Friday, November 20, 2009

Shooting to Stop Vs. Shooting to Kill

This particular debate is going on here.

I have not contributed to the debate on The Firing Line, mainly because just about everything I would say has been said. But I will say it here.

In my opinion this debate is pointless.

Shooting someone is using deadly force. Deadly force kills, hence 'deadly' (not always, but often enough that it is assumed that it probably will...that's why they use the word 'deadly').

If I'm using deadly force it will be in self-defense (according to the Alabama State Code, or the legal code where I am at the time it happens). If I am forced to that I won't care whether or not the person I am using deadly force against dies. I won't care if I kill them. It won't bother me a damned bit*. I'll sleep fine**.

If you shoot a person you're probably going to kill them. It doesn't matter if you don't want to kill them. They're probably going to die, and if they do that means you have killed. If you can't deal with the fact that shooting usually equals killing then you should not be carrying a gun for self defense.

*Unless, of course, the legal authorities decide that I didn't act in self-defense. That is a bridge I'll have to cross IF that ever happens, but I can say now that if it does the legal authorities will be wrong otherwise I would never have claimed it was self-defense in the first place.
**See '*' above.

No comments: