[Azred]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MagiK:
Does it matter if you killed your attacker iwth a gun? or your fist? or a knife? I single defensive punch can be lethal. I think the moral blame should go with the attacker and not the defender. If you are attacked and the situation ends with the attacker dead, I believe that it might just serve as a deterent to other would be attackers.

The again I believe a society where most of the population is armed would be a much more polite society too...You wouldn't see nearly so many cases of road rage if the "perps" knew that any of the surrounding cars probably had people who just might take offense and fight back with possibly deadly force.

ahh but then you would have the old west syndrome full of lynch mobs and Ox bow incidents guess humans just can't win [img]smile.gif[/img]

---

I agree with you, even if my previous post is a little unclear. Yes, moral blame lies with the attacker, not the defender, regardless of the outcome.

Studies have shown that localities in which "concealed carry" laws exist have rates for some types of crime decrease significantly. I would be much less likely to rob you if you might be carrying a gun, unless I am either crazy or desperate.
Apparently, when a society's populace loses the ability to deal maturely and sanely with situations (evident in the cases of road rage, air rage, hockey dads, etc.), then external methods of enforcing peaceful resolution must be developed, such as concealed carry laws.
Let me also state that much to the dismay of anti-gun proponents, an absence of guns does not lead to a reduction in crime. There are plenty of places in the world in which it is illegal to own guns; their crime rates do not drop significantly.
Finally, ignore Hollywood--the Old West was not laden with daily gunfights and masked bandits robbing trains left and right. The percentage of movie-type behavior was quite low; it has just been sensationalized over several decades. (The Ox-Bow Incident is a good movie, I must admit.)