1008
Guns
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Dec 2024
1008 points (93.8% liked)
Comic Strips
12655 readers
997 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
- The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
- The comic must be a complete story.
- If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
- You may post comics from others or your own.
- If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
- The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
- Politeness.
- Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.
Web of links
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world: "I use Arch btw"
- !memes@lemmy.world: memes (you don't say!)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The law distinguishes between the life of an attacker and the life of a victim. Any reasonable moral or ethical code will do the same.
The reality is that the attacker forfeits their right to life for the duration of their attack: the life saved holds greater legal, moral, and ethical value than the life wasted on the attacker.
Guns are meant to extinguish threats, not lives. They do, indeed, save lives.
How do they extinguish threats?
Seriously this is the same bullshit “the civil war was about states’ rights” argue.
The most common way they extinguish a threat is by convincing the attacker to fuck off with great rapidity, when they realize their intended victim is capable of returning harm. This "fucking off" saves the life of the intended victim.
But I suspect you're referring to the taking of the attacker's forfeited life, which extinguishes the threat posed by that attacker, saving the life of the victim.
You do realize that the law does not criminalize "justifiable homicide", right? You do realize the amorality of counting a "justifiable homicide" as the "taking of a life"? You do realize the deceit required to conflate criminal and justifiable homicide, right?
I’d like you to show me these “fucking off” stats. I am also not sure why you are following up with a legal argument as if “if it’s legal it’s right” was ever an acceptable moral justification.
A gun solves a problem by killing it. You’re purposely dodging this obvious truth with word salads and faux-technical sounding bullshit.
No.
While certainly true, I don't need that fact to be true to demonstrate the more important point. I elect not to support that point. For this discussion, you are free to consider that a concession.
This was the first line of my initial response to you. There is no moral or ethical dilemma with using deadly force to stop a deadly attack.
You've got it backwards. The law on justifiable homicide arises from moral and ethical grounds: It is morally and ethically permissible to use deadly force against an attacker. It is not morally or ethically permissible to punish a victim for killing their attacker. Those two points demand a narrow exception to the general rule that "killing is wrong". The laws on self defense and justifiable homicide reflect the morality and ethicality of using deadly force on an attacker.
Likewise, it is immoral and unethical to count the death of an attacker as a "killing", at least for purposes of denouncing the use of the tool used to cause their death. Conflating the deaths of attackers with the deaths of victims is deceitful, immoral and unethical.