When the solution is "Vigilantism" you know the situation is fucked.
That was in response to being robbed.
I think the phrase you're looking for is “defending yourself”.
I don't live in a 3rd world country, so I guess I just don't understand the concept of needing to arm myself before leaving my house because I'm likely to need a deadly weapon while I go about my business.
which is not to assert that adding more firearms will help the situation, but it's got fuckall to do with living in a first world country or third world country.
In these kinds of discussions you can assume the third world country jab was a reference to the US.
As an aside: part of the definition of a First World Country includes being a "stable democracy".
If a poll was done of American citizens asking them "do you think fraud will play a part in the upcoming election?" I would be shocked if less than 80% said yes. That doesn't sound like a stable democracy to me.
What country do you live in? I’m curious which one has no theft or violent crime.
Not OP check out my username for an idea of where I live. Besides a bit of gang on gang action in our capital, violent crimes are extremely rare. It's maybe once a year that police have to shoot at a person, and even then police officers will assess the situation and if possible not go for center mass.
Note how I left out theft. That's because you can't directly use violence to protect property.
Note how I left out theft. That’s because you can’t directly use violence to protect property.
I remember hearing this when I lived in the UK for a few years and I was blown away. What are you expected to do if being robbed? Let it happen?
Pretty much; then get the police to deal with it.
Yeah, not here.
I've had shit stolen. The police "handled it" to an extent but we will never get back priceless family heirlooms given to us from my wife's side of the family. Fuck thieves.
Did you not have a gun at the time? Or did your ownership of a gun not prevent the theft?
I wasn't home...
Well then aren't you lucky you had a gun to prevent that theft?
I honestly can't tell if this is sarcasm or if you have reading comprehension problems.
I wasn't home. There was no possibility for me to prevent this theft, gun or no gun.
If it's sarcasm meant to show that things can happen even when armed, no shit. If that is meant to show I shouldn't have one at all, would the counterfactual (situations in which a theft or assault were stopped or prevented) be sufficient to show one should carry?
Dude, you're the one talking about how guns can stop theft and your example was a theft that you were not able to stop with a gun. That's not my fault.
There is a solution, it's called insurance. I know that you wouldn't get your family heirlooms back, but neither would you being armed but not home.
I know the other guy wouldn't say it, so I'll go ahead and do it: you sound like you're out for revenge, but you don't know on whom to exact it. I fear that you could end up shooting a porch pirate in the back while claiming self defense.
There is a solution, it’s called insurance. I know that you wouldn’t get your family heirlooms back
Then it isn't exactly a solution, is it? The jewelry probably only would appraise for <$1000 (probably far less). It's not about the monetary cost.
but neither would you being armed but not home.
Yeah...? I don't get this line of argument. This just in - guns only effective when there's a human there to operate it. No shit...
You're simultaneously arguing that guns are overkill to solve theft and that guns don't solve theft.
I fear that you could end up shooting a porch pirate in the back while claiming self defense.
The state I live in currently wouldn't allow for me to use deadly force to protect property. But states I've lived in in the past sure would. As of now, I would have to be in fear of great bodily harm or death in order to employ deadly force and that's the standard I will follow. Just keep in mind that many robberies involve a deadly weapon on the perpetrators side which is an immediate green light on my end.
You do what the police do, and provide a proportionate response.
A gun is only to be used if you are in imminent danger of your life. A robbery is arguably not that, unless they're trying to steal your organs or prostheses.
There's a reason your average supermarket security guard doesn't immediately whip out the Mini-Nuke the moment they see a shoplifter.
There's also something to be said about the place you're living in, where you're to be terrified of stabbists and robberers the moment you step out-of-doors. Do you live in a hive of scum and villainy?
Call the police. Are you in physical danger? If not why are you putting yourself in physical danger?
I don't think I understand your question.
What scenario are you imagining with these questions?
There's a difference between "violent crime exists" and "violent crime is so prevalent that regular citizens need to carry around an implement designed to kill people quickly while they go about their daily lives."
There's a difference between "violent crime exists" and "violent crime is so prevalent that regular citizens need to carry around an implement designed to kill people quickly while they go about their daily lives."
Only if you haven’t yet experienced violent crime.
I carry a weapon because of one violent encounter I experienced in 2009.
I decided that I never want it to happen again, so I am content to carry a weapon for the 1/1000000 times that it happens.
I’ve had hundreds of thousands of encounters with strangers and only one of them involved the stranger trying to seriously hurt me. That one was enough to change my view on the nature of reality.
Crashes don’t have to be prevalent in one’s life in order to wear a seatbelt.
I have sympathy for someone who's actually been a victim of violent crime, and it's a shame therapy isn't a more viable option. However, there's a big difference between
"I was a victim of violent crime and feel more comfortable having a means of protection on me" and
"This might lead to robberies."
"That's what guns are for."
I've never been in a serious vehicle accident.
Still wear my seat belt though.
"Wearing a seatbelt is the same as walking around with a device that can near instantly kill people." Is something said by someone living in a dystopia.
It was a preparedness analogy which seems to have gone over your head.
Is something said by someone living in a dystopia.
You've had a variation on this in just about every response. It's getting very old. We get it, US bad.
Was my statement wrong in any way?
If it's getting old stop trying to argue against it by saying the dystopian attitude is necessary.
Thinking that it is better to cause harm o an attacker rather than permitting the attacker to harm oneself is not a dystopian attitude.
A place in which it is possible that someone might try to hurt you isn’t a dystopia. It’s a natural part of reality.
A place in which no aggression exists is, however, a utopia.
The dystopian attitude is "you better be ready to severely harm someone at a moment's notice every day, otherwise you're just unprepared for day to day life."
Was my statement wrong in any way?
Do you know how analogies work? Of course the two things I compared are different.
It's like if I said "a fish swimming is like a bird flying" and you coming along and saying "omg swimming and flying are the same now????/"
I even spelled it out - it's about preparedness.
Was my statement wrong in any way?
Do you know how analogies work? Of course the two things I compared are different.
That doesn't answer my question as to if my statement was incorrect.
You've made an analogy about preparedness and let the assumption hang that that makes both things equal.
Just like saying "a fish swimming is like a bird flying" isn't an argument that a bird would be able to fly underwater, saying "I've never been in an accident and still wear a seatbelt" is not an argument for "always have a deadly weapon on you when you leave the house" not being evidence of a completely fucked up situation.
You’ve made an analogy about preparedness and let the assumption hang that that makes both things equal.
No. It doesn't do that at all. Nothing in my comment should be construed as to equate the wearing of seat belts and the carrying of firearms. They are different things, meant for different purposes, with different consequences for their misuse.
The analogy demonstrated ways in which they are the same - having it and not needing it is usually what happens and needing it and not having it can be very bad.
Edit: Y'all think Eliza Fletcher would have been better off carrying that day?
So completely irrelevant to the topic that "Needing to have a gun on you just to be prepared for your day is fucked up."
Reasonable force refers to the amount of force that is necessary for a person to defend himself or his property, without going overboard. It is especially important to prove whether or not the force a person used was reasonable in order to determine his level of liability for the crime. Hence why reasonable force is also referred to as “legal force.” For instance, a father who gets into an argument with his son’s baseball coach, shoving him with his hands, has started the conflict. If the coach, in defending himself, picks up a baseball bat and slams it into the father’s head several times, it could not reasonably be considered self defense.
If a person can prove that he used reasonable force to defend himself, he may be able to avoid being prosecuted for a crime.
If a person uses more force than what would be considered necessary to protect himself from an aggressor, then this would be considered excessive or unreasonable force. Once excessive force has been proven, then the defendant’s self defense argument is considered forfeited. For instance, a defendant is justified in using force that is intended or likely to cause death or severe injury if someone violently enters his home, and he believes such force is necessary to prevent harm from coming to himself, or to another person in the home.
In civilized countries "self defense" means you might have to punch someone. "You should have an easy way to kill someone on you at all times, and keep it hidden so they don't know" is not self defense, but clear signs of a dystopia.
Especially when it causes law enforcement to become so paranoid of the citizens they're ostensibly meant to protect, that a mere hailstone landing on the car roof immediately causes them to believe they're being fired upon.
That just sounds like a terrible time for everyone involved.
At that point, you're basically turning the constabulary into soldiers.
If citizens have a "Constitutional Right" to have a gun, why does exercising the right so often result in law enforcement killing them without a trial?
No, being limited in self defense to the power of your body is a pre-civilized state. Asking women to punch people to defend themselves is nature rules. That’s where whoever’s biggest gets to take advantage of people.
I have no problems with people carrying mace for self defense. There are highly effective less lethal options.
In civilized countries “self defense” means you might have to punch someone.
My back is fucked and have an 80% rating from the VA. I'm not getting into fist fights anymore.
If someone gets blown away stealing shit, the world has become a better place, frankly.
"Property is more valuable than human lives."
A statement from a person in a developed country apparently...
"The strong should be allowed to do whatever they want to the weak"
A statement from a person in a developed country apparently…
You're the one touting strength through arms here...
And without one, the stronger will always prevail over the weak. I can't believe I need to spell this out.
Who is "the stronger" in a situation where you have a gun and someone else does not?
Me.
And my wife, and daughter. People that, without the use of arms, will always be the weaker given it's usually men who commit these crimes.
You're missing the point - this tool takes physical strength out of the equation for self defense purposes and you're acting like it's a bad thing.
Ah, so what you mean is that it's okay for the strong to take advantage of the weak when you're the strong one.
Please define "take advantage of" in your comment. The entirety of my comments here have been in a self defense context. I don't see how my owning and carrying a gun means I'm "taking advantage of" anyone.
Interesting how you want me to define terms but haven't defined them yourself.
You haven't defined "the strong" or "the weak" or what you mean by "self-defense."
Maybe start defining your terms first before you demand it of others.
No he’s saying that weapons permit people to be equally strong.
Without weapons, big people get to control smaller people. With weapons, a person gets to modify their own susceptibility to being controlled.
I’m guessing you’re a rather large person if you don’t understand this.
And yet they said they would shoot a starving person breaking into their home to steal a loaf of bread. That doesn't sound like 'equally strong' to me.
Uh, that's your attitude Mr. "Carry a gun so you can kill whoever bothers you".
Uh, no. There are quite a lot of laws governing when deadly force is allowed which vary by country and state. I'm quite sure none of them allow it when someone "bothers you".
There's also laws governing what constitutes theft. Your entire argument about needing a gun is dependent on people not following the law.
Yeah the people stealing shit are... different people and not me?
What is your point?
The people with guns are different people and not me. Why should I trust them?
I mean, I don't require your trust.
But consider the consequences if I misuse my gun. They're quite a lot more serious than those caught stealing.
But consider the consequences if I misuse my gun. They're quite a lot more serious than those caught stealing.
You're talking about things like it's obvious they are just important as lives. Fucking disgusting
You're expecting me to value people who steal shit.
And before this goes in a disingenuous direction, no, I don’t mean stealing bread from a damn grocery store.
I'm expecting you to not be a fucking enraged ape
Try "A government should take care of its citizens."
I truly hope the police reach you in time, every time.
People should be confined to boxes full of packing foam. This reduces the variable and permits police to control the situation more easily.
Well he has a VA rating. Turning human bodies into rotting meat piles is his way of life.
There are a lot of disingenuous replies in this comment section but I'll just go on explaining as if you actually don't understand.
The rating comment was meant to demonstrate that I am not at my peak physical condition and am more vulnerable than my outward appearance portrays.
What I mean is you participated in the military, therefore more likely to have skewed values in favour of "extended" srlf defense. Because the whole military justifies its endless butchery on rights of self defense and their ceaseless expansion.
When the solution is "Vigilantism" you know the situation is fucked.
That was in response to being robbed.
I think the phrase you're looking for is “defending yourself”.
I don't live in a 3rd world country, so I guess I just don't understand the concept of needing to arm myself before leaving my house because I'm likely to need a deadly weapon while I go about my business.
lol the US has the highest death rate from gun violence - it's literally the #1 killer of children.
which is not to assert that adding more firearms will help the situation, but it's got fuckall to do with living in a first world country or third world country.
In these kinds of discussions you can assume the third world country jab was a reference to the US.
As an aside: part of the definition of a First World Country includes being a "stable democracy".
If a poll was done of American citizens asking them "do you think fraud will play a part in the upcoming election?" I would be shocked if less than 80% said yes. That doesn't sound like a stable democracy to me.
What country do you live in? I’m curious which one has no theft or violent crime.
Not OP check out my username for an idea of where I live. Besides a bit of gang on gang action in our capital, violent crimes are extremely rare. It's maybe once a year that police have to shoot at a person, and even then police officers will assess the situation and if possible not go for center mass.
Note how I left out theft. That's because you can't directly use violence to protect property.
I remember hearing this when I lived in the UK for a few years and I was blown away. What are you expected to do if being robbed? Let it happen?
Pretty much; then get the police to deal with it.
Yeah, not here.
I've had shit stolen. The police "handled it" to an extent but we will never get back priceless family heirlooms given to us from my wife's side of the family. Fuck thieves.
Did you not have a gun at the time? Or did your ownership of a gun not prevent the theft?
I wasn't home...
Well then aren't you lucky you had a gun to prevent that theft?
I honestly can't tell if this is sarcasm or if you have reading comprehension problems.
I wasn't home. There was no possibility for me to prevent this theft, gun or no gun.
If it's sarcasm meant to show that things can happen even when armed, no shit. If that is meant to show I shouldn't have one at all, would the counterfactual (situations in which a theft or assault were stopped or prevented) be sufficient to show one should carry?
Dude, you're the one talking about how guns can stop theft and your example was a theft that you were not able to stop with a gun. That's not my fault.
Agreed thieves are terrible.
Not many better options if you are getting robbed though.
I'll opt for stopping it, given the chance.
You would kill a person for a thing. Sounds like the mindset of an armed violent thug, only you wait for the excuse to unleash your violence.
You sound like a thief who’s mad.
You sound like a killer awaiting an excuse
So vigilantism then.
If stopping someone in the act of stealing my shit or trying to harm me is vigilantism, then sure.
I'd just like to take a moment to remind you of how this conversation started:
https://lemmy.ca/comment/11978138
There is a solution, it's called insurance. I know that you wouldn't get your family heirlooms back, but neither would you being armed but not home.
I know the other guy wouldn't say it, so I'll go ahead and do it: you sound like you're out for revenge, but you don't know on whom to exact it. I fear that you could end up shooting a porch pirate in the back while claiming self defense.
They've taken the mask off and said the quiet part out loud: They're just out to kill people they think of as less than human.
Then it isn't exactly a solution, is it? The jewelry probably only would appraise for <$1000 (probably far less). It's not about the monetary cost.
Yeah...? I don't get this line of argument. This just in - guns only effective when there's a human there to operate it. No shit...
You're simultaneously arguing that guns are overkill to solve theft and that guns don't solve theft.
The state I live in currently wouldn't allow for me to use deadly force to protect property. But states I've lived in in the past sure would. As of now, I would have to be in fear of great bodily harm or death in order to employ deadly force and that's the standard I will follow. Just keep in mind that many robberies involve a deadly weapon on the perpetrators side which is an immediate green light on my end.
You do what the police do, and provide a proportionate response.
A gun is only to be used if you are in imminent danger of your life. A robbery is arguably not that, unless they're trying to steal your organs or prostheses.
There's a reason your average supermarket security guard doesn't immediately whip out the Mini-Nuke the moment they see a shoplifter.
There's also something to be said about the place you're living in, where you're to be terrified of stabbists and robberers the moment you step out-of-doors. Do you live in a hive of scum and villainy?
Call the police. Are you in physical danger? If not why are you putting yourself in physical danger?
I don't think I understand your question.
What scenario are you imagining with these questions?
There's a difference between "violent crime exists" and "violent crime is so prevalent that regular citizens need to carry around an implement designed to kill people quickly while they go about their daily lives."
Only if you haven’t yet experienced violent crime.
I carry a weapon because of one violent encounter I experienced in 2009.
I decided that I never want it to happen again, so I am content to carry a weapon for the 1/1000000 times that it happens.
I’ve had hundreds of thousands of encounters with strangers and only one of them involved the stranger trying to seriously hurt me. That one was enough to change my view on the nature of reality.
Crashes don’t have to be prevalent in one’s life in order to wear a seatbelt.
I have sympathy for someone who's actually been a victim of violent crime, and it's a shame therapy isn't a more viable option. However, there's a big difference between
"I was a victim of violent crime and feel more comfortable having a means of protection on me" and
"This might lead to robberies."
"That's what guns are for."
I've never been in a serious vehicle accident.
Still wear my seat belt though.
"Wearing a seatbelt is the same as walking around with a device that can near instantly kill people." Is something said by someone living in a dystopia.
It was a preparedness analogy which seems to have gone over your head.
You've had a variation on this in just about every response. It's getting very old. We get it, US bad.
Was my statement wrong in any way?
If it's getting old stop trying to argue against it by saying the dystopian attitude is necessary.
Thinking that it is better to cause harm o an attacker rather than permitting the attacker to harm oneself is not a dystopian attitude.
A place in which it is possible that someone might try to hurt you isn’t a dystopia. It’s a natural part of reality.
A place in which no aggression exists is, however, a utopia.
The dystopian attitude is "you better be ready to severely harm someone at a moment's notice every day, otherwise you're just unprepared for day to day life."
Do you know how analogies work? Of course the two things I compared are different.
It's like if I said "a fish swimming is like a bird flying" and you coming along and saying "omg swimming and flying are the same now????/"
I even spelled it out - it's about preparedness.
That doesn't answer my question as to if my statement was incorrect.
You've made an analogy about preparedness and let the assumption hang that that makes both things equal.
Just like saying "a fish swimming is like a bird flying" isn't an argument that a bird would be able to fly underwater, saying "I've never been in an accident and still wear a seatbelt" is not an argument for "always have a deadly weapon on you when you leave the house" not being evidence of a completely fucked up situation.
No. It doesn't do that at all. Nothing in my comment should be construed as to equate the wearing of seat belts and the carrying of firearms. They are different things, meant for different purposes, with different consequences for their misuse.
The analogy demonstrated ways in which they are the same - having it and not needing it is usually what happens and needing it and not having it can be very bad.
Edit: Y'all think Eliza Fletcher would have been better off carrying that day?
So completely irrelevant to the topic that "Needing to have a gun on you just to be prepared for your day is fucked up."
None of that is "defending yourself".
the act of defending oneself, one's property, or a close relative
https://legaldictionary.net/self-defense/
And you understand that reasonable force varies by state, right? I’ve said it multiple times.
I will use the maximum allowed for the state I reside in. I have lived in states which allowed for deadly force to protect property.
Yes, you've made it quite clear you are happy to murder "undesirables" on the flimsiest excuse you think you can get away with.
No, its self defense.
In civilized countries "self defense" means you might have to punch someone. "You should have an easy way to kill someone on you at all times, and keep it hidden so they don't know" is not self defense, but clear signs of a dystopia.
Especially when it causes law enforcement to become so paranoid of the citizens they're ostensibly meant to protect, that a mere hailstone landing on the car roof immediately causes them to believe they're being fired upon.
That just sounds like a terrible time for everyone involved.
At that point, you're basically turning the constabulary into soldiers.
If citizens have a "Constitutional Right" to have a gun, why does exercising the right so often result in law enforcement killing them without a trial?
No, being limited in self defense to the power of your body is a pre-civilized state. Asking women to punch people to defend themselves is nature rules. That’s where whoever’s biggest gets to take advantage of people.
I have no problems with people carrying mace for self defense. There are highly effective less lethal options.
My back is fucked and have an 80% rating from the VA. I'm not getting into fist fights anymore.
If someone gets blown away stealing shit, the world has become a better place, frankly.
"Property is more valuable than human lives."
A statement from a person in a developed country apparently...
"The strong should be allowed to do whatever they want to the weak" A statement from a person in a developed country apparently…
You're the one touting strength through arms here...
And without one, the stronger will always prevail over the weak. I can't believe I need to spell this out.
Who is "the stronger" in a situation where you have a gun and someone else does not?
Me.
And my wife, and daughter. People that, without the use of arms, will always be the weaker given it's usually men who commit these crimes.
You're missing the point - this tool takes physical strength out of the equation for self defense purposes and you're acting like it's a bad thing.
Ah, so what you mean is that it's okay for the strong to take advantage of the weak when you're the strong one.
Please define "take advantage of" in your comment. The entirety of my comments here have been in a self defense context. I don't see how my owning and carrying a gun means I'm "taking advantage of" anyone.
Interesting how you want me to define terms but haven't defined them yourself.
You haven't defined "the strong" or "the weak" or what you mean by "self-defense."
Maybe start defining your terms first before you demand it of others.
No he’s saying that weapons permit people to be equally strong.
Without weapons, big people get to control smaller people. With weapons, a person gets to modify their own susceptibility to being controlled.
I’m guessing you’re a rather large person if you don’t understand this.
And yet they said they would shoot a starving person breaking into their home to steal a loaf of bread. That doesn't sound like 'equally strong' to me.
Uh, that's your attitude Mr. "Carry a gun so you can kill whoever bothers you".
Uh, no. There are quite a lot of laws governing when deadly force is allowed which vary by country and state. I'm quite sure none of them allow it when someone "bothers you".
There's also laws governing what constitutes theft. Your entire argument about needing a gun is dependent on people not following the law.
Yeah the people stealing shit are... different people and not me?
What is your point?
The people with guns are different people and not me. Why should I trust them?
I mean, I don't require your trust.
But consider the consequences if I misuse my gun. They're quite a lot more serious than those caught stealing.
I agree with you completely.
You're talking about things like it's obvious they are just important as lives. Fucking disgusting
You're expecting me to value people who steal shit.
And before this goes in a disingenuous direction, no, I don’t mean stealing bread from a damn grocery store.
I'm expecting you to not be a fucking enraged ape
Try "A government should take care of its citizens."
I truly hope the police reach you in time, every time.
People should be confined to boxes full of packing foam. This reduces the variable and permits police to control the situation more easily.
Well he has a VA rating. Turning human bodies into rotting meat piles is his way of life.
There are a lot of disingenuous replies in this comment section but I'll just go on explaining as if you actually don't understand.
The rating comment was meant to demonstrate that I am not at my peak physical condition and am more vulnerable than my outward appearance portrays.
What I mean is you participated in the military, therefore more likely to have skewed values in favour of "extended" srlf defense. Because the whole military justifies its endless butchery on rights of self defense and their ceaseless expansion.
Fascism is so normalized :(
Fascism is when you don’t let people steal your stuff.
The word has been devalued on Lemmy but this is a new low.
I was referring to summary execution of a thief being a good thing.