Two men stood in front of the autonomous vehicle, operated by ride-hailing company Waymo, and literally tipped a fedora at her while she told them to move out of the way.
I don’t live in a 3rd world country, so I guess I just don’t understand the concept of needing to arm myself before leaving my house because I’m likely to need a deadly weapon while I go about my business.
which is not to assert that adding more firearms will help the situation, but it’s got fuckall to do with living in a first world country or third world country.
As an aside: part of the definition of a First World Country includes being a “stable democracy”.
If a poll was done of American citizens asking them “do you think fraud will play a part in the upcoming election?” I would be shocked if less than 80% said yes. That doesn’t sound like a stable democracy to me.
Not OP check out my username for an idea of where I live. Besides a bit of gang on gang action in our capital, violent crimes are extremely rare. It’s maybe once a year that police have to shoot at a person, and even then police officers will assess the situation and if possible not go for center mass.
Note how I left out theft. That’s because you can’t directly use violence to protect property.
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.
You do what the police do, and provide a proportionate response.
A gun is only to be used if you are in imminent danger of your life. A robbery is arguably not that, unless they’re trying to steal your organs or prostheses.
There’s a reason your average supermarket security guard doesn’t immediately whip out the Mini-Nuke the moment they see a shoplifter.
There’s also something to be said about the place you’re living in, where you’re to be terrified of stabbists and robberers the moment you step out-of-doors. Do you live in a hive of scum and villainy?
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.
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.
There’s a difference between “violent crime exists” and “violent crime is so prevalent that regular citizens need to carry around an implement designed to kill people quickly while they go about their daily lives.”
“Wearing a seatbelt is the same as walking around with a device that can near instantly kill people.” Is something said by someone living in a dystopia.
Reasonable force refers to the amount of force that is necessary for a person to defend himself or his property, without going overboard. It is especially important to prove whether or not the force a person used was reasonable in order to determine his level of liability for the crime. Hence why reasonable force is also referred to as “legal force.” For instance, a father who gets into an argument with his son’s baseball coach, shoving him with his hands, has started the conflict. If the coach, in defending himself, picks up a baseball bat and slams it into the father’s head several times, it could not reasonably be considered self defense.
If a person can prove that he used reasonable force to defend himself, he may be able to avoid being prosecuted for a crime.
If a person uses more force than what would be considered necessary to protect himself from an aggressor, then this would be considered excessive or unreasonable force. Once excessive force has been proven, then the defendant’s self defense argument is considered forfeited. For instance, a defendant is justified in using force that is intended or likely to cause death or severe injury if someone violently enters his home, and he believes such force is necessary to prevent harm from coming to himself, or to another person in the home.
In civilized countries “self defense” means you might have to punch someone. “You should have an easy way to kill someone on you at all times, and keep it hidden so they don’t know” is not self defense, but clear signs of a dystopia.
Especially when it causes law enforcement to become so paranoid of the citizens they’re ostensibly meant to protect, that a mere hailstone landing on the car roof immediately causes them to believe they’re being fired upon.
That just sounds like a terrible time for everyone involved.
At that point, you’re basically turning the constabulary into soldiers.
If citizens have a “Constitutional Right” to have a gun, why does exercising the right so often result in law enforcement killing them without a trial?
Uh, no. There are quite a lot of laws governing when deadly force is allowed which vary by country and state. I’m quite sure none of them allow it when someone “bothers you”.
I once had someone get in my face and say, “Are you man enough to fight me?” I responded with “I’m man enough to find non-violent solutions to my problems.” Why should someone be proud of the problem-resolution method of choice for 3-year-olds?
there aren’t always non-violent solutions. i accept that reality. it’s nothing to be proud of, but i would be ashamed if i couldn’t deal with that truth.
You’re correct, there aren’t always non-violent solutions, but those are often due to people who insist on engaging in violence, whether it be invading another country or taking offense at someone pulling into their driveway.
Pretty simple problem to solve, get a conceal carry permit.
When the solution is “Vigilantism” you know the situation is fucked.
That was in response to being robbed.
I think the phrase you’re looking for is “defending yourself”.
I don’t live in a 3rd world country, so I guess I just don’t understand the concept of needing to arm myself before leaving my house because I’m likely to need a deadly weapon while I go about my business.
lol the US has the highest death rate from gun violence - it’s literally the #1 killer of children.
which is not to assert that adding more firearms will help the situation, but it’s got fuckall to do with living in a first world country or third world country.
In these kinds of discussions you can assume the third world country jab was a reference to the US.
As an aside: part of the definition of a First World Country includes being a “stable democracy”.
If a poll was done of American citizens asking them “do you think fraud will play a part in the upcoming election?” I would be shocked if less than 80% said yes. That doesn’t sound like a stable democracy to me.
What country do you live in? I’m curious which one has no theft or violent crime.
Not OP check out my username for an idea of where I live. Besides a bit of gang on gang action in our capital, violent crimes are extremely rare. It’s maybe once a year that police have to shoot at a person, and even then police officers will assess the situation and if possible not go for center mass.
Note how I left out theft. That’s because you can’t directly use violence to protect property.
I remember hearing this when I lived in the UK for a few years and I was blown away. What are you expected to do if being robbed? Let it happen?
Pretty much; then get the police to deal with it.
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.
You do what the police do, and provide a proportionate response.
A gun is only to be used if you are in imminent danger of your life. A robbery is arguably not that, unless they’re trying to steal your organs or prostheses.
There’s a reason your average supermarket security guard doesn’t immediately whip out the Mini-Nuke the moment they see a shoplifter.
There’s also something to be said about the place you’re living in, where you’re to be terrified of stabbists and robberers the moment you step out-of-doors. Do you live in a hive of scum and villainy?
Call the police. Are you in physical danger? If not why are you putting yourself in physical danger?
I don’t think I understand your question.
What scenario are you imagining with these questions?
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.
They’ve taken the mask off and said the quiet part out loud: They’re just out to kill people they think of as less than human.
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.
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.
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.
There’s a difference between “violent crime exists” and “violent crime is so prevalent that regular citizens need to carry around an implement designed to kill people quickly while they go about their daily lives.”
I’ve never been in a serious vehicle accident.
Still wear my seat belt though.
“Wearing a seatbelt is the same as walking around with a device that can near instantly kill people.” Is something said by someone living in a dystopia.
It was a preparedness analogy which seems to have gone over your head.
You’ve had a variation on this in just about every response. It’s getting very old. We get it, US bad.
None of that is “defending yourself”.
the act of defending oneself, one’s property, or a close relative
https://legaldictionary.net/self-defense/
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.
Yes, you’ve made it quite clear you are happy to murder “undesirables” on the flimsiest excuse you think you can get away with.
No, its self defense.
In civilized countries “self defense” means you might have to punch someone. “You should have an easy way to kill someone on you at all times, and keep it hidden so they don’t know” is not self defense, but clear signs of a dystopia.
Especially when it causes law enforcement to become so paranoid of the citizens they’re ostensibly meant to protect, that a mere hailstone landing on the car roof immediately causes them to believe they’re being fired upon.
That just sounds like a terrible time for everyone involved.
At that point, you’re basically turning the constabulary into soldiers.
If citizens have a “Constitutional Right” to have a gun, why does exercising the right so often result in law enforcement killing them without a trial?
My back is fucked and have an 80% rating from the VA. I’m not getting into fist fights anymore.
If someone gets blown away stealing shit, the world has become a better place, frankly.
“Property is more valuable than human lives.”
A statement from a person in a developed country apparently…
“The strong should be allowed to do whatever they want to the weak” A statement from a person in a developed country apparently…
You’re the one touting strength through arms here…
And without one, the stronger will always prevail over the weak. I can’t believe I need to spell this out.
You’re talking about things like it’s obvious they are just important as lives. Fucking disgusting
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.
deleted by creator
Uh, no. There are quite a lot of laws governing when deadly force is allowed which vary by country and state. I’m quite sure none of them allow it when someone “bothers you”.
Try “A government should take care of its citizens.”
I truly hope the police reach you in time, every time.
Fascism is so normalized :(
Fascism is when you don’t let people steal your stuff.
The word has been devalued on Lemmy but this is a new low.
I was referring to summary execution of a thief being a good thing.
ah, the American solution
in a country that has more firearms than people, certainly adding MORE firearms will resolve these issues!
deleted by creator
lemmy is full of sissy pacifists but i upvoted you.
I once had someone get in my face and say, “Are you man enough to fight me?” I responded with “I’m man enough to find non-violent solutions to my problems.” Why should someone be proud of the problem-resolution method of choice for 3-year-olds?
there aren’t always non-violent solutions. i accept that reality. it’s nothing to be proud of, but i would be ashamed if i couldn’t deal with that truth.
You’re correct, there aren’t always non-violent solutions, but those are often due to people who insist on engaging in violence, whether it be invading another country or taking offense at someone pulling into their driveway.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
And this is why we have a term called “toxic masculinity”.
How many people have you shot?