• Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    301
    ·
    7 months ago

    We’ve turned into a nation of cowards. Just completely craven people who shoot first and ask questions later because the news has made them terrified that they’ll be murdered in their beds, despite violent crime being historically low, comparatively speaking.

    • Carmakazi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      117
      ·
      7 months ago

      Having mingled with the gun community for some time, there are a lot of level-headed people among gun owners but there are also a worrying amount of terminally fearful people with violent ideation. Many are likely one bad life event, one half-cocked response to an uncertain situation from being a mugshot on a news story like this prick.

      • blazera@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        42
        ·
        7 months ago

        Having mingled with the gun community for some time, there are a lot of level-headed people among gun owners

        This is why US has so much gun violence. Like rabid dog owners assuring you theyre safe. You just havent seen them when theyre not level headed, we’re all emotional apes.

      • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        7 months ago

        there are a lot of level-headed people among gun owners but there are also a worrying amount of terminally fearful people with violent ideation.

        The problem is that both groups have the same ease of access to weapons.

        Until there are a lot more reliable ways to tell the 2 groups apart, weapons need to be a lot more difficult to get your hands on.

    • CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      47
      ·
      7 months ago

      Yeah. I have friends that won’t even let their kids walk a quarter mile to school, in one of the safest communities in the entire state. It’s insane. The media has put the fear of “but what if…” into so many people.

      You’ve got better odds winning the lottery than what these people are afraid of. Be smart, be savvy, be aware of your surroundings and watch out for the oblivions as you go about your business. But there’s no need to be afraid of everything around you.

      • asteriskeverything@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        7 months ago

        In that situation I’m concerned about other drivers, and also the child not paying attention while staring at their phone. I have seen sooo many teens just step off the curb and walk across the street without even looking up from their phone. Stranger Danger would have nothing to do with it.

        There needs to be a better balance between the latch key kid independence/responsibility and the absolute lack of trust in your kids and your community to just not be child kidnapping murderers???

        • vividspecter@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          7 months ago

          Fixing transport infrastructure would have the most impact. Narrower roads with fewer lanes and more complexity, 20mph/30kmph speed limits, better designed pedestrian crossings, and separated bike and pedestrian infrastructure. And requiring the vehicles themselves to be designed such that they are not just safe for the occupants, but safe for other vehicles and people too (which means lower hood heights and lower weight).

          And in general, providing viable alternatives to driving so there are less vehicles on the road, making it safer to walk and bike.

          • daltotron@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            7 months ago

            but safe for other vehicles and people too (which means lower hood heights and lower weight).

            Small note on this, but better crash compatibility and an upper weight limit might also increase the relative safety of bicycles, motorcycles, and even potentially some larger local wildlife, on top of just increasing safety for pedestrians and people driving relatively smaller cars, like sedans.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          7 months ago

          The whole way our society is built is not around pedestrian safety or teaching it to children.

          My daughter is growing up in a subdivision with low traffic and no sidewalks and I have to regularly remind her to look both ways when crossing the streets when we’re elsewhere because it’s just not something she has to do all the time.

          There’s room for sidewalks, they just didn’t build them. If there were sidewalks, it would be far easier for her to remember to do it every time.

      • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        7 months ago

        You’ve got better odds winning the lottery than what these people are afraid of. Be smart, be savvy, be aware of your surroundings and watch out for the oblivions as you go about your business. But there’s no need to be afraid of everything around you.

        Awareness prevents the vast majority of dangerous situations. Carrying is actually more likely to escalate situations into being dangerous than not. even a basic situational awareness will keep you far safer than a fire arm ever will.

      • bufordt@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        I agree that people shouldn’t be afraid of this stuff, but I think you underestimate the odds of winning the lottery and your chances of being murdered.

        Around 32,000 homicides/year in the US. 333,000,000 people, so about 1 in 100,000.

        Powerball odds are 1 in 292,000,000.

        • nonfuinoncuro@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          the distribution is different though, if you buy a powerball ticket you have the same odds as everyone else who bought one assuming the numbers are equally distributed and truly random

          the difference between living in Biden’s suburban neighborhood in Delaware vs west Philly or Baltimore is huge

          • bufordt@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            Sure, but nowhere is the chance of winning the lottery greater than the chance of getting murdered. Even Singapore, which has the lowest homicide rate, is around 1 in 1,000,000.

            I suppose if you classified getting a playback prize on a scratch off as a lottery win, but I doubt most people count that.

    • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      37
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Everything is a threat. Thank you Faux News and the rest.

      Different color skin - threat

      Gay - threat

      Trans - threat

      Environmental rules - threat

      Immigration - thread

      Vegetarian - threat

      Equality - threat

      Atheism - threat

      Non-western religion - threat

      Woke - threat

      Electric cars - threat

      The list is endless. Everything is a threat to them. Their pocketbooks, their marriage, their jobs, their theism, their TV, their guns…

      An endless barrage of threats that they are constantly reminded of.

      What can they do against all these threats? Elect a Strong Man that will crack skulls, He Has All The Answers. But those pesky libs keep getting in the way, so you gotta take matters into your own hands. Thank god and the good ol’ USA you can have a personal arsenal at arm’s reach to instantly panic-fire at that dark-skinned person pulling into your driveway who wants to steal your TV.

    • PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      33
      ·
      7 months ago

      The “I feared for my life” rhetoric is just an excuse to shoot people, borrowed from police when they wanted to shoot people. You don’t have to politely believe them just because they said it.

    • brygphilomena@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      7 months ago

      I’ve talked about in in several other posts regarding gun control.

      The rampant media sowing fear is poison. It’s the culture that’s being fostered that’s more dangerous than the guns. “Fuck around and find out” and “come try and take them” keeps reinforcing that guns are a totally normal thing to use to solve problems.

    • rayyy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      7 months ago

      The NRA fear paranoia narrative has permeated our society. Add to that those who feel inferior so they carry a gun to feel powerful. Now add the hate farming by Russian trolls and right wing media, (the two are the same, with different names)

      • JovialMicrobial@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 months ago

        How often I witness roadrage/aggressive drivers makes the mass gunownership in this country kind of terrifying. I’ve seen a truck try to push another car off the road for getting off a left hand exit. I can only assume the truck driver was mad at the car for “being in the way.” The power tripping and entitlement to being aggressive towards others combined with your list of problematic cultural phenomenon and guns is horrifying.

    • Nobody@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      7 months ago

      You’re right that the vast majority are cowards, but you also have psychos who jerk off to a fantasy of shooting someone. There are all kinds of crazies out there just looking for a reason, and they’re getting crazier in their psycho echo chambers.

  • millie@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    140
    ·
    7 months ago

    As a late night cab driver, if you’re ever wondering why I’m on the street rather than the driveway in your sketchy, pickup truck filled suburban neighborhood, this is why.

    Give me a shady looking industrial district or run down residential neighborhood over semi-rural suburbia any day of the week. I feel much safer.

    • john89@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      7 months ago

      Yikes.

      I’m like the exact opposite, but it’s mostly because I’ve had bad experiences with gangbangers.

      • Got_Bent@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        47
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        I was lily white guy living in ground zero of MS13 gangland in Los Angeles in the early 2000s for four years. I know it’s crazy, but best neighbors I ever had. We all bbq’d together, watched each other’s kids, and got along well.

        One morning I was taking a bus to work. Two guys robbed me while I was standing at the bus stop. I had fifteen dollars, which I happily gave to them.

        I went over to my neighbor that evening and told him what happened.

        The next day, there was fifteen dollars in my mailbox.

        I moved from there to high end HOA in Texas and holy hell it was miserable. I hated them all. They were the nosiest, most judgemental assholes imaginable. One lady would go walking down the alleys checking how many beer cans people had in their recycling and called the police on one house charging them with child neglect because of beer cans in their recycling bin. Fuck that neighborhood forever.

        (There’s a funny coda to the robbery. I smoked a lot back then. When they were done shoving the gun in my ribs and walking away, I blurted out, “guys, I’m stressed. Do one of you have a light?” and I swear on a stack of books of your choice that one of them turned around and lit my cigarette)

        • Dr. Bluefall@toast.ooo
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          7 months ago

          There’s a certain weird honor in lighting the cigarette of the guy you just robbed. It’s kinda respectable.

        • millie@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          This is real. I’ve had folks in my cab that clearly were trying to probe my boundaries to see if I’m an easy target who immediately switched gears the moment I showed my personality. Just because someone is desperate doesn’t mean they want to fuck over someone who’s cool with them and is real. The way you carry yourself makes a difference.

          It’s pretty obvious if you meet me in person that I’m a broke artist who cares about real people and detests fake corporate bullshit. That’s not really an appealing target and I have fuck all to give them anyway.

          But if some fuck shoots me for being on their street while being trans, or literally just someone they don’t recognize, I don’t get the chance to show how I carry myself.

        • john89@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          It’s really sad watching you people make light of a serious topic.

          I guess it’s because you can’t tolerate any criticism of cities, even if they house most of the people who own guns illegally and use them on other humans.

          But it’s not front-page news on these websites whenever someone dies due to gang violence, because it happens every day.

          • VirtualOdour@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            Yeah same thing comes up whenever high density housing is mentioned, you’re not allowed to mention how horrible it is because everyone is locked into an ideology where poor people belong in very small compressed areas because then we’ll be forced to ride bikes which is going to magically solve everything

      • GiddyGap@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        7 months ago

        It also depends where. Suburban or exurban driveways in the South can be deadly with all the 2nd amendment hardliners. Especially in small or midsize cities. In northern or western urban or suburban areas, not as bad.

  • Waldowal@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    137
    ·
    7 months ago

    “So there I was, watching Fox News on one TV, NewsMax on another, dick in hand of course - I’m an alpha you see. And I see this dude trying to steal my freedoms. I ran after him, and I heard him say something woke. It was either “Sorry - wrong house” or “I want to rape your wife and abort the baby”. I couldn’t tell which. Of course I had my blue steel beauty in the hand I wasnt using to rub one out - so I started blasting…”

    • barsquid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      7 months ago

      Sortof the defining characteristic of regressives is that they are easily brainwashed by media. An enlarged amygdala makes them fear and rage-addicted.

      • Tinidril@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        7 months ago

        That doesn’t explain the city/rural divide though. It could well be that listening to reactionary right wing rhetoric leads to an enlarged amygdala.

        • immutable@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          7 months ago

          Or that people prone to fear of others would self select living in areas that provide them with fewer others

    • SeabassDan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      7 months ago

      That’s exactly the reason. When push comes to shove, these are the people that will be willingly used for fodder on the front lines.

      • chatokun@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        7 months ago

        Knowledge Fight takes a critical look at Alex Jones(I put this in every post I make about him because I can’t stand to listen to AJ direct, and I don’t want people thinking I do). Anyway, he goes out to break quite often shouting stuff like THEYRE COMING FOR YOU, THEY’RE COMING FOR YOU, THEY’RE COMING FOR YOU!!! after having discussed the “demonic antifa/BLM/democrats coming to your houses.”

        Obviously not everyone is as sensationalist as Alex Jones, but he’s been bragging about how other places have started sounding like him. Including Joe Rogan (probably more on Vax and stuff like that, but still)

        • Catma@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          7 months ago

          Alex thinks he is fighting the literal christian devil. Like there is no way to deal with that other than violence.

          Also hello fellow wonk

          • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            7 months ago

            No he doesn’t, he’s a con man who frightens people to get donations and to sell survival scams. His listeners might believe that but he’s there when he makes some of that shit up himself and just uses the improv “yes, and” for other crazy shit he sees or listeners/viewers call on with (assuming they aren’t just actors saying what he’s told them to).

  • Furbag@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    97
    ·
    7 months ago

    What the fuck are these people so scared of that they start blasting folk for pulling into their driveway? This seems to keep happening and nobody ever thinks to check up on the mf who almost blasted a delivery driver who got the wrong address? Forget just charging the dude with attempted murder, can we search the house and take away firearms from somebody so clearly irresponsible that they can’t distinguish a genuine threat from an imagined one?

    If the second amendment won’t allow that to happen, then the amendment needs to be re-written.

    • huginn@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      41
      ·
      7 months ago

      A diet of fear mongering media with a heaping helping of social isolation.

      Antisocial monsters are made surprisingly easily.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      7 months ago

      The second amendment absolutely would allow that to happen. To people purposefully misrepresenting what it says won’t.

      First, it says what it says because we need a militia to protect the nation, which was once true when an professional standing army wasn’t expected but no longer is.

      Second, the goal is for a well regulated militia. Even if we assume it still applies (it doesn’t, but let’s pretend), nothing about this is well regulated. Make sure people have training if you’re going to let people own firearms so freely.

      • Malfeasant@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        It wasn’t that a professional standing army “wasn’t expected” - in fact they were quite common at the time. Standing armies don’t tend to go unused, they make it easy for asshole politicians to pick stupid fights with other countries. Not having one was a deliberate choice we made to avoid such things, and for the most part it worked, for a little while at least.

        • Cethin@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          I wouldn’t say the were quite common. They weren’t unheard of, but only the major powers in the world could afford them. The US would be a nation of mostly farmers isolated from most of the developed world. There’s no reason they would have expected to become a world power. A militia, at the time, would seem to be the reasonable expectation for such a nation for the foreseeable future.

    • Liz@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      7 months ago

      As a responsible gun owner: they can and should take his guns away. There’s multiple felonies he can be charged with and he’ll almost certainly be convicted of at least one.

  • SeaJ@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    94
    ·
    7 months ago

    Babcock told police what he could see on his Ring camera made him think someone was breaking into his car, so he went outside and started shooting.

    Turns out your life is not in danger of someone is breaking into your car and it is not legal to shoot at them. I’m guessing this dipshit considers himself a responsible gun owner.

  • Blackmist@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    88
    ·
    7 months ago

    It may be in the constitution, but I doubt the founding fathers envisaged that you’d all be such fuckwits.

      • Aganim@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        7 months ago

        I’m not American, so I could be wrong, but wasn’t it something about a well-regulated militia?

        • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          27
          ·
          7 months ago

          It was, those three words aren’t there by mistake.

          Standing domestic armies were controversial at the time. They needed a way if a state was a facing a crisis it could grab a bunch of armed citizens, declare it a militia, and deal with the issue. Most of the signers were lawyers and they knew that there had to be a legally established procedure for this.

          This is me being nice to them btw the issue was slavery and the fear of slave revolts.

          And a few decades ago it got reimagined as a civil liberty. Which is clear from the text that it is not and is clear from the debates around the amendment at the time.

          • FryHyde@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            I was always under the impression that the militia bit was because they didn’t want the USA to form a government army. The army instead would be all citizens, armed, that would act in case of a national threat, then like… go back to farming or whatever.

        • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          7 months ago

          Regulation had a different interpretation back then. It had to do with training and equipment. It’s why professional soldiers were called “Regulars.” They wanted civilian militias to be equipped and have the ability to train on their weapons.

          In order for civilian militias to exist, be effective, and be able to respond instantly the citizens need to have weapons.

          Somebody who doesn’t have a gun and has never used one isn’t going to be effective in civil defense.

          • hark@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            Yet there is little to no training before people are allowed to own guns. Seems to me like it doesn’t follow either the modern definition or the supposed definition of old.

            • john89@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              7 months ago

              Why can’t you people just admit you don’t like guns so you’re trying to desperately to pretend the 2nd amendment doesn’t mean what it has literally always meant?

              You’re just like republicans with how disingenuous you are in your rhetoric.

              And you know it.

              • hark@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                7 months ago

                That’s a lot of assumptions you’re making. I don’t know who “you people” are in this context, but if you want to know my personal beliefs, I think that gun ownership is fine, it just needs regulation.

              • Malfeasant@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                7 months ago

                If you end your argument with “and you know it”, you’ve already lost. Which is unfortunate since in this case I happen to agree with you. But you’re not going to convince anyone of anything with the shitty attitude.

                • john89@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  Not really.

                  I could say everything right and most of you would just believe whatever you want.

                  And you know it.

              • BigMacHole@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                7 months ago

                EXACTLY! Well Regulated meant TRAINED IN ARMS back in the day which means we should NOT train ANYONE today! And ALSO, ARMS means the EXACT weapons we have today and has NOTHING to do with the Arms they had back in the day!

        • john89@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 months ago

          He’s trying to re-write history and every academically and officially accepted interpretation of the constitution because he doesn’t like it.

          You’ll only see ridiculousness like his taken seriously on forums like these.

    • whoisearth@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      7 months ago

      Here’s the laugh though. Read “Democracy in America” by Alex de Tocqueville. A large part of it is observations amounting to “these fuckwits need to be aware of what they’re doing and in many cases they are not”

        • whoisearth@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          7 months ago

          It’s all through the book. I also have a copy on my bookshelf and have read it.

          I guess to be clear, I’m not referring to America alone in my response and even though his observations were largely on America what he writes about can be applied generally.

          One simple example is how he states something like “I don’t know if America would vote the best people if they ran for office. We know they exist but they clearly don’t enter politics.”

          It’s an extremely polite way to say “we aren’t getting the best or brightest running for office but that’s ok cause we’re so fucking dumb we probably wouldn’t vote for them anyways.”

    • Emerald@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      7 months ago

      The founding fathers are much worse then this guy. founding fathers owned slaves, this dude only traumatized one person.

  • not_that_guy05@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    78
    ·
    7 months ago

    $50k bond for almost killing the delivery driver. Bullet hole upper part of the driver door for assuming that the truck was being stolen.

    Either he hates dominos or his wife cheated on him with a delivery driver.

    • KnitWit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      101
      ·
      7 months ago

      Dude fired seven times, and three hit the car. What a menace, should have been charged with attempted murder.

    • Wilshire@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      75
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      I don’t understand why he wasn’t charged with attempted murder. This is a bullshit defense.

      Babcock said he went outside and “began shooting at the truck” to “disable” it…

      Yes, killing the driver would do that.

      • FilterItOut@thelemmy.club
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        I’m not sure about the exact laws where the incident occurred, but in several other states that I know the law of, aggravated assault carries the exact same penalties as attempted murder. Because of the wording of the two laws, aggravated assault is much easier to prove. If you’re a prosecutor, why would you not go with the easier to prove, exact same penalty crime?

    • CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      7 months ago

      I have to be honest, I was surprised the delivery driver wasn’t black. This idiot was just ready to kill someone, anyone. He’s probably been looking out his front window, gun in hand, at every little noise for months or years.

      And even if the kid was trying to steal an empty car, this guy would still go to prison if he killed him because no one’s life or health was in danger. Stealing a car is not a capital offense.

  • InternetUser2012@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    71
    ·
    7 months ago

    Maybe some gun nut can help me with this. If the teen had, say an AR15 because he was concerned about running into some wild hogs. If he ducked down and started firing back in a clearly self defense situation, would he fine in doing this?

    Or does it depend on the color of his skin?

    • madcaesar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      54
      ·
      7 months ago

      Nevermind the racial part.

      Your scenario actually highlights a good point, what kind of society do we want to live in? Some western everyone for them selves, shoot first talk later, or do we want to live in a civilized society?

      My belief is that guns in general make us less safe. Both of the individuals in this story would be safer if neither had any guns. As well as the entire neighborhood, would also be safer without guns.

      • Zink@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        7 months ago

        I’ll take the civilized society please. Unfortunately I seem to be surrounded by people who think they’re the badass, and they advocate for their ideal Wild West shoot first world from the comfort of their suburban home.

      • prole@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        7 months ago

        Nevermind the racial part.

        Yeah I don’t think I will… This isn’t happening in a vacuum.

        • Soulg@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          22
          ·
          7 months ago

          It’s not but he was making the point that you don’t even need to have that aspect included and it’s still coming off terribly

        • octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          7 months ago

          there are countries with guns AND no crime.

          I’m sure you have a ready list to support a bold statement like that, and that they are all desirable places to live. I remind you that you said NO crime.

        • Syrc@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          7 months ago

          Yes. That’s why you need to make sure there’s no stupid involved when you sell a gun, and the US seem to fail pretty hard at that.

    • DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      There theoretically could be a situation where two people shoot at each other and both can claim self-defense, but it would be convoluted.

      Self defense does not apply if a person legally provokes the attacker. Now legal provocation means committing a crime, not telling a yo mama joke. As an example, if I try to rob a bank and someone starts shooting at me, I can’t claim self defense because I provoked them by robbing a bank.

      So in this case, depends on if the trespassing is a crime that would count as legal provocation. If not, delivery guy is allowed to return fire. And I hope every sane person agrees it is not a provocation or a crime.

      Edit: So in this case, the only provocation could be trespassing, if parking in some ones driveway counted. Which it almost certainly does not as explained in replies to this comment. In addition, I am not sure trespassing would qualify as provocation, this may depend on state laws and the details of the trespass.

      Edit 2: Just to make it even clearer, the answer is yes. I believe the delivery driver could legally return fire, but I am not a lawyer.

      • Khanzarate@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        7 months ago

        Pulling into someone’s driveway isn’t trespassing as a general rule, unless you know they don’t want you there.

        Trespass at its heart is legally something you need to have had intent to do. “No trespassing” signs or verbal warnings to leave inform someone that this is land they aren’t wanted on, so are pretty important in proving trespassing.

        This is also why door-to-door salesman and missionaries aren’t sued out of existence. Both use the land in an attempt to offer something to the owner, its a legitimate use, as long as they leave when told.

        But since the delivery man believed he had explicit permission, since he thought this was the house that ordered a pizza, it’s perfectly legal. He just would’ve had to leave when he was told to go.

        But the pizza man did nothing to provoke shooting, so I expect the owner gets no self-defense argument here. Just the pizza guy.

        • prole@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          7 months ago

          But the pizza man did nothing to provoke shooting, so I expect the owner gets no self-defense argument here. Just the pizza guy.

          This is where the part about skin color comes into play… E.g. Trayvon Martin

      • Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        7 months ago

        This would not be criminal trespassing though. They would have to have been told to leave then, given an appropriate amount of time to leave, they refuse to do so, you now have a criminal trespass. Just pulling into someone’s driveway isn’t gonna cut it. Everyone has the legal right to enter your open property for the purpose of contacting you.

        • DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          7 months ago

          I don’t disagree. Sorry if it sounded I did. I just did not want to state it with certainty as I am not read up on trespassing laws.

        • bufalo1973@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          If that asshole didn’t wanted anyone in his driveway he should have a good fence with a door, not an open one. As it has it (and with his trigger happy response) it’s not s driveway but a honeypot.

          • Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            7 months ago

            Yeah people like him, even if they somehow haven’t really broke the law, need to be labeled as dangerous to society. Like, shooting someone for pulling in your driveway? That is insanity. This person is definitely not stable enough to just be loose in society.

      • SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        7 months ago

        It’s not just theoretical. Kyle Rittenhouse shot Gaige Grosskreutz and successfully claimed self-defense because Grosskreutz incidentally pointed his gun at Rittenhouse because he was moving his hands around while he was attempting to deescalate the situation. If that’s true, then on the other side, Grosskreutz could’ve shot Rittenhouse and also met the standard for self-defense. After all, Rittenhouse pointed his gun at him after he’d already greased two other dudes. In that case, “self-defense” was just a matter of who shot first.

        American law be all sorts of fucked.

        • DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          Absolutely no. Gaige Grosskreutz would not be able to claim self defense exactly for the reason I explained. You don’t get to claim self defense immediately after assaulting and battering someone. That counts as provocation.

          That would be true even if Rittenhouse no longer had a claim of self defense (for example because Grosskreutz visibly stopped attacking), since as I wrote, those are two different things.

          • SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            Grosskreutz did not touch, attack, or batter Rittenhouse. You must be thinking about Anthony Huber, who hit Rittenhouse with a skateboard.

            • DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              You seem to be correct, I misremembered.

              That being said, I don’t think he would have a valid self defense claim against Rittenhouse after running up to him with a gun and pointing it at him. But I am not sure on this one.

              • SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                Obviously, neither of us is a court of law, but to me, the law around self-defense is based around an individual’s subjective perception of danger. Grosskreutz perceived an active shooter situation, and thus it would have been eminently reasonable for him to shoot RIttenhouse on sight. Instead, he approached with the intent to de-escalate, but it would also have been reasonable to shoot when Rittenhouse pointed the weapon at him. But, as you say, Rittenhouse perceived another threat charging at him with a gun, and a court of law did find reasonable grounds for self-defense. Each man perceived a threat for which the law allows a deadly response, and that’s why I say the law is messed up.

                • DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  7 months ago

                  Yes, as I wrote earlier it is theoretically possible.

                  That being said, the subjective here is subjective perception (what you see, hear, …), not subjective evaluation of that perception. So IMO perceiving that someone shot someone else without seeing what preceded that absolutely does not give you the right to shoot immediately. Objectively evaluating that perception, it could be a murderer, or self defense, or an undercover cop. You do not have the justification to fire unless you see them threatening you, or someone who you actually perceived to not be a threat.

                  The way I see it, appearing threatening goes with carrying a gun. If you choose to carry, you need to be responsible for your appearance to the surrounding. As an example, aim a gun at a cop and it does not matter whether it is intentional, unintentional or even outside your control due to a medical condition. You will likely be turned into swiss cheese. It is your duty not to point your gun at people. The duty comes with the right to carry a gun. If you are unable to do so, maybe consider not carrying.

                  Also, I personally like how many European nations only allow concealed carry. This way, you don’t create tense and possibly dangerous situations unnecessarily. You only reveal your weapon when you intend to use it.

                  Finally, what is the alternative to subjective perception? Oh, the terrorists gun was not loaded. You had no way to know but you go to jail, because objectively he was not a threat? That does not make sense.

                  Both subjective and objective evaluation of your subjective perception is the current requirement and IMO the reasonable one.

                  Of course, there are always details that could be improved.

        • DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          Rittenhouse is the reason I know about this. Again, legal actions do not ever count as provocation for purposes of self-defense law. So you can make yo mama jokes all you want and still defend yourself.

          Also, a provocation from last week does not count. There are detailed rules as to when a provocation stops counting, it does not carry on for a lifetime.

      • barsquid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        On the presumption that robbing a bank is always an armed robbery, yeah, the law is likely going to tolerate parties using violence to stop the robbery if they think they are preventing harm.

        Trespassing with intent to deliver a pizza is not going to cut it as justification since nobody was in physical danger. Probably not even in Texas since no property was in danger. He wasn’t even warned to exit the property, and he wasn’t fired on until he was leaving.

        IANAL but there is absolutely no chance of a self-defense claim here. His best move will be to take whatever plea bargain his lawyer can get.

        • DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          You are confusing two different questions here. Whether someone is justified to shoot the robber in the bank and whether the robber is justified to defend themselves if they are attacked (fired upon).

          Yes, it would have to be armed robbery to justify shooting at the robber, and even then that alone may not be enough. (IANAL, depends on state, it’s complicated)

          On the other hand, even in an unarmed robbery, the robber does not have a claim of self-defense if they injure/kill a guard trying to stop them.

          I was talking about whether the delivery driver was allowed to return fire, not if the homeowner was allowed to shoot them, which is somewhat unexpectedly not the same thing.

          By the way, another interesting and unintuitive law is felony murder. Lets say you rob a bank with a permanent marker, pretending it is a gun. You obviously do not intend to harm anyone. However, lets say a cop shoots at you thinking it is a gun, misses you and kills a bystander behind you. You can go to jail for felony murder, because you created the dangerous situation by committing a felony (the bank robbery) and the bystander died as a result of that dangerous situation.

  • CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    70
    ·
    7 months ago

    Please make sure this fuckhead is never allowed to touch a firearm for the rest of his life. And give him a few years in a secluded spot to think about what he did wrong.

    Sincerely,

    Responsible Gun Owners

    • blazera@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      60
      ·
      7 months ago

      You know what this guy was before he tried to kill someone for the first time?

      A responsible gun owner.

      • CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        7 months ago

        Eh, he clearly was not, but I’m not here to get into a debate about guns or gun control. We definitely need way less of the former and way more of the latter but everybody has different ideas on that and I’ve had that online argument dozens of times.

      • Paddzr@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        7 months ago

        If all it takes is 40 questions and some for show handling test? The system is fucked and not strict as others would make you believe.

        Car license is 10x harder here and that’s still loose.

    • hperrin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      7 months ago

      The difference between a responsible gun owner and a fucking lunatic with a firearm is one mistake.

  • BigMacHole@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    68
    ·
    7 months ago

    The ONLY ONLY ONLY way to Prevent this is to make sure TEENAGE DELIVERY DRIVERS shoot at every home they pull up in before getting out!

    • skozzii@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      7 months ago

      If the driver had a gun, and the neighbors had guns then this would have never happened…

      /s

    • egonallanon@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      7 months ago

      The only acceptable vehicle to deliver good in is a Toyota pickup with a 50 cal welded onto the back.

  • Treczoks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    49
    ·
    7 months ago

    Thank goodness for living in a civilized country where things like that simply don’t happen.

    • Hugh_Jeggs@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      7 months ago

      I can’t imagine anyone being so cowardly and scared of their own shadow that they would even want to own a handgun

      Absolute fucking shitebags

      • derpgon@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        7 months ago

        I am sorry, but as a handgun owner, I must disagree. In the civilized world, owning a (hand)gun usually means you have to pass some kind of test.

        In my country, it is a written test of about 40 questions where only one single mistake is allowed, non-live gun manipulation where you have to basically be flawless, and then live gun manipulation and firing.

        The law is pretty strict, which means actually using a gun to defend yourself has to be absolutely last resort.

        • Hawk@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          7 months ago

          Ah yes, a test.

          Surely anyone passing a test like that, like for a driving license, would never, ever break the law and cause danger to those around them, right?

          • derpgon@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            7 months ago

            Sure, there are cases, but they go into the 10s per year (with LEGALLY held guns). People are not perfect, but we did hell of good job with our laws.

      • suction@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        This and what else makes the mind boggle is how these Walmart-fed, low self-control guys think they would be able to properly handle themselves in a crisis situation like an armed burglary or amok run for example. Watching too many hero movies probably fucked up the American psyche for good. Look how often even trained police officers who outman the perpetrator 20:1 get shot before they can kill or subdue the target. And Billy Bob thinks that he could handle professional criminals if they come to rob his house at gunpoint and would stand a chance lmao It’s like those Jan 6th guys thinking they have a fighting chance against the US military

        • ArxCyberwolf@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          They’d be blown away before they could unholster (while out of breath) their pistol. Don’t play hero.

      • Treczoks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 months ago

        About any country apart from the US and some that are involved in active external or internal wars.