04-22-2021, 04:19 PM
Easy prediction: It’ll be proposed to shoot fewer bullets and risk the assumed victim (person not holding knife etc) be hurt or yes, possibly killed as a result. You’re then trading a likely probability for a maybe, which yes are better odds if the goal is have LESS people dead in the aggregate. If we ignore that we equate one deadly weapon’s effectiveness with another’s which is a simple lie.
We know the dead girl was an aggressor. We’re assuming she was the only aggressor who needed to be stopped. That’s a problem worth pausing a moment for, even if the other girl gets slashed in the process. Fairness involves not only the who but the why. Bottom line: If there’s no time to consider, and only time to kill, then killing is what results will look like. More and more, people are saying that is unacceptable.
What I’m not OK with is assuming as little as just one bullet would have no meaningful effect on a knife wielder. That is a stance that overall won’t be supported by recognition of what the two weapons do. Guarantees are not the point. Likely outcomes remain worthy of discussion.
We know the dead girl was an aggressor. We’re assuming she was the only aggressor who needed to be stopped. That’s a problem worth pausing a moment for, even if the other girl gets slashed in the process. Fairness involves not only the who but the why. Bottom line: If there’s no time to consider, and only time to kill, then killing is what results will look like. More and more, people are saying that is unacceptable.
What I’m not OK with is assuming as little as just one bullet would have no meaningful effect on a knife wielder. That is a stance that overall won’t be supported by recognition of what the two weapons do. Guarantees are not the point. Likely outcomes remain worthy of discussion.