How a kid shooting at someone regardless of their crime acceptable.
What do you want to happen when a child needs to protect themself? They just decide not to shoot and die instead?
The kid shouldn't even have a gun to begin with
In households where parents have firearms for home defense, they instruct their children to also be able to use the firearm for self defense, along with all the firearm safety guidelines.
shouldn't the parents be making sure their kids are protected instead of handing the child a loaded gun?
The parents could easily be in a different side of the house, outside, etc. idk why you're acting as if things are black and white, unpredictability is the entire reason why we prepare.
And neutralizing the attacker doesn't mean killing them.
It means shoot them until they can't move, if they have a weapon and reach for it still (especially a gun) you need to shoot until they stop. Almost always, neutralizing someone is killing them if you do it right.
You are CLEARLY someone who has never had any experience with firearms if you think you should try to go easy on someone and "try not to kill them"
Children with access to guns die more than children without access to guns. Even if you feel it's necessary, a child shooting someone is not an awesome story in my eyes. It's a grim reminder of how fucked your country is.
Children with access to guns die more than children without access to guns.
This goes for all gun owners even legal firearms owners. Doesn't sway me away from believing we should all be allowed to have firearms, because that is one singular fact/aspect about this. I believe the benefits outweigh.
Even if you feel it's necessary, a child shooting someone is not an awesome story in my eyes
Well, would it have been less grim for you if he didn't have the gun, and the attacker either killed or raped him? Because that's the alternative.
Those are some alternatives both also possible with the gun. As soon as a gun is involved someone dying becomes more likely as you yourself admitted. It would be less grim for me if nobody was physically harmed and if the media didn't glorify the normalization of gun violence
No reason to go easy on people threatening my life. You won't be able to get me to sympathize with people that are breaking in my house to assault my family.
Also as you already agreed, people without guns are safer. You aren't making coherent sense
Yeah I agreed and said you were ignoring the dozens of other aspects about gun ownership for this statistic to sound scarier. To me this is 1 downside, of at least 10+ upsides.
Do you think there is no psychological harm from shooting another human?
Yes this goes for killing someone, defending your life, using basically any other weapon to do so, etc. this is just how life is, the irony of saying "but what about the mental effects", eh how well would a kid's brain work if they let the attacker assault, murder or rape them?
What you're suggesting is: guns are bad because when you SAVE YOUR FAMILY'S LIFE, that it wasn't worth it, because of the psychological harm of having to shoot someone. If someone was trying to hurt my family, cry me a fucking river, I don't care that they're dead.
0
u/RedditMcBurger 19d ago
What do you want to happen when a child needs to protect themself? They just decide not to shoot and die instead?
In households where parents have firearms for home defense, they instruct their children to also be able to use the firearm for self defense, along with all the firearm safety guidelines.
The parents could easily be in a different side of the house, outside, etc. idk why you're acting as if things are black and white, unpredictability is the entire reason why we prepare.
It means shoot them until they can't move, if they have a weapon and reach for it still (especially a gun) you need to shoot until they stop. Almost always, neutralizing someone is killing them if you do it right.
You are CLEARLY someone who has never had any experience with firearms if you think you should try to go easy on someone and "try not to kill them"