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.
would the counterfactual (situations in which a theft or assault were stopped or prevented) be sufficient to show one should carry?
If not, what was even the point of the question? I get you thought it was pithy but... It's just kind of dumb if you won't allow the counterfactual to support my position.
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.
Yeah, I wouldn't want to answer that question if I were you either.
Sorry, you being unable to come up with a good example is not my problem, so your question is moot.
No, you don't want to answer it because you know how easy it is for me to find hundreds of videos online showing exactly what I'm describing and you really don't want to admit it.
If "your gun didn't save you in this one instance" means I shouldn't have one, then the counterfactual should just as easily mean I should. But you're not interested in applying your logic in both directions because that wouldn't suit your position.
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?
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.
If not, what was even the point of the question? I get you thought it was pithy but... It's just kind of dumb if you won't allow the counterfactual to support my position.
Yeah, I wouldn't want to answer that question if I were you either.
Sorry, you being unable to come up with a good example is not my problem, so your question is moot.
No, you don't want to answer it because you know how easy it is for me to find hundreds of videos online showing exactly what I'm describing and you really don't want to admit it.
If "your gun didn't save you in this one instance" means I shouldn't have one, then the counterfactual should just as easily mean I should. But you're not interested in applying your logic in both directions because that wouldn't suit your position.
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
By that logic we all are. Your line is just somewhere else.
Actually most people aren't waiting for an excuse to murder another human. That would undoubtedly be a psychological disorder
You want me to believe there’s no situation in which you would use deadly force?
You’re lying or lack imagination.
Never said that. I'm just not here expressing enthusiasm about being ready at any moment to murder someone over my phone/wallet.
The fucked up part is you honestly seem to see no difference in doing that and killing someone in actual self defense.
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?