The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

Pippin89 wrote:
You obviously don't value a human life as highly as I do!

Sim has pretty much said everything I might have said regarding your comment.

I might add that I do value human lives, not as highly as you do, obviously.
I do try to strive for that last few feet to atop the moral pedestal but as you're already in place it's very hard.
If I could just get over my hard limit against embracing murderers and rapists, even cherishing their contribution to the rich tapestry of life (and death), perhaps one day I might be able to squeeze alongside you.

Dark Skies wrote:

Pippin89 wrote:
You obviously don't value a human life as highly as I do!

Sim has pretty much said everything I might have said regarding your comment.

I might add that I do value human lives, not as highly as you do, obviously.
I do try to strive for that last few feet to atop the moral pedestal but as you're already in place it's very hard.
If I could just get over my hard limit against embracing murderers and rapists, even cherishing their contribution to the rich tapestry of life (and death), perhaps one day I might be able to squeeze alongside you.

Ironic how you try to make me sound ridiculous by making yourself sound even more ridiculous?.... I'm not exactly sure how you expect that to work???

I have made my views on the subject clear but to clarify, taking a life to save a more innocent life may be acceptable. Taking a life to save a more innocent person some trauma and/or injury.... becomes a little more hazy and something I cannot get on board with. And the general public are not equipped to make that distinction in the heat of the moment. So arming them with lethal weapons (and yes the term weapon becomes appropriate at that point) and expecting them to make that decision is, in my opinion, foolish!

Pippin89 wrote: I understand it perfectly... But you made it quite clear that a dead body was a better outcome to you than PTSD was... as long as the body is on the right side of the confrontation! My point is that NO dead bodies is the best outcome no matter what side they come from, and that this outcome is far more likely if neither side has a gun and still more likely if only one side does!

Evidently it wasn't clear, because it wasn't me that made those points....

Pippin89 wrote:[

I have made my views on the subject clear but to clarify, taking a life to save a more innocent life may be acceptable. Taking a life to save a more innocent person some trauma and/or injury.... becomes a little more hazy and something I cannot get on board with.

Then you are out of kilter with how many, many people see psychiatric harm. The effects are debilitating and overwhelming for the victim, leading sometimes to decades of suffering. So much so, that R v Burstow 1997, categorised psychiatric harm as grievous (really serious) bodily harm...

Pippin89 wrote: And the general public are not equipped to make that distinction in the heat of the moment. So arming them with lethal weapons (and yes the term weapon becomes appropriate at that point) and expecting them to make that decision is, in my opinion, foolish!

Even after 28 years employed in the criminal justice system, it appears I have a lot more faith in the general public, than you do, despite witnessing some of the most stupid behaviour conducted on a daily basis!

And, having a gun makes you no more armed than owning a guitar makes you a musician....

Pippin89 wrote:
Ironic how you try to make me sound ridiculous by making yourself sound even more ridiculous?.... I'm not exactly sure how you expect that to work???

I wouldn't dream of trying to make you sound ridiculous when you're doing such an excellent job of it yourself.

I'm not trying to convince you to my way of thinking, merely giving an alternate opinion. You don't have to like it.

Pippin89 wrote:

christel wrote:100% in favour of the right to bear arms.

Frankly I could not care a hoot about the criminal who is pointing a gun at me, doesn't deserve to see the end of the day.

Christel... do you not think that if a criminal is pointing a gun at you, you have more chance of being shot if you pull out your own gun??

Nope, not after having been trained extensively to get the right to bear arms permit which the criminal would not have done, he/she would just have acquired the gun...

Sim G wrote:

Pippin89 wrote:[

I have made my views on the subject clear but to clarify, taking a life to save a more innocent life may be acceptable. Taking a life to save a more innocent person some trauma and/or injury.... becomes a little more hazy and something I cannot get on board with.

Then you are out of kilter with how many, many people see psychiatric harm. The effects are debilitating and overwhelming for the victim, leading sometimes to decades of suffering. So much so, that R v Burstow 1997, categorised psychiatric harm as grievous (really serious) bodily harm....

Psychiatric harm or GBH still does not equal death!! However bad they are, and believe me I know how bad they can be... they still do not equal death.

Dark Skies wrote:

Pippin89 wrote:
Ironic how you try to make me sound ridiculous by making yourself sound even more ridiculous?.... I'm not exactly sure how you expect that to work???

I wouldn't dream of trying to make you sound ridiculous when you're doing such an excellent job of it yourself.

I'm not trying to convince you to my way of thinking, merely giving an alternate opinion. You don't have to like it.

Saying I sound ridiculous but "merely giving an alternate opinion".... bit of a contradiction of terms isn't it??

christel wrote:

Pippin89 wrote:

christel wrote:100% in favour of the right to bear arms.

Frankly I could not care a hoot about the criminal who is pointing a gun at me, doesn't deserve to see the end of the day.

Christel... do you not think that if a criminal is pointing a gun at you, you have more chance of being shot if you pull out your own gun??

Nope, not after having been trained extensively to get the right to bear arms permit which the criminal would not have done, he/she would just have acquired the gun...

Training obvious helps you massively. But however much training you have, if you have a gun pointed at you, the chances of pulling out your own gun, aiming and pulling the trigger, before the criminal has the chance to just pull the trigger..... seems quite remote. This is only one situation of course and in other situations training could help massively. But I stand by my opinion that if a mugger is pointing a gun at you, your best chance of survival, even if you are armed, is to give them your wallet/phone/watch or whatever else and then let them leave.

Pippin89,

The scenario you are describing, for some people the outcome is less important than doing the right thing.

I for one will defend my house, my dogs, my husband, in no order, at any cost.

Even if I die in doing so, at least I did the right thing.

Please remember that just because you will hand your wallet to the criminal does not mean that applies to all.

christel wrote:Pippin89,

The scenario you are describing, for some people the outcome is less important than doing the right thing.

I for one will defend my house, my dogs, my husband, in no order, at any cost.

Even if I die in doing so, at least I did the right thing.

Please remember that just because you will hand your wallet to the criminal does not mean that applies to all.

"The right thing" is subjective and differs for you and me. For me doing the right thing is coming out of the situation alive. If that means letting someone go with my wallet then so be it. Going home to my family is more important to me than letting someone escape with a few quid! For me THAT is doing the right thing.....

Pippin89 wrote: Psychiatric harm or GBH still does not equal death!! However bad they are, and believe me I know how bad they can be... they still do not equal death.

It does when the victim of trauma and the sufferer of psychiatric harm kills themselves....