hal@finney.org wrote:
> Mike Lorrey wrote, quoting me:
> > > And for it to be useful in the examples cited, you have to be ready to
> > > kill in response to an assault of less than lethal magnitude. You need
> > > to be ready to kill in response to robbery, for example.
> >
> > Hal, thats clearly false, since she did say one person was beaten to death,
> > and given the statistics of risk of being killed during a rape, robbery, etc,
> > there is a significant probability of deadly harm in such events, and given
> > that its been proven that you are at least 30% more likely to survive such a
> > crime if you are armed with a gun, then not carrying one is simply stupid.
>
> I don't think what I said is false. In most cases a rape, robbery,
> etc., is "an assault of less than lethal magnitude", don't you agree?
> And by being armed in case of such confrontations, "you have to be ready
> to kill in response", don't you agree? This is exactly what I said.
Unless you have ESP, there is no way for a person to know whether any particular
case will be lethal or not, so claiming that just because some are not is
disengenuous. I suppose you don't carry life insurance either? No cryonics account?
Do you drive at night without headlights or a seatbelt or airbag? Are you such an
incurable optimist?
The fact is Hal is that even if a criminal has absolutely no actual intent at all
of killing you, that is irrelevant. It is your perception of lethal intent (i.e.
that gun or knife he/she is pointing at you, or the death threat they made to you)
that is all that is required. You have absolutely no way of knowing what their
actual intent is, but it is safer to assume that someone that points a gun or knife
at you in a threatening manner does have a far greater probability of killing you
than someone who waves at you and wishes you a good day.
> Don't you agree that if you are carrying a gun and will use it in
> case you are robbed, then "you need to be ready to kill in response
> to robbery", as I said? As you and others have stated many times,
> you should not carry the gun unless you are willing and ready to kill.
> And if you are going to carry and use it in cases of robbery, then you
> must be ready to kill in response to robbery.
In many jurisdictions (including Virginia, Vermont, NH, Maine, and others), one has
the right to use deadly force to protect oneself, one's family, and ONE'S PROPERTY,
so being robbed, at least with the use of a deadly weapon by a perp, deserves a
deadly response. You have no way of telling whether they are going to kill you
after they rob you, and assuming anything else is betting your life on the kindness
of someone who has proven themselves to be inconsiderate of your rights already.
Not a smart idea.
> Or have I misinterpreted you?
Very much so, though I think its more a matter of your comprehension.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:38:44 MDT