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.
Then I guess you should have used one of those videos rather than an example where your gun wouldn't have helped you.
Also, please quote me saying you shouldn't have a gun, or at the very least implying it.
Then I guess you should have used one of those videos rather than an example where your gun wouldn’t have helped you.
That was an example of the police not getting my shit back.
In just about every response in this thread you've shown you're not actually here to engage in good faith by being a sarcastic dickhead so I think I'm done with you.
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.
Then I guess you should have used one of those videos rather than an example where your gun wouldn't have helped you.
Also, please quote me saying you shouldn't have a gun, or at the very least implying it.
That was an example of the police not getting my shit back.
In just about every response in this thread you've shown you're not actually here to engage in good faith by being a sarcastic dickhead so I think I'm done with you.
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