Try to think of this as something bigger than a debate. Understand that I don't have any reason to want to debate you. When people are encouraged to stand their ground rather than run away from violence, they will do just that. That results in more deaths. That's not debatable. Now the only question I ask of you is, do you care about reducing or eliminating some of those deaths?
If the life and death issue are of minor importance to you then we have nothing more to discuss. Please make that clear to me now.
If you wish to discuss it with me then you know my method. That's not going to change. If the deaths of more black people or white people or any colour of American is not a concern for you then say so. If the way you perceive the quality of those people justifies killing for you then just say so. But if human life is ore important to you then perhaps 'we' have something to discuss. If not then I won't waste any more time on it with you.
If you wish to say for instance: When a gun is present then there is no more likelihood of a death resulting out of a disagreement then do so. If that's your opinion then I will consider it illogical and discontinue this discussion.
I disagree but I won't pursue that directly as it just adds another side issue. I will say that any other president could have easily got away with it and it would have been seen in a different and more positive light.
So let's try to bring it back to some kind of grounding in reality. The real issue is, when a violent reaction is encouraged by those sort of laws then that will more likely be the outcome. When it is not encouraged but is seen as an unlawful over reaction then it will less likely be the outcome. That is the substance I wish you to debate. If you feel that death is a due and justifiable outcome then that takes away any need to debate the issue further. We simply disagree. Is that the case?
