Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Apparently There are people who believe that it would be better for a woman to be raped rather than for her to kill her attacker in self-defense.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Detroit police chief says armed citizens deter crime
- Thread starter CMike
- Start date
Apparently There are people who believe that it would be better for a woman to be raped rather than for her to kill her attacker in self-defense.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
But it's not a punishment. It's an innocent, law abiding citizen justifiably defending themselves. "Is my life worth another man's possessions?" is something the criminal should've asked themselves before making the decision to victimize others.
Another issue is, some folks don't think we really own our property or respect property owners rights.
My home is my castle, you kick the door down you most likely will die.
This goes for the government as well. I'm not checking ID's, I am shooting first and asking questions later.
If they have a legit reason to be there, they best announce they are there and why first.
My home is my castle, you kick the door down you most likely will die.
This goes for the government as well. I'm not checking ID's, I am shooting first and asking questions later.
If they have a legit reason to be there, they best announce they are there and why first.
CMike
Well-Known Member
If your life or a loved one is in imminent danger that does indeed justify it.
CMike
Well-Known Member
How about your life?
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Another thing. If there is a strange man in your house, you don't know their intent, and only a fool would wait to see what their intent is.
I have two little girls. If someone breaks into my home, I'm sure as hell not going to risk their well being for the sake of the intruders well being. I'm going to neutralize any potentially eminent threat. Even if it turned out that their intent was merely theft of property, the fault still lies with them for the choice they've made. I wouldn't shed tears over it.
Having your home - your intimate, personal, private, safe place - broken into is still a frightening, traumatic violation that shakes your sense of security regardless of their intent.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Exactly. The lack of concealed weapons in almost every western nation and the soaring crime in the US in comparison falls on deaf ears.
Because, as explained before, crime is a complex economical, sociological, psychological issue. The mere presence of a specific type of inanimate object doesn't magically cause crime. In fact, as also explained before, there are thousands of communities where practically every household possesses a firearm, yet violent crime is virtually unheard of. You have to realize and understand that the U.S. is not some quaint, tiny, homogeneous nation, and in fact has widely varying cultures and demographics. Believe it or not, there are differences between a small rural town and an inner-city ghetto. Farmer Ted owning a gun didn't contribute to the death of some crack dealer in a back alley.
If you have to resort to distortion and misrepresentation to support your stance, the honest thing to do would be to step back and re-evaluate your stance.
Last edited:
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
To me, there's a problem with operating on the extreme edges. Guns indeed do have some good they can do, including self-defense, police enforcement, military activities, etc. OTOH, the excessive proliferation of guns, especially handguns, has clearly shown that it has made us a significantly less safe country. We have by far the highest homicide and accidental gun death rate in the industrialized world (roughly 30,000), but there certainly ain't a shortage of guns in society since the estimate is that there's roughly 300,000,000 of them in circulation, which amounts to almost one gun per man, woman, and child.
Over and over again we have learned through experience in so many cases that moderation is often the best way to go, thus operating on either extreme tends to cause many problems, but unfortunately we have been operating at one extreme, and it's an extreme that our founding fathers never could have imagined. The "proof is in the pudding", and the "pudding" is way too deadly.
Over and over again we have learned through experience in so many cases that moderation is often the best way to go, thus operating on either extreme tends to cause many problems, but unfortunately we have been operating at one extreme, and it's an extreme that our founding fathers never could have imagined. The "proof is in the pudding", and the "pudding" is way too deadly.
Alceste
Vagabond
False dichotomy. Either someone gets killed or someone gets raped? Be serious.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
By what criteria do you define "extreme edge"?
Not really: List of countries by firearm-related death rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
but we already have moderation in the form of licencing and restrictions (i.e. no full automatic, limited magazine capacity, etc.)
I prefer using education rather than oppression as a means of solving social issues.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
I didn't say that those were the only two possibilities. I'm talking hypothetically in regards to ethical perspectives. If those were the only two possibilities, which would you prefer? Don't dodge.
Alceste
Vagabond
If I'd been burgled 18 times without incident, I'd be a fool to fear for my life. In my city, we just call the police and they go try to round up the burglars.
McBell
Unbound
Bull ****.
The article does no such thing.
Though your blatant twisting of the facts to support your appeal to emotion is in fact most revealing.
McBell
Unbound
Why not put up a sign on your front door that reads "Free stuff"?
BSM1
What? Me worry?
OK, let's put it in real life. Suppose you had a first grader at a certain Connecticut school. Suppose there was a crazy young man shooting first graders at this school. If you had access to a weapon would you try to stop this young man as expeditiously as possible, or would discuss his issues of a cup of chamomile tea?
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Random number games mean nothing. Besides, Russian roulette odds are in the players favor, yet I wouldn't consider it foolish to fear the risks of playing.
So you're actually saying it's "foolish" to assume that someone invading your home might possibly cause you bodily harm?
It would be beyond stupid to assume that, just because previous burglaries happened without physical harm to the occupants, that other burglaries would end the same.
And if you happen to get raped or murdered? Cops don't possess teleportation or time traveling technology.
Last edited:
Perhaps the way to advance gun rights is to treat as a feminist issue.
I'm pro-choice on women arming themselves against attack by thugs.
Here's another article about that incident, that says there were several intruders that kicked in the door. The man shot one of them, and the others fled. The police later informed this man that the intruder he shot was armed.
No apologies: 75-year-old retiree shoots, kills man breaking into Detroit home | MLive.com
No apologies: 75-year-old retiree shoots, kills man breaking into Detroit home | MLive.com