if you so happen to kill your attacker with one punch - you are using minimum force and will get off with it. Also if someone it trying to rape a kid for example
??
Twitch suspends gamer Carl R. after shooting gun
You will never fix stupid.
In the live footage, R. is seen playing Call of Duty, before pausing to pretend to threaten someone with his handgun. He appeared to empty the chamber, but a bullet remained.
"I was clearly intoxicated, but the fact of the matter is... guns are not a toy. They are not to be messed with," he said later, in a filmed apology.
"It's a mistake, but it's a mistake that could have cost somebody their life," he said. "I'm so broken about this."
"I made my biggest mistake of my entire life last night, and it could ruin my life," he said.
"I could have hurt somebody, I could have hurt myself, I could have hurt one of my animals - and that's unforgivable."
"I'm not in SoaR anymore, and that is rightfully so. I hope you guys know I have no hatred toward them or anything like that... they did what they needed to do because I'm an idiot."
Four words. Children in your audience.
(No one much cares about virtue signaling about animals in comparison.)
src:
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-51768454
He had RGB though.
You will never fix insane.
You will never fully outlaw guns.
Because you cant. Its like a candy bar that gives people the a power rush and a sense of being in a deciding role over life and death. In the example above, the play acting began - as someone accused the Twitch streamer of having no money. Power trip on demand, with gun, followed. People will not give them up freely. You may make them illegal, but there will still be proliferation regardless, and you will have less of a grip on it in cases where it really matters for a state (organized crime accumulating more money).
You can ban high velocity automatic guns, if you pair that with social shunning for people who want to have them (even more so than thats already the case), but then you also have to look at if what you are doing is for symbolic value (look at statistics).
You will never fix peoples emotional truth reaction on 'anything with baby in it'.
(So discuss those matters with 'baby' removed from the argument, just to get a more rational argument. Swap it with 'people'.)
In politics, if you are implementing new systems, you usually don't go with what an activist group says (they just produce the public pressure, so you do anything at all) - but what worked in other countries, or 'model projects' (some regions trying it first, and reporting outcomes), yet I have to see the first debate where someone would even argue on that level.
All that those discussions ever turn out to be is "good vs evil" accusations, with everyone wanting to represent good, because of feelings that are internalized.
Also , lets repeat this once more, locking your guns away is a really good idea. You also have to take responsibility for other people around you (for their actions) in situations where the outcome, frankly, can be that grave.
