If you kill the guy because you stomp his head into the concrete, you might be legally justified. And to say that he would be morally justified is highly subjective. There are a lot of folks in the world, myself included, who believe that the morality of killing someone is complicated at best, and not something to discuss so cavalierly.
But that you want to happen.
dictionary.cambridge.org
Not when it is a clear case of self defense against deadly force being used against the defender.
There's always a way to fantasize about something worse, in order to justify more. A guy joins the wrestling team because he wants to defend himself better. He becomes fit and relatively skilled on the ground. But then someone says, "Hey, what if?" And now that guy thinks he needs to learn striking to defend himself, but then someone says, "But what if?" And so the guy starts getting into knife defense and gun defense... which leads him to buy a gun. But what if there are three guys? I should have a bigger gun, or more guns. Maybe guns and a knife in my sock? I mean, the fantasy could keep going until you have an arsenal... which is exactly where our country is now. Nevermind that the actual danger that guy can reasonably anticipate is very low, or perhaps coming from a completely different place. Like a person in the Midwest carrying an earthquake rider on their homeowner's insurance. I'm sure you could buy it, but do you need it?That's fair. I don't want to either. Nevertheless, to be fair, you brought out the topic by opining, "I seriously have to wonder what level of threat you think lies outside your front door for you to believe that you need a gun for "self defense". I see people going to Walmart or Chipotle with guns strapped to them like they're on their way to Afghanistan, and it boggles my mind."
If you'd like to retract that line, I'm OK with that.
I included the '96 CVS in an effort to be honest and complete. It represents the low-water mark and I wanted to be honest and fair in the bounds of the numbers. Yes, it's old. Newer studies put the numbers much higher, often a lot. But, again, I was wanting to be fair in what I was was writing. Various other studies are much more recent and show increasingly higher DGU numbers. The DGU numbers for more recent studies usually come in at a low-water mark of around 500,000 per year and go up from there:
Data Visualization | Defensive Gun Uses in the U.S. | The Heritage Foundation
According to almost every major study on the issue, Americans use their firearms defensively between 500,000 and 3 million times each year. From @HeritageDataVizdatavisualizations.heritage.org
If you prefer, I can recast my statement, leaving out the '96 CVS study and moving to the 500,000 minimum number:
Interestingly, even the lowest of those DGU numbers, 500,000, exceeds the latest CDC annual murder rate of 19,141 by more than 26 times, meaning that Americans use firearms to protect their lives at a minimum of 26 times more often than people are murdered, and likely a lot more if the DGU rate falls closer to the CDC DGU number or somewhere in the middle.
No problem. I'll include a link with references (above).
I know you've read that. I've read it too. But they lied to you. I wrote about it here:
Let The CDC Study Gun Violence
Let The CDC Study Gun Violence by Kirk Lawson [The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention logo (tm)] Should there be studies on gun violence? A lot of America gun owners seem as if they are afraid of studies on gun violence. If someone on on social media suggests that there should be...www.hipointfirearmsforums.com
I understand. No one wants to see something they love bad mouthed. Violent crime in the U.S. (well, most places) is a complex topic that it seems too many people want to apply simplistic solutions to which will typically not be particularly effective.
I appreciate the opportunity to clarify. I don't believe a fantasy needs to be something pleasant, and plenty of dictionaries agree with me. Thanks, though. Are there any other words you'd like me to clarify for you?But that you want to happen.
From the Cambridge Dictionary:
fantasize
verb [ I or T ]
(UK usually fantasise)
/ˈfæn.tə.saɪz/
to think about something very pleasant that is unlikely to happen:
- He fantasized about winning the Nobel Prize.
- [ + that ] As a child, Emma fantasized that she would do something heroic.
fantasizing
1. present participle of fantasize 2. to think about something very pleasant…
There is a very distinct difference between using visualization drills or "imagining that something could happen" and saying that someone is fantasizing about it and we all know it. Using the term "fantasize" clearly implies that the person "imagining" it wants it to happen or that it would be "pleasant" for them.
You wrote, "I know a lot of dudes who carry a gun around all the time fantasizing about an opportunity to pull that thing out and shoot a bad guy" which has the clear implication that you believe that they want to "pull that thing out and shoot a bad guy." I've seen this exact verbiage of "fantasizing" a lot with exactly that implication and, again, it's just not true.
Now, if you want to clarify and restate, "oh, well I didn't mean to imply that they actually want to shoot someone, but only that they considered the possibility" then this is the time.
But that you want to happen.
From the Cambridge Dictionary:
fantasize
verb [ I or T ]
(UK usually fantasise)
/ˈfæn.tə.saɪz/
to think about something very pleasant that is unlikely to happen:
- He fantasized about winning the Nobel Prize.
- [ + that ] As a child, Emma fantasized that she would do something heroic.
fantasizing
1. present participle of fantasize 2. to think about something very pleasant…
There is a very distinct difference between using visualization drills or "imagining that something could happen" and saying that someone is fantasizing about it and we all know it. Using the term "fantasize" clearly implies that the person "imagining" it wants it to happen or that it would be "pleasant" for them.
You wrote, "I know a lot of dudes who carry a gun around all the time fantasizing about an opportunity to pull that thing out and shoot a bad guy" which has the clear implication that you believe that they want to "pull that thing out and shoot a bad guy." I've seen this exact verbiage of "fantasizing" a lot with exactly that implication and, again, it's just not true.
Now, if you want to clarify and restate, "oh, well I didn't mean to imply that they actually want to shoot someone, but only that they considered the possibility" then this is the time.
I think you fundamentally misunderstood that entire exchange.
No. There is nothing hypothetical about the long-standing moral and legal justification of self defense using lethal force against someone engaged in an unjustified lethal attack against the defender. This established doctrine goes back to at least the Code of Hammurabi or earlier.
Well thanks for bringing up the NRA because, you know, it's not particularly relevant to the discussion, just like the rest of the post.
I'm getting this out ahead of this thread. Heed or points and infractions will be given out.
Can you please be a bit more specific? Which posts are veering too far off?
The Dominican republic has quite a few.
That level of violence is always complicated it's not supposed to be easy. It's not supposed to be something people look forward to doing. It's not something that should be done because one feels afraid of another person. Discussion of things is healthy. In my opinion discussion is better than debating. I don't know about other countries but the U.S does too much debating to score points and not enough discussion, especially if it's a discussion about uncomfortable topics.
Some posts seems to have veered quite a bit from the original purpose, to a discussion on gun control and law enforcement.
