• Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    12 hours ago

    The law distinguishes between the life of an attacker and the life of a victim. Any reasonable moral or ethical code will do the same.

    The reality is that the attacker forfeits their right to life for the duration of their attack: the life saved holds greater legal, moral, and ethical value than the life wasted on the attacker.

    Guns are meant to extinguish threats, not lives. They do, indeed, save lives.

    • LandedGentry@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 hours ago

      How do they extinguish threats?

      Seriously this is the same bullshit “the civil war was about states’ rights” argue.

      • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        45 minutes ago

        The most common way they extinguish a threat is by convincing the attacker to fuck off with great rapidity, when they realize their intended victim is capable of returning harm. This “fucking off” saves the life of the intended victim.

        But I suspect you’re referring to the taking of the attacker’s forfeited life, which extinguishes the threat posed by that attacker, saving the life of the victim.

        You do realize that the law does not criminalize “justifiable homicide”, right? You do realize the amorality of counting a “justifiable homicide” as the “taking of a life”? You do realize the deceit required to conflate criminal and justifiable homicide, right?