• BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    12 hours ago

    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.

    • capital@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 hours ago

      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.