You are not taught to shoot to kill. You are taught to shoot center body mass. The goal is to stop the action. If that kills so be it but that is not the goal
Yes, sorry, you are correct. But I'm also correct in saying that I'm instructed NOT to shoot to "injure". It's the most dangerous part of that situation. If I shoot them in the leg. They might fall over and just start shooting all around. You are exactly right- to stop the action. Good call
So what did that have to do with anything I said? It's not a question of whether it's a smart idea or possible, it's a question of morality. Is this morally acceptable to do? Just go up to a random person not even doing something and shoot him in the leg?
A Right is neither positive or negative, all things have a use, both Good & Evil, a knife, a sword or a Gun and the Right to possess them are a good example. Free speech is a good example, you have a Right to speak freely, however yelling fire when there is no fire in a crowded theater is a criminal act. You can be authorized to carry a sidearm as a Police Agent or Citizen however, you cannot commit crimes legally and will be prosecuted if you do commit a crime. Rights do not authorize any abridgement of other peoples civil Rights.
But I haven't done anything wrong if I shoot you in the leg and it doesn't kill you. After all the first premise is "if I don't kill you when I shoot you in the leg, it is morally acceptable."
How do you know that it's not going to kill me? How long do I have to bleed out? Did it hit an artery? Did it pass through the bone? How long do I have to assess my injury before responding? What world are you living in?
Also, how do I KNOW you meant to shoot me in the leg? How do I KNOW you didn't miss your shot and your next one is in my chest???????????
Positive and negative rights are just different ways of saying the same thing but with subtle distinctions. They're not good or bad, just ways to phrase rights. Most of us would agree that the first amendment's "freedom of speech" is equivalent to "the government shall not infringe upon speech". But there is a subtle distinction. "Freedom of speech" seems to demand something more that not infringing upon speech. Positive rights are rights that the government have to provide, whereas negative rights are things that the government can not do. So for example, suppose you have the right not to starve. The government shall feed you so long as you're not starving. But there are plenty of shades before you're starving, nor is the government required to give you enough food to make you full. So if the government had this negative right, then you would not starve but you would never be full. The positive right version of this would say you have the right to food. You can eat however much you want or don't want to. Of course the government has to provide that food.
A child's view of life. Any bullet wound can send a blood clot to the heart or lungs or brain and prove fatal. Attempted homicide is the charge, homicide if the victim dies.
As soon as the shot is felt or heard, the immediate reaction from the victim should be to put the shooter down.
Ok, eating is a necessity, you have a Right to eat, not to rob or steal in order to eat, there are civic organisations that provide food and free meals and Government food benefits, etc... however hunger v crime is not an acceptable defense.
Are you serious with this?? Your premise continues to be flawed. If you pull a gun on me you have demonstrated a will to cause me harm. I do NOT have to wait for you to shoot me before I can respond; your display of your weapon is enough. You have initiated an unprovoked assault and I am perfectly and completely within my rights to defend myself against your obvious aggression.
That's not a valid premise. It is NEVER morally acceptable to launch an unprovoked, violent attack upon another person... and shooting someone in the leg can and will kill someone. If someone pulls a weapon of any kind on you - gun, knife, club, crowbar, baseball bat, etc. - and expresses their desire to kill you with it you do NOT have to wait until they've actually launched their first swing/shot/stab/slash before you are morally justified in using deadly force on them.
I apologize for any confusion, but I was dead serious when I called them a Fifth Column; I was not endeavoring to make light of the situation in any way, shape, or form.
Yes, the question is where do you draw the line. It's different in every state and every country. Only in a state of anarchy can an individual enjoy an unlimited right of self defense. However, in that state might makes right. The person with the most guns dominates others. In a civilized society, people put down their guns for the most part and let government resolve disputes between individuals.
These people who long for liberty should be abandoning society. Society puts MANY restrictions on your liberty. Yes it give you a lot but it takes some of your liberty. If you value liberty so highly.....why are you still here?
it imposes punishments that it can enforce, it puts police out on patrols, it investigates every suspicious death and on and on and on
It stops some people from murder. If there were no punishment for murder would we have more murders or less?
How does that stop someone who decides to kill me? Even with punishment, we see that those aren't sufficiently deterrent.
It may be a deterrent for some, but it doesn't stop anybody. I'm not giving up my rights for government to have a deterrent. Besides, with guns gone groups of thugs would have no competition. They could go to the country and do whatever they want because there wouldn't be groups of people big enough to stop them without a deterrent, which we already have.
