The Cellar - View Single Post

NSFW · 10-10-2006, 03:13 AM

Spexx, why is it so hard to understand that Maggie has decided to obey her local laws? Those laws define the situations in which deadly force is permissible and the situations in which it is not.

Any thinking law-abiding citizen who owns a gun must familiarize themselves with their local laws and act accordingly. (Admittedly, they do have additional options - they can or be a criminal, or be a victim - but neither seems to be the case for Maggie.) If you want to know how a law abiding citizen intends to use (or not use) a firearm, read up on the law and figure it out for yourself.

Here's a quick introduction to the subject, based on the laws in WA, where I live:

If you shoot someone, even under legally justifiable circumstances, you can expect to spend at least $100,000 on legal representation, and there is a non-trivial chance that you will lose everything you own as a result of a civil lawsuit (again, even if the law states that shooting was justified). I assume that most states are somewhat similar. This makes deadly force a last resort. Gun owners should assume that pulling the trigger will cost them everything they own. Most gun owners are gun owners because they would rather lose everything they own than lose their life.

Does that clarify things for you at all?

10-10-2006, 03:13 AM	#58
NSFW Non-practicing agnostic Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 9	Spexx, why is it so hard to understand that Maggie has decided to obey her local laws? Those laws define the situations in which deadly force is permissible and the situations in which it is not. Any thinking law-abiding citizen who owns a gun must familiarize themselves with their local laws and act accordingly. (Admittedly, they do have additional options - they can or be a criminal, or be a victim - but neither seems to be the case for Maggie.) If you want to know how a law abiding citizen intends to use (or not use) a firearm, read up on the law and figure it out for yourself. Here's a quick introduction to the subject, based on the laws in WA, where I live: If you shoot someone, even under legally justifiable circumstances, you can expect to spend at least $100,000 on legal representation, and there is a non-trivial chance that you will lose everything you own as a result of a civil lawsuit (again, even if the law states that shooting was justified). I assume that most states are somewhat similar. This makes deadly force a last resort. Gun owners should assume that pulling the trigger will cost them everything they own. Most gun owners are gun owners because they would rather lose everything they own than lose their life. Does that clarify things for you at all?