<snip for focus>
...I've made it clear in this thread that I don't have the intent or the desire to hurt anyone. On the other hand, I'm prepared to kill violent attackers, if it comes down to them, or me. You're free to characterize that any way you want.
Well, you have made it abundantly clear that you do have the intent to hurt or kill certain people, but that's beside the point. What I am asking, and you keep bobbing and weaving around, is do you concern yourself with self defense, or do you only concern yourself with legal shooting? They are not the same thing. Very different things, in fact. The simple litmus for that is to identify what provisions you make
for self defense if you cannot reach your gun. If there are none at all, as you seem to imply, 'self defense' is a euphemism for your real interest.
The killing was wrongful, but it was inevitably the result of a violent shove which was also wrongful, which was inevitably the result of Drejka confronting the victim's friend. I'm saying, specifically, if your first resort is violence in this state, then don't be surprised if violence is what you get in response, far more than what is justified in some cases. Drejka probably knew this when he got his weapons permit, yet decided to act the way he did anyway. McGlockton probably realized this the split second before he died.
That hilited, right there. You keep saying things like that ('Keep your hands to yourself and we won't shoot you. We like it that way'). It is nakedly menacing, although you pepper it up with generic qualifiers about self defense. That is why I keep asking you about
actual self defense provisions, that you seem not to concern yourself with.
As I stated before, my sympathy for McGlocton is mitigated by the fact that I saw what he did in that video. That doesn't change the fact that Drejka broke the law and should be prosecuted. We both agree that perpetrators of manslaughter need to be held accountable under the law. But what about the perpetrators of violent attacks that don't necessarily end this way? What if Drejka was unarmed, and was beaten severely? What if the encounter ended with the shove? Would that be ok too, or should McGlockton be held accountable by law?
Of course, anyone violating any law may have to face charges. But that is a strawman again; no one suggests that any criminal action should be excused willy-nilly. The distinction is whether or not you are even
alive to face charges. Why do you keep strawmanning my position?
If you're looking for sympathy from me for anyone in this case, from the parking violator to the committer of manslaughter, you won't find it. I hope Drejka is convicted of manslaughter or 2nd degree murder, and I hope people stop shoving people to the ground violently.
There's that menacing language again. Do you see that you are basically threatening that some gun owners will illegally execute? This is not the position of pure self defense, which I agree is everyone's right. Your subtext, intended or not, is extremely aggressive, and ideologically very close to Drejka's.
The possibility that I won't be able to tactically defend myself in all situations has zero to do with whether lethal force is justified in some situations or not. I'm not sure why you're conflating these concepts.
Because you are strawmanning again. Sometimes lethal force is justified, no question. If your interest is honestly the protection of your own life, you would tactically need to prepare for those times when your gun was not available. That does not seem to concern you, so I can only conclude that you have no interest in defending your life in a dire situation. You only indicate interest in ending (or threatening to end) someone elses.
If I am in a situation where I can't immediately draw my firearm, then I probably can't draw pepper spray either. What does this have to do with anything? If you want to call justified lethal self defense "make my day", then yes, I am advocating "make my day". If you don't agree with that, then we can agree to disagree.
Again, you keep relying on the pepper spray strawman. Since you have this intense desire to protect yourself, to the point of being willing to kill others (including perhaps unintended bystanders), what unarmed self defense techniques do you regularly practice? If none, how seriously can your claim of a desire to defend yourself be viewed?
It would make sense to vacate the premises, in lieu of the protections granted by SYG laws. This takes nothing away from the potentiality of drunken brawlers to be lethal, but it seems likely that most drunks don't have lethal intent. On the other hand, being drunk isn't an excuse to bludgeon someone to death. If some would be drunken-brawler batters the wrong person and winds up dead, I will have about as much sympathy for him as I do McGlockton, which is, not much. Don't get drunk and batter people. It's simple. If you do, then accept the risk that you might get killed. You don't deserve any guarantees in life if you impair yourself and then go around committing violence. None.
The hilited is my line. Not all assaults are lethal. The staggering majority are not. But your self defense spectrum seems to include only one tactic: shoot to kill. And consequently, not really self defense.
I already explained why I disregard it. I'll type it again, maybe you can read it this time. If I deploy pepper spray against someone with lethal intent and it fails, then I run the risk of dying. I'm not willing to take that risk.
Your firearm can fail or be unreachable, too, and by your own argument, you will also run the risk of dying, which risk you claim to be unwilling to take. So maybe you can read it this time:
what is your plan for self defense, which you claim is so important, if you cannot reach your gun?
That's irrelevant. I'm not interested in preventing shootings, but preventing crime, and most importantly, defending myself. Your statistics are unlikely to account for the myriad of factors accounting for crimes across different states.
Yeah, hard data is overrated. Sounds like you are familiar with what it shows, too.
I don't know who the "MMD crowd" is. My advice would be to not attack them on the street or break into their homes. If and when they break the law, they should get prosecuted and receive justice just like any other criminal, which is what I'm advocating here for Drejka.
The MMD crowd are the Make My Day gun advocates. Zero interest in actual self defense but a boatload of interest in shooting someone if they think they can do so legally. Your arguments are the talking points for this position, even down to changing the subject and answering a different question when asked directly about your tactical preparations when your guns are not reachable.
BTW, I don't mean to sound so confrontational or accusatory. Your evasiveness to my simple, direct question is frustrating. If you have no interest in self defense without a gun, but a ton of interest in having multiple guns to shoot someone should the situation present itself, you can just say so. Perfectly legal. Nothing wrong with it.
I have raised three kids, and was on a volunteer rescue squad before I moved to a town with a professional team. I have spent a lot of my adult life trying to keep children and victims alive. This casual willingness to kill others is more than a little fascinating, so I hope you can excuse any abrasiveness on my part.
