@comrade_Comrade "Armed robbery by definition involves threat of death or injury by either a gun or melee weapon, in that case use of deadly force in return is perfectly valid."
You kinda missed my whole point : I'm not talking about valid response or law making, I'm talking about gun utility value as a self-defense tool in the big picture not on the inidvidual level. And was wondering in which cases this value was positive. Let's go into details :
- Robbery : even if this is armed robbery, you can suppose that the robber is just trying to steal from you not kill you. So if you either end up killing him or worse you end up both dead BECAUSE you had a gun to defend yourself then you'll agree with me that the utility value of the said gun was negative because a dead person is worse in the whole picture than a robbed one. So the utility value is positive only if you manage to somehow prevent him from robbing you without killing him, and a gun doesn't seem like the best tool to do that.
- Basically any other crime that is not murder or mass murder ends up being the same that robbery
- Murder, ok so this one is slightly positive, in most cases you'll end up with a dead person, but the fact that the murderer may end up dead might discourage further murders. Also, I suppose in some cases you may end up in a stalemate. Still sometimes it might end up negative if both you and the murderer end up dead.
- Mass murders, now we are talking of either mass shooting or serial killing and in this case only, the simple fact that you kill the murderer has a utility value because he won't kill anymore once he's dead.
Of all that it seems that only the mass murder case is really on the positive side, all the other cases end up either neutral or negative. So the question is how many mass murderers were stopped by an armed citizen and how it compares with the rest of the crimes/offenses.
"There is no such self-defense weapon."
Well, as stated in the comics, I doubt that the weapon industry wouldn't be able to find a solution given sufficient incentives. If this was really that important of a problem, I probably would go in that direction.
33
@comrade_Comrade "Armed robbery by definition involves threat of death or injury by either a gun or melee weapon, in that case use of deadly force in return is perfectly valid."
You kinda missed my whole point : I'm not talking about valid response or law making, I'm talking about gun utility value as a self-defense tool in the big picture not on the inidvidual level. And was wondering in which cases this value was positive. Let's go into details :
- Robbery : even if this is armed robbery, you can suppose that the robber is just trying to steal from you not kill you. So if you either end up killing him or worse you end up both dead BECAUSE you had a gun to defend yourself then you'll agree with me that the utility value of the said gun was negative because a dead person is worse in the whole picture than a robbed one. So the utility value is positive only if you manage to somehow prevent him from robbing you without killing him, and a gun doesn't seem like the best tool to do that.
- Basically any other crime that is not murder or mass murder ends up being the same that robbery
- Murder, ok so this one is slightly positive, in most cases you'll end up with a dead person, but the fact that the murderer may end up dead might discourage further murders. Also, I suppose in some cases you may end up in a stalemate. Still sometimes it might end up negative if both you and the murderer end up dead.
- Mass murders, now we are talking of either mass shooting or serial killing and in this case only, the simple fact that you kill the murderer has a utility value because he won't kill anymore once he's dead.
Of all that it seems that only the mass murder case is really on the positive side, all the other cases end up either neutral or negative. So the question is how many mass murderers were stopped by an armed citizen and how it compares with the rest of the crimes/offenses.
"There is no such self-defense weapon."
Well, as stated in the comics, I doubt that the weapon industry wouldn't be able to find a solution given sufficient incentives. If this was really that important of a problem, I probably would go in that direction.