0 sats \ 39 replies \ @Bell_curve 13 Feb \ parent \ on: ABORTION and GUNS poll culture
Regarding the price of my life I know it’s not infinite.
Most economists value life at around 10 to 20 million usd.
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.
reply
Military experience does not make you an expert on law enforcement or criminology
reply
I'm not trying to claim it does. I'm just saying that in the situations you've described, they should be handled by highly trained individuals not some average desk cop.
reply
Criminals in USA are more violent and dangerous than criminals in Europe or UK
reply
reply
lol
You’re terrible!
Violent people are violent people. If they didn't have access to those kinds of tools the fallout would be much less. To suggest that American criminals are somehow more dangerous than any other nation is just untrue.
reply
The comparison was USA vs UK vs Europe
It’s not the tool. You’re implying guns make people more violent. During the civil war in Rwanda in 1994, millions were killed via machete. September 11 victims were killed via airline jet.
Cause is not the tool but the person holding the tool
Japan has almost zero violent crime
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.
reply
In the US, anyway, employing any firearm in the encounter is considered using deadly force…whether it kills or not. Doesn’t matter if you use a pink AR-15 or a ma deuce.
Non lethal is OK in a few situations, but not as a primary defensive tool.
Civilians and law enforcement both need the option of deadly force. If the threat is wearing explosives, armed, etc…do you think the people at Charlie Hebdo just failed to de-escalate?
reply
These are the not the normal types of daily situations.
Civilians don't want to end up in that situation, that's not a failure to de-escalate that's a failure to call in the right people. Those situations should be handled by professionals not some cop or a well meaning civvie.
My thoughts are that civilians in most (and yes there are extremes) circumstances either non lethal force would be sufficient or they're in over their heads and should find someplace else to be.
reply
Option of deadly force = truth
reply
This is the “shoot him in the leg” strategy advocated by progressives.
Have you seen the movie Heat (1995)? There is a bank robber scene that degenerates into a shoot out like the ok corral.
That scene was the inspiration for a similar shoot out in 1997 in Los Angeles.
reply
No I’m probably the only person that hasn’t seen Heat. I do remember the north Hollywood shootout. Demonstrated that shotguns are woefully underpowered for incapacitating anyone, especially if armored.
Now everyone has ceramic plates, so even 7.62 isn’t gonna do much without tungsten carbide AP. 8.6 blackout shows some promise for armor penetration though, I have yet to see a test.
reply
I meant to direct the bank shoot out question to @Public_N_M_E as an example of when law enforcement needs a lethal option. If are trying to kill you, a lethal weapon is necessary
reply
That is an example of an extreme event. These aren't common occurrences, and law enforcement isn't qualified to handle that. You call in professionals for that. Same as hostage situations. The issue isn't that not having the right guns in that situation was the problem. The problem was not having the right people with the right tools.
Where non lethal force is no longer enough... As a civilian you should no longer be involved. That's time to call in professionals. Those professionals are not average law enforcement.
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.
reply