since9
Campaign Veteran
An argument ensued over this article on gun violence. My opponent was saying something along the lines of, "if you defend yourself with a gun, you're committing gun violence the same as the criminal."
Ok, aside from her obvious flub, here's how I tried explaining it to her:
I know many of you think it's impossible to get through to these people, but I've done just that on many occasions. Doesn't mean I'm not looking for better ways to approach it, however. I'm always open to suggestions.
Ok, aside from her obvious flub, here's how I tried explaining it to her:
Defending one's self against a violent attack is not the same as committing "gun violence," even if you use a firearm in the act of self-defense.
If the attacker used a firearm in committing the violent crime, then that is indeed "gun violence."
The difference is that the criminal, in perpetrating the violent crime, is committing violence, whereas the defender is merely using whatever means are at his or her disposal to defend against a violent, criminal act.
If the attacker used a firearm in committing the violent crime, then that is indeed "gun violence."
The difference is that the criminal, in perpetrating the violent crime, is committing violence, whereas the defender is merely using whatever means are at his or her disposal to defend against a violent, criminal act.
I know many of you think it's impossible to get through to these people, but I've done just that on many occasions. Doesn't mean I'm not looking for better ways to approach it, however. I'm always open to suggestions.