Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
Pretending that I didn't counter your point at all isn't terribly helpful to the conversation. We apparently disagree on what "intent" means.
You didn't counter the scenario presented, you created a new one.
Because your argument was "this is the only scenario possible", and I
countered it by showing that other possibilities existed.
Quote:
Let me try it this way. There are only two types of threats. You have an empty threat where you don't intend of actually following through with your threat. Then you have a real threat, where you do intend of actually following through with your threat if necessary.
If and only if you're operating off of an "empty threat" can you argue that you're using the firearm for the purpose of threatening. Else, you're operating off of a real threat, which means that you actually do plan on using it if you have to.
Ok. Do you see how the bolded bits mean that your "intent" isn't to kill someone? The purpose of the firearm is to prevent harm in this case. You're using the threat of harm to someone else to attempt to prevent them from committing harm against you. The intention is for
no one to get hurt. That this requires that you be willing to hurt someone doesn't change that fact.
What your argument essentially counters the basic concepts of law and justice within a society btw. The same argument could be made that punishing people who commit crimes serves only the purpose of hurting those people because if you threaten punishment, but never inflict it, no one will avoid committing crimes, so you must be willing to inflict punishment on people, which means (in your whacky logic) that laws exist just to hurt people.
Hopefully, you can see how that's a really silly view of things. Guns allow people to protect themselves from harm. Ideally (and quite often) without causing any harm at all. Yes, this does mean that those using the guns have to occasionally shoot someone to remind people that people with guns really will shoot you if you continue to threaten them. That's sad and all, but the alternative is far far worse.
Quote:
Having reservation on killing someone is an attribute that differentiates good people from bad people. It doesn't take away from the purpose of the item. Typically good people don't like killing people all willy-nilly. Just like good parents don't like punishing their children, but do. That doesn't change the purpose of punishment if you're actually punishing your children.
That's irrelevant to the discussion though. We're talking about making hard choices here. What is "good"? You're a parent. Your child is standing across the room from you. Someone is standing next to your child threatening them with a knife. You have a gun. If you shoot the person you will injure them seriously and may even kill them. But if you don't, they will inure or perhaps kill your child. What do you do? Let's pretend that you can't miss if you choose to shoot. It's a simple choice between who gets hurt. Your child, or the person threatening your child. What do you do?
Every single parent in the universe will say "I shoot the person threatening my child". Does that make them "bad"? Of course not.
