Wednesday, December 29, 2010

Stand Your Ground in New Hampshire reports:

In his veto message blocking the 2006 gun bill, Lynch, a Democrat, said he wanted to avoid a law that "would authorize any shopper to instantly shoot and kill a thief who had grabbed or tugged at the shopper’s purse or briefcase, regardless of how many shoppers might be placed in harm’s way by such actions."

His opposition led to a compromise this year that softened the prohibition against drawing a gun on someone. The new law takes effect Saturday and allows citizens to show a weapon to warn away a potential attacker.
This is a wonderful direction for gun rights to move, isn't it? What's important above all else is the right of the gun owner. What's unimportant is the life of the criminal. This is where the line is really drawn between the "only ones" and the rest. The "only ones" being the supposed law-abiding gun owners and the rest being everybody else.

The problem is some of the "only ones" doing the shooting are not really law-abiding citizens, and some of the criminals are not really criminals.

Shooting at the first sign of trouble is not responsible gun management. Encouraging this will certainly result in more misuse and abuse than we already have.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.


  1. "What's unimportant is the life of the criminal."

    Yes. The criminal makes that choice and it has occupational hazards. The life of a criminal is always worth much less than the lives of me and my family.

  2. If FWM is a Christian and going to heaven--Hell is sounding better and better.

    Of course, I believe that Jesus had a thing for hypocrites who claim to believe in things such as being "pro-life".

    FWM believes he can judge the value of a life.

    "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" John 8:1 - 11

    Jesus was not arguing with the judgment. Nor was Jesus arguing the law nor the woman's guilt. Jesus was arguing with our right to execute the woman.

    FWM believes he is justified in taking a life in his strange form of "pro-life" Christianity.

  3. We absolutely have the right to take another's life in defense of our own (or a family member's). Why would my assailant have more right to take my life (or even to live himself if he chose to initiate the attack) than I would to defend it?

  4. Colin, What I object to is the commonly-held opinion of criminals by you so-called legitimate gun owners. Some of you call them disparaging names like "goblins" and "scumbags," which goes a long way towards viewing them as totally worthless. It's not a question of you or them. It's not a question of whose life is worth more. What I'm talking about is the opinion that your life is extremely valuable and that of the criminal is worth zero.

    No one's questioning whether you can kill in self defense. What I'm saying is considering a criminal's life as worthless increasing the chances of killing him unnecessarily.

  5. Mike, you have already decided that there is a scale in which someone's life is more valuable than others. You have stated more than once that the rich and famous deserve armed protection over the average citizen just because of their position in society.

  6. If he is in my house uninvited, or otherwise threatening me or my family, his life is already forfeit. I didn't make him take up the life of crime that brought him to that point. What happens as a result is entirely on his head, not mine.

  7. Colin, You can say that but it's just not true. If you shoot some junkie who's climbing in your bedroom window, it's not just on him. You're involved in that and all the macho tough-guy talk won't change it.

    Nobody's life should be forfeit unless there's no other choice. Unless there's lethal threat, you cannot morally kill the intruder regardless of what your line in the sand happens to be or what the State allows.