So what would the narrative be if Davide Giri defended himself by having the means to shoot Vincent Pinkney? Now the good guy would be alive, the bad guy dead, another victim not hurt but Davide would be in a world of trouble for carrying and using a firearm illegally. What’s wrong with this? At what point do criminals lose the benefi…
So what would the narrative be if Davide Giri defended himself by having the means to shoot Vincent Pinkney? Now the good guy would be alive, the bad guy dead, another victim not hurt but Davide would be in a world of trouble for carrying and using a firearm illegally. What’s wrong with this? At what point do criminals lose the benefit of the doubt? If someone robs a law abiding individual at gun or knifepoint (already breaking the social compact) the victim now is in the position of having to trust that the criminal will do the “right” thing and take valuables and do no further harm. That seems to be a heck of a position of a risky bet one would need to make for the benefit of the criminal who has already crossed the acceptable line. Why is this not part of the debate?
So what would the narrative be if Davide Giri defended himself by having the means to shoot Vincent Pinkney? Now the good guy would be alive, the bad guy dead, another victim not hurt but Davide would be in a world of trouble for carrying and using a firearm illegally. What’s wrong with this? At what point do criminals lose the benefit of the doubt? If someone robs a law abiding individual at gun or knifepoint (already breaking the social compact) the victim now is in the position of having to trust that the criminal will do the “right” thing and take valuables and do no further harm. That seems to be a heck of a position of a risky bet one would need to make for the benefit of the criminal who has already crossed the acceptable line. Why is this not part of the debate?