I’m a gun owner, and I have absolutely no interest in shooting someone ever.
You know how people who say people should eat less meat get a lot of flack because of those annoying vegans who spray-paint leather jackets?
That’s most gun owners. Perfectly reasonable people who have no interest in violence, take gun safety seriously, and store their guns safely.
The thing is part of responsible gun ownership is not wearing a shirt that says “fuck you, I have a gun.” We don’t make guns our entire personality, and we understanding that advertising our gun ownership will make people think we’re like the redneck jackasses you see on TV AND make it more likely to have our cars and homes broken into.
The number one way to get your car windows smashed and everything in it cleaned out is to put a Glock sticker on the window.
Nah, sorry mate. I’d say your stats are wrong. I think the majority of gun owners in US are hateful idiots that would love to shoot someone - preferably a Mexican. There’s no great way to prove this, but it would be foolish to give Americans any benefit of the doubt that leans toward responsibility when stupidity clearly prevails. You might not be a shithead, and perhaps all gun owners are not, but I think the majority of gun owners are.
Your Vegan analogy will hold water when the Vegans overwhelming vote for a convicted criminal nitwit platforming on hate and vengeance.
There are around 400 million civilian-owned guns in the US. That’s almost half the entire world’s civilian-owned firearms. The US doesn’t have anywhere close to half the world’s homicides.
With the recent uptick in gun gomocide rates, we reached nearly 20,000 in 2022. That’s obviously very high. But if if we had 20 years straight of those horrifying death numbers, the odds of any specific gun being used in a homicide would still be less than 1/1000.
We have a violence issue in the US, no question, but if 0.01% of guns were used in homicide annually, the murder rate would be doubled. The fact is that the vast, vast majority of gun owners aren’t what you say they are.
I didn’t call them homicidal maniacs. Most gun owners in the US are under educated hateful bigots because most people in the US are. The only convincing stats on what I was talking about would be percentage of gun owners that experienced a home instrusion, had access to a firearm during the intrusion, and did or did not discharge the firearm. I wasn’t able to locate such data but this would be interesting.
American gun owner’s don’t need positive assumptions being made about them in the absence of data.
Fuck that. Break in my house and watch what happens. It’s not up for grabs. People that steal from other people are pieces of garbage. Steal from corporations.
Do you really think breaking and entering deserves a death sentence? I’m not condoning it by any means, but equally death seems like a disproportionate response, not to mention the long term effects this is bound to have on the child.
On the absolute surface level, you make what seems to be a good point. I don’t think that point holds up to scrutiny, though, and such lazy (no offense meant by this; I’m not calling you lazy, only the point you’ve made) reasoning is not far removed from using “think of the chldren!” to justify an agenda.
Any dwelling that is not yours is generally assumed to be off-limits absent an invitation to enter. Ignoring that and breaking into said dwelling is implicitly a statement that you are disregarding the safety and security of the inhabitants. That further implies that you equally have no regard for the health and well-being of the inhabitants, as your actions are putting your needs or desires ahead of theirs. You have, wittingly or not, made yourself a threat to the inhabitants of the dwelling.
Responding to an immediate, credible threat against one’s life with lethal force is quite rational.
I have no doubt that this will have detrimental long-term effects on the boy. I also have no doubt that the very experience of being present during a home invasion would have had similar long-term effects.
You appear to have completely missed the point of my post and focussed on a side point. There’s a world of difference in defending yourself and thinking someone deserves death for entertaining a house.
To your other points, first off I haven’t said anything about the rights or wrongs of the child defending themselves, I’m not sure why you’re making the argument about that. I do however disagree there’s a basic assumption that anyone entering a house uninvited has no regard for the health and wellbeing of inhabitants. The rest of the post just looks like leap after leap from that point forward.
Well, no, you’ve gone from “threat” to “threat to life” that’s a leap. I’m not sure where it disagrees with my original premise, I’m not sure it has anything to do with my original premise.
I don’t have the facts of the case, but it’s not like the defenders have the luxury of knowing the intruders intentions and how they will behave, but considering they are already doing something severely illegal, it’s not much of a stretch to think the intruder would be willing to put their life at risk, and in that context, it is absolutely justifiable to kill in defense.
Nobody breaking into inhabited houses is going to show up holding a feather duster.
If an intruder knows he is intruding and he doesn’t leg it as soon as he realizes someone is in the house, it is a very reasonable assumption to make that he has also got some kind of weapon.
The state shouldn’t be executing people for it but a regular person defending themselves is a different scenario. Police (allegedly) are trained in safely restraining criminals and taking them into custody. A regular citizen defending themselves is not. The safest thing for them is whatever takes their attacker down the quickest. Unfortunately that is generally going to be lethal force.
I didn’t say they deserved death. I said you shouldn’t be worrying about the outcome (which is a decent probability of their death) while defending yourself. No one should be expected to hold back when their own safety is on the line. They didn’t put themselves in that situation. It’s entirely on the offender. If you manage to restrain/run them off without killing them, great but don’t risk your own life to do so.
I’m not really sure if you read my original post or not, it doesn’t have anything at all to do with what someone should or shouldn’t do when someone invades their home. It’s entirely to do with the “he had it coming”/“he deserved it” attitude a lot of responses seem to have.
I was responding to this. I didn’t see an earlier one.
Do you really think breaking and entering deserves a death sentence? I’m not condoning it by any means, but equally death seems like a disproportionate response, not to mention the long term effects this is bound to have on the child.
The person you responded to didn’t say they deserved it either. They said they didn’t care if the intruder gets killed because they got killed being an asshole. They’re not saying he had it coming. They’re saying he got what he got and they’re not going to give a shit about him because it was entirely avoidable by just not breaking into people’s homes. There’s literally 0 reason to feel bad for him.
What exactly are you implying? That poor people must break into other people’s houses to escape poverty? Or that being poor just naturally gives one a predilection to break into the houses of others? Because the former is shitty, irresponsible advice that will get people maimed and/or killed, and the latter is insulting to the dignity of the less fortunate.
being poor has nothing to do with breaking into another persons house.
just because you’re poor doesn’t mean you lack the ability to differentiate between right and wrong.
IMO stealing is an acceptable method of survival but stealing from an individual is wrong, while stealing from corporations is fine because they steal from individuals on an hourly basis.
How about don’t break into someone’s house?
And ruin every American gun owner’s wet dream?
I’m a gun owner, and I have absolutely no interest in shooting someone ever.
You know how people who say people should eat less meat get a lot of flack because of those annoying vegans who spray-paint leather jackets?
That’s most gun owners. Perfectly reasonable people who have no interest in violence, take gun safety seriously, and store their guns safely.
The thing is part of responsible gun ownership is not wearing a shirt that says “fuck you, I have a gun.” We don’t make guns our entire personality, and we understanding that advertising our gun ownership will make people think we’re like the redneck jackasses you see on TV AND make it more likely to have our cars and homes broken into.
The number one way to get your car windows smashed and everything in it cleaned out is to put a Glock sticker on the window.
Nah, sorry mate. I’d say your stats are wrong. I think the majority of gun owners in US are hateful idiots that would love to shoot someone - preferably a Mexican. There’s no great way to prove this, but it would be foolish to give Americans any benefit of the doubt that leans toward responsibility when stupidity clearly prevails. You might not be a shithead, and perhaps all gun owners are not, but I think the majority of gun owners are. Your Vegan analogy will hold water when the Vegans overwhelming vote for a convicted criminal nitwit platforming on hate and vengeance.
“Source: my ass”
There are around 400 million civilian-owned guns in the US. That’s almost half the entire world’s civilian-owned firearms. The US doesn’t have anywhere close to half the world’s homicides.
With the recent uptick in gun gomocide rates, we reached nearly 20,000 in 2022. That’s obviously very high. But if if we had 20 years straight of those horrifying death numbers, the odds of any specific gun being used in a homicide would still be less than 1/1000.
We have a violence issue in the US, no question, but if 0.01% of guns were used in homicide annually, the murder rate would be doubled. The fact is that the vast, vast majority of gun owners aren’t what you say they are.
I didn’t call them homicidal maniacs. Most gun owners in the US are under educated hateful bigots because most people in the US are. The only convincing stats on what I was talking about would be percentage of gun owners that experienced a home instrusion, had access to a firearm during the intrusion, and did or did not discharge the firearm. I wasn’t able to locate such data but this would be interesting. American gun owner’s don’t need positive assumptions being made about them in the absence of data.
deleted
No offense. Who cares. If someone is an asshole enough to break into someone’s house then they better be ready.
Unless it’s a cop. Then you should have known better and the state can do with you as it pleases while we clap.
Fuck that. Break in my house and watch what happens. It’s not up for grabs. People that steal from other people are pieces of garbage. Steal from corporations.
Do you really think breaking and entering deserves a death sentence? I’m not condoning it by any means, but equally death seems like a disproportionate response, not to mention the long term effects this is bound to have on the child.
On the absolute surface level, you make what seems to be a good point. I don’t think that point holds up to scrutiny, though, and such lazy (no offense meant by this; I’m not calling you lazy, only the point you’ve made) reasoning is not far removed from using “think of the chldren!” to justify an agenda.
Any dwelling that is not yours is generally assumed to be off-limits absent an invitation to enter. Ignoring that and breaking into said dwelling is implicitly a statement that you are disregarding the safety and security of the inhabitants. That further implies that you equally have no regard for the health and well-being of the inhabitants, as your actions are putting your needs or desires ahead of theirs. You have, wittingly or not, made yourself a threat to the inhabitants of the dwelling.
Responding to an immediate, credible threat against one’s life with lethal force is quite rational.
I have no doubt that this will have detrimental long-term effects on the boy. I also have no doubt that the very experience of being present during a home invasion would have had similar long-term effects.
You appear to have completely missed the point of my post and focussed on a side point. There’s a world of difference in defending yourself and thinking someone deserves death for entertaining a house.
To your other points, first off I haven’t said anything about the rights or wrongs of the child defending themselves, I’m not sure why you’re making the argument about that. I do however disagree there’s a basic assumption that anyone entering a house uninvited has no regard for the health and wellbeing of inhabitants. The rest of the post just looks like leap after leap from that point forward.
It only looks like leap after leap to you because it doesn’t agree with your basic premise.
Well, no, you’ve gone from “threat” to “threat to life” that’s a leap. I’m not sure where it disagrees with my original premise, I’m not sure it has anything to do with my original premise.
I don’t have the facts of the case, but it’s not like the defenders have the luxury of knowing the intruders intentions and how they will behave, but considering they are already doing something severely illegal, it’s not much of a stretch to think the intruder would be willing to put their life at risk, and in that context, it is absolutely justifiable to kill in defense.
Nobody breaking into inhabited houses is going to show up holding a feather duster.
If an intruder knows he is intruding and he doesn’t leg it as soon as he realizes someone is in the house, it is a very reasonable assumption to make that he has also got some kind of weapon.
The kid does claim the suspect threatened to harm or kill him.
The state shouldn’t be executing people for it but a regular person defending themselves is a different scenario. Police (allegedly) are trained in safely restraining criminals and taking them into custody. A regular citizen defending themselves is not. The safest thing for them is whatever takes their attacker down the quickest. Unfortunately that is generally going to be lethal force.
There’s a world of difference between defending yourself and feeling someone who breaks into a house deserves death.
I didn’t say they deserved death. I said you shouldn’t be worrying about the outcome (which is a decent probability of their death) while defending yourself. No one should be expected to hold back when their own safety is on the line. They didn’t put themselves in that situation. It’s entirely on the offender. If you manage to restrain/run them off without killing them, great but don’t risk your own life to do so.
I’m not really sure if you read my original post or not, it doesn’t have anything at all to do with what someone should or shouldn’t do when someone invades their home. It’s entirely to do with the “he had it coming”/“he deserved it” attitude a lot of responses seem to have.
I was responding to this. I didn’t see an earlier one.
The person you responded to didn’t say they deserved it either. They said they didn’t care if the intruder gets killed because they got killed being an asshole. They’re not saying he had it coming. They’re saying he got what he got and they’re not going to give a shit about him because it was entirely avoidable by just not breaking into people’s homes. There’s literally 0 reason to feel bad for him.
deleted by creator
Yes
That sounds utterly unhinged if I’m honest.
Indeed, putting yourself and other at risk is unhinged , why would you violate the sanctuary of others like so otherwise?
Do you lack reading comprehension skills?
Agreed, you break the law you forfeit your life.
So you are down with someone breaking into your home and taking whatever they want including sexual liberties?
You are a better Christian than me.
Yeah that’s exactly what I said. Well done.
Also: Don’t be poor
Lots of poor people don’t break into other people’s houses.
and they remain poor
What exactly are you implying? That poor people must break into other people’s houses to escape poverty? Or that being poor just naturally gives one a predilection to break into the houses of others? Because the former is shitty, irresponsible advice that will get people maimed and/or killed, and the latter is insulting to the dignity of the less fortunate.
no I just meant that it’s only natural that poverty leads to crime
Get rich or die trying I suppose
fucking dies or goes to prison for life because even the kids be packing in America
being poor has nothing to do with breaking into another persons house.
just because you’re poor doesn’t mean you lack the ability to differentiate between right and wrong.
IMO stealing is an acceptable method of survival but stealing from an individual is wrong, while stealing from corporations is fine because they steal from individuals on an hourly basis.