Defence in OD

This is a follow up post from my previous entry, but, in all honesty, it’s not one I should actually have to write.

You see, some people took what I wrote and decided this:

ZOMG HE JUST SAID THAT U SHOULDN’T BE ALLOWED 2 DEFEND URSELF AND THAT IF SOMEONE TRIES TO RAPE OR ATTASULT U OR ABUSE UR CHILD U JUST HAVE 2 LET THEM DO IT AND IF YOU DONT YOU SHUD B LOCKED UP 4 A MILLION BILLION GAZILLION YEARS AND UR ATTACKER LET OFF COZ THEY GOOD GUZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!ELEVENTYONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And if you think that’s just me being hyperbolic, here’s some direct quotes.

This first one comes from the following entry, which was a rebuttal to my entry:

Know what I find sickening? People who have more compassion for rapists and murderers than they have for their victims. Sickening is for some pompous nitwit from the UK suggesting that defending yourself is sickening and should be punished.

Shall we outlaw golf clubs? Scissors? A vase?

And this is one left on the entry itself:

People being robbed, raped, and murdered will just have to sit there and take it, because fighting back is effectively outlawed. Parents will be forced to watch…as psychotic child-killers do what they do best to their children.

Sound like a world you’d like to live in?
(The ellipsis is because that bit was spread over two notes, not because I left anything out)

So, there you have it. I’m a sickening pompous nitwit who thinks that people who defend themselves should be punished and that people being robed, raped and murdered should sit back and take it and would force parents to watch their child being abused because I have more sympathy with their attacker than with them.

Oh, and I want to outlaw decorative flower holders, sporting equipment and devices for cutting paper.

Now, there are many, many ways I could misconstrue what they have said, much as they did with me. But I’m not going to do that, cos I know they didn’t acutually mean what I could say they meant.

Sadly, I do think that their interpretation of my words is actually what I meant. And the reason that they believe that is because they have become convinced that the only way to protect yourself is by owning a gun. There is nothing else you can do.

Or, put it another way, I can’t defend myself without breaking the law.

Just so that this entry can’t be misconstrued like the last one, let me make my meaning abundantly clear.

You absolutely have the right to defend yourself. Of course you do. Take up martial arts, invest in a decent pair of shitkicker boots, learn to run very, very fast.

Hell, get yourself a security detail to rival that of the President, if you wish.

But the sole purpose of a gun is to kill. That is what they are made for. The termination of a life. And that is all they are made for. And other stated uses (like maiming) are an offshoot of that, not the other way round. Forgive me for thinking that access to something designed for that one purpose should be very, very, very, very difficult to get your hands on.

But, I hear you say, that doesn’t matter! The fact that you might have a gun at all is enough to prevent something like that happening! You don’t need to use it at all!

Prove it. Go on. Show me statistics that prove that states with a conceal carry law have lower crime rates than states that don’t and then show me the evidence this is due to the conceal carry law.

Besides, if someone is determined to carry out a rape/murder/assault, won’t they do it regardless of if the vitcim is armed or not?

So, there is my position. Yes to defending yourself. No to needing a firearm to do so.

Any questions?

Will