my viewpoint, can you really put a price on your life? Because that's what could happen. You could start shooting at the wrong bunch of rioters and find yourself in a situation you really didn't need to be in.
But I do sympathise with where you're coming from about the practicalities of survival whilst that business gets rebuilt and those insurance thieves actually pay you your money.
reply
Regarding the price of my life I know it’s not infinite.
Most economists value life at around 10 to 20 million usd.
reply
So to further pull on that line of thinking, Are you pro life? If the cost of that life exceeds the price tag estimated between 10-20mil? Is it now too high a price to pay, or if that life somehow comes in under that valuation, is it somehow lesser?
See to me, the price of my life is infinite I'm not willing to lose it over anything really. I can't protect my family the next time they need protecting if I died the first time.
To refer back to your comment about a deterrent, I'm not anti gun at all, I'm anti civilians with unnecessary firepower.
If you are looking for deterrent, a single shot should be enough to deter people, and if it's not, you're already in over your head. So why not a standard 9mm pistol? One single shot is enough to make people scatter, that's a deterrent. Military grade weaponry isn't a deterrent that's intent. That weapon is designed for one thing only, you own that weapon and have intent to use it then you absolutely 100% have premeditated intent to kill. A pistol isn't designed to kill. Infact 9mm is designed to stop not kill. 5.56 rounds are designed to fragment and cause maximum damage, they're designed to maim and to kill. That's not reasonable or proportional force when it comes to deterring looters.
reply
5.56 has far lower penetration than 9mm. In urban areas, 9mm will penetrate through multiple walls, and buildings, where 5.56 is MUCH safer. Also it is far more accurate: look at Kyle RIttenhouse - no "military training" but 3 deadly threats down with no collateral damage in a huge crowd of people. If that was a police officer he would have dumped 3 mags of 9mm and wounded a dozen innocent civilians.
reply
reply
That's because the police aren't trained adequately. Any high school drop out can join the police fire a couple rounds at a target and be sent out in a car.
That's not training. They've never done any real threat assessment training let alone any fibua training considering their normal place of work could be some mall.
When it comes to 9mm I'm thinking 2.7x9mm small rounds designed to be non lethal not big slugs designed to put holes in walls and am coming at it from that standpoint. The standpoint that what should be commercially available to civilians shouldn't be "lethal rounds"
reply
Glock 17 is 9mm and popular with law enforcement
reply
Then I'd argue they're being issued the wrong tool for the job they're expected to do. They don't need to use lethal force to neutralise an aggressor.
If and when a situation escalates to the point in which lethal force may be required... That's when you have specialists. Your average cop isn't trained for those situations, so you shouldn't be giving untrained people the wrong tools for the job.
That would definitely be non-lethal
reply
So why is that not the absolute default? Non lethal rounds, it's called law enforcement not law, skip trial and execute. You don't need to use lethal force to neutralise an aggressor.
deleted by author
reply
Pro who's life? I was under the impression that the pro life stance was all life was equal. And you've expressed a willingness to put yourself in a situation where you might not survive. It doesn't sound to me like you're particularly pro your own life or the lives of petty thieves.
reply
Not all life is equal.
And you’re taking the concept of equal to absurd extremes.
It’s not justice to treat the victim and assailant equally
reply
I think that's a fundamental point which will be a sticking point for us. I do believe all life to be equal. And I wouldn't say it's an absurd extreme to suggest that although I won't risk my life over that of an assailant, I do believe I have a duty to that person to not jump straight into killing them because they broke into a shop.
You're right it's not justice to treat the victim and assailant equally. But the punishment does need to fit the crime.
Breaking and entering and looting are not proportional to getting shot.