Originally Posted by Mason609
According to this, there were more whites killed in 2011 than blacks, however, there is a much larger number of blacks killing whites than there was white killing blacks.
Libs will twist this into claiming that SYG IS discriminatory because there will be less white deaths and more black deaths.
But, logically, wouldn't repeal of this law actually have the opposite result?
SYG laws are not going to matter if a victim is ambushed, right? If you don't see an attack coming then SYG is irrelevant. It matters for frontal attacks or attacks where the criminal is somehow visible and there is time to react.
If one also assumes that SYG laws require that an assailant has initiated a serious, life-threatening and visible assault (that seems obvious) then I think one can also conclude, for argument's sake, that:
1. Unless the assailant is profoundly stupid, he believes that he can overpower, possibly kill, the victim.
2. It is therefore likely that the threatening assailant is larger or has a weapon. Or is on drugs.
If those assumptions are true (and I think they are valid though, obviously, not necessarily true), then diluting the victim's choices about how to best defend himself cannot help but increase the number of successful attacks.
Since your statistics show that most victims are white, a good argument can be made that repeal of SYG would have a discriminatory effect because it would reduce the options open to a victim to best defend himself and that would impact white people more than black people.
It's a stupid argument either way, IMO, because black victims are important, too....but maybe it does show how moronic liberal "thinking" is on the issue.
I think the MSM needs to bear in mind that SYG laws do not require
a person to plant both feet and pull out a gun. Leaving or backing away is still a valid option and that fact seems to be intentionally left out of the debate by those who just don't like guns and don't really care who pays for their intolerance.