Whenever someone expresses this kind of idiocy to me, I'll ask him something like "so, if you came home unexpectedly, and walked into your living room to find a violent felon raping your wife, and you had a .38 revolver handy, you wouldn't use it to stop the attack on your wife? If not, then why does she stay with you? You obviously don't care enough about her to use lethal force to protect her, if lethal force is called for."Abraham wrote:I too have experienced a similar attitude from an extremely liberal guy I know.
He told me he'd NEVER carry a gun as he thinks to do so is immoral, but yeah, he'd reluctantly let me defend him or his family with my mine.
I have yet to decide if he's simply blathering obfuscation to cover his cowardice or just a weak minded jerk...
That typically gets a response like "well of COURSE I'd use an available gun to stop such a thing!" ........to which I then respond with something like, "REALLY? That's OK for you to use a gun to defend a loved one, but immoral for me? Nice bit of elitist rationalizing there.
"Frankly, I find it difficult respect the opinions of people who either (A) think that use of deadly force in self defense is somehow immoral, or more stupid yet, (B) that use of some kinds of deadly force in self-defense are more moral to use than others. Deadly force is deadly force; and self-defense is self-defense. It is either legitimate to use deadly force in self-defense if one is in fear of one's life or the life of another, or it not. Whenever the use of deadly force in self-defense has a legitimate application, then the mechanism by which it is applied has no moral content of its own.
This ^^