Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: Boys Attack Cyclist Who Fights Back, Kills 1 [View all]iverglas
(38,549 posts)103. I dunno
Can you prove the biker would not have been killed, had he simply allowed himself to be victimized?
We'll leave aside the fact that he WAS victimized, rather badly, and just ask: can you prove that he would have been killed?
Oh, wait, did I ask that already and your post is not an answer?
Nobody, least of all moi, as asking that HE prove it. But you aren't him. You're sitting in judgment of his actions. If you want to say his actions were justified in law, I might agree. (I'd really need to have the equivalent of trial evidence and be able to assess the credibility of the witnesses and all that, to say more, and I'd be considering law that I probably don't agree with.) If you want to say they were necessary, let alone anything more, you'll be needing something to back that up.
Sans alternative timeline crystal ball, you don't have it. So it's wise to quit while only that far behind.
And yes, the onus is really on the persons doing the applauding to put their money where their palms are.
And I'm going with my gut here, and the available evidence, and saying that the odds that he would have suffered any significant more harm had he not killed someone are slim. And if his bicycle wasn't insured, I imagine there would have been no shortage of donations to get him a nice new one.
So the point, in case you're missing it, is that the presence of the firearm in the situation did nothing good, and caused harm unnecessarily. That's my guess.
We'll leave aside the fact that he WAS victimized, rather badly, and just ask: can you prove that he would have been killed?
Oh, wait, did I ask that already and your post is not an answer?
Nobody, least of all moi, as asking that HE prove it. But you aren't him. You're sitting in judgment of his actions. If you want to say his actions were justified in law, I might agree. (I'd really need to have the equivalent of trial evidence and be able to assess the credibility of the witnesses and all that, to say more, and I'd be considering law that I probably don't agree with.) If you want to say they were necessary, let alone anything more, you'll be needing something to back that up.
Sans alternative timeline crystal ball, you don't have it. So it's wise to quit while only that far behind.
And yes, the onus is really on the persons doing the applauding to put their money where their palms are.
And I'm going with my gut here, and the available evidence, and saying that the odds that he would have suffered any significant more harm had he not killed someone are slim. And if his bicycle wasn't insured, I imagine there would have been no shortage of donations to get him a nice new one.
So the point, in case you're missing it, is that the presence of the firearm in the situation did nothing good, and caused harm unnecessarily. That's my guess.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
149 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
You aren't seriously suggesting that these twi situations are the cyclist fighting
Ecumenist
Jan 2012
#6
Makes no sense and you know it. I'm not a gun fanatic but those two boys who atttacked
Ecumenist
Jan 2012
#10
You know what I mean. the fact that a 65 YEAR OLD MAN WAS DEFENDING HIMSELF in
Ecumenist
Jan 2012
#17
The former criminal was even wearing an electronic monitoring device as part of his probation.
AnotherMcIntosh
Jan 2012
#9
I carry mine a few different ways depending on if I'm riding alone or with the kids.
ileus
Jan 2012
#13
Dang, I'll have to check my bike store to see if they have handlebarholster -- If I carried.
Hoyt
Jan 2012
#20
If that happened. Besides, a million more guns for relatively few instances. Seems like pollution.
Hoyt
Jan 2012
#22
Yeah, the old guy should have let them abuse him. 'Cause that wouldn't have been too steep....
PavePusher
Jan 2012
#48
The "Velo-Dog" revolver was specifically marketed as a defense for cyclists against dogs.
Jean V. Dubois
Jan 2012
#35
so much for getting him in a position of weakness....getting killed...ain't that a bitch.
ileus
Jan 2012
#131
"I am quite comfortable saying the onus is on them to organize there lives differently."
EX500rider
Jan 2012
#90
iverglas is a certified bad ass--ready, willing and able to hand out beat downs at a moment's notice
TPaine7
Jan 2012
#70
That's as close as I've ever come to alerting on a post. My skin is crawling as I type.
TPaine7
Jan 2012
#83
Decent people don't advocate for the disarmament of the most vulnerable among them.
Callisto32
Jan 2012
#96
No, my urge is to defend people who had to defend themselves from those that would suggest Bludlust.
Callisto32
Jan 2012
#102
To kill 16 year olds engaged in a life-threatening attack on a senior citizen.
Callisto32
Jan 2012
#94
Despite your petty insults you have failed once again to answer the question.
oneshooter
Jan 2012
#121