If you had a child and he acted the way you wanted the 2 teens in this story to act,
they would have killed you quite some time ago.[For what reason ??]
Probably when they were 8.
That is only chaotic confusion
coming from u,
Parados. U usually show some logic in your posts.
Is this a joke ?
The way that I 'd want them to act is DEFENSIVE
in the event of predatory violence.
In order for kids to defend themselves they would have to be prepared to shoot their parent before they were shot. Since you always carry a gun, they would have to assume intent simply from you carrying. Waiting til you shot them would be too late, would it not?
Your post is unclear as to whether u r attributing
predatory violence to me, against my own family.
Maybe u were only mindlessly mudslinging; I dunno.
Its below your standards, Parados.
Maybe u have forsaken logic, in your anti-victim zeal.
Let's look at the logic David.
In order to defend oneself from a parent that would shoot a child, that child has to shoot the parent before they are shot, would they not? What is the threat that would lead to shooting in self defense David? You would be carrying a gun. How would a child know when you would raise the threat to using your gun? Why would you want them to wait until you actually threatened them since waiting until that time would mean they wouldn't have the ability to defend themselves since you could shoot them before they could respond?
So, in order to be ready to defend themselves the child would have to have the gun out and able to be pointed at you quickly. This would put you at a disadvantage David since the child could then shoot you before you can defend yourself. This means you would have to also have your gun out at all times or be unable to defend yourself before being shot.
In the art of self defense with a gun, do you keep it holstered until shot at? Doesn't that defeat your statement that people with guns are protected from being shot?