Craig24 Posted May 10, 2016 Report Share Posted May 10, 2016 (edited) In a Huff Po piece dated 4/26, blogger Justin Curmi writes the following: Quote The main problem with the notion of self-defense is it imposes on justice, for everyone has the right for a fair trial. Therefore, using a firearm to defend oneself is not legal because if the attacker is killed, he or she is devoid of his or her rights. Further down he also writes: Quote Therefore, if we ponder and meditate on the recent events in news about guns, it would be obvious that the current state is incorrect. A gun for civilians is a weapon for a revolution and not for ordinary use. The belief that a gun is a useful tool to protect one is counterintuitive because guns get into the hands of people who use them for horrible reasons. The writer here is implying it is wrong to kill your attacker because he has a right to stand trial and cannot do so if he's dead. Of course one can kill one's attacker without a gun as well as with a gun so the gun part isn't really the issue here. If I'm defending myself, my first priority is my survival, not my attacker's survival. My attacker is the cause of the conflict so he has to be the responsible party in all ways. If he's killed, that's his fault, not mine. Agree or disagree? Secondly, how is a gun a useless tool of protection because some people will use them for horrible reasons? If I use a gun successfully to defend my life, the fact that another person somewhere used a gun to commit some crime is irrelevant. Edited May 10, 2016 by Craig24 softwareNerd and Harrison Danneskjold 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.