[stickfigure]

I know this sounds crazy, but I'd be willing to tolerate a modest number of bystander deaths if it meant a dramatic uptick in the number of criminal deaths. There can't be that many criminals. The steady-state equilibrium might be safer than the current regime, which is that criminals can assault (and kill) with little risk to themselves.

Of course I'd like my chance of death-by-bullet to be zero. But for whatever reason, that doesn't seem to be an option on the table.

[darpa_escapee]

> I know this sounds crazy, but I'd be willing to tolerate a modest number of bystander deaths if it meant a dramatic uptick in the number of criminal deaths.

I'm of the opinion that it's better for a criminal to walk free than for an innocent person to be punished or killed for something they have nothing to do with.

[symlinkk]

If criminals are walking free left and right, they will feel less afraid to commit more crimes, including murdering innocents.

[darpa_escapee]

> If criminals are walking free left and right

They aren't: conviction rates are high and crime rates are at record lows.

[wolco]

If the criminal kills innocent people all hope is lost in your opinion.