reddit refugee
I don’t care. Like I said, in some states you can employ deadly force to keep someone from making off with your shit. I do not value those people more than my property. Straight up. I’m not deflecting or side stepping or mincing words. They’re trash and I do not morn them should they be shot and killed during the course of taking things that aren’t theirs.
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.
Instead of arming civilians for vigilantism pressure should be put on the government to deal with the root causes of criminal behaviour.
Sure, I advocate for that too. Until then…
As far as I was aware the legal punishment for theft wasn’t…
There’s one weird trick to not being shot for stealing shit.
“Oh no, that’s terrible. Tell you what, I’ll hang up and call you back using the number on your website and we can continue this conversation.”
Sorry, are you implying it isn’t?
Just say what you mean.
Fascism is when you don’t let people steal your stuff.
The word has been devalued on Lemmy but this is a new low.
You want me to believe there’s no situation in which you would use deadly force?
You’re lying or lack imagination.
By that logic we all are. Your line is just somewhere else.
You sound like a thief who’s mad.
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.
Okay, sure. I wish people didn’t steal, kill, and rape too but it happens. Just the reality.
If stopping someone in the act of stealing my shit or trying to harm me is vigilantism, then sure.
Always give an answer to “why”, ALWAYS!!!
I love these questions from my daughter. It’s wild to me that some people ignore this stuff or tell kids to stop asking…
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?
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.
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.
Yeah the people stealing shit are… different people and not me?
What is your point?
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.