Question For Democrats On Gun Control

[BFritz21]

I saw one video of people breaking into a store to loot it and then turning around and running away because the shop owner had a gun.

My question is, you don't think it's a person's right to have a gun to protect himself or herself and their property in a riot?

If they didn't have a gun, it's ok to lose everything that person has built because the government didn't allow them to protect themselves?

What if these riots start going into neighborhoods (they might have already?), you don't think a person has a right to try and protect their family with a gun?

[Benton]

Why do you assume all Democrats think no one should be allowed to own a gun?

[BmorePat87]

Democrats support responsible gun ownership for purposes that include self protection.

With regards to using lethal force to protect your property, I don't know if a life is worth any property, especially when most insurance will cover it. A home is a bit different, though, since there's a reasonable fear for your life.

This probably could have been posted in the other riot question thread you seemingly abandoned after it was filled with thoughtful and rational responses. It's odd that your only comments on this issue are focused solely on the riots, rather than George Floyd's murder, the majority peacefully protesting, or the authoritarian assaults against peaceful protestors.

[Belsnickel]

(06-03-2020, 03:46 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Democrats support responsible gun ownership for purposes that include self protection.

With regards to using lethal force to protect your property, I don't know if a life is worth any property, especially when most insurance will cover it. A home is a bit different, though, since there's a reasonable fear for your life.

This probably could have been posted in the other riot question thread you seemingly abandoned after it was filled with thoughtful and rational responses. It's odd that your only comments on this issue are focused solely on the riots, rather than George Floyd's murder, the majority peacefully protesting, or the authoritarian assaults against peaceful protestors.

Agree with all of this, but I want to add something. The idea that property is of equal value to human life is part of the ***** problem.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(06-03-2020, 07:48 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Agree with all of this, but I want to add something. The idea that property is of equal value to human life is part of the ***** problem.

Except for a small business owner, their property IS their life. Even if insurance covers the rebuild, how long does it take for the insurance to approve it? Once the insurance does finally approve it, how long does it take for the work to get done while everyone else around you also needs the services of the same groups of people? Meanwhile the entire time their only income source is shut down. Do the banks stop the interest on your loan while your store is burned down? Do the banks stop the mortgage payments on your home while your store is burned down? Do groceries become free? How many customers come back after their store is reopened? Many small businesses rely on customer loyalty to survive, and then you're having months where those customers are now going to the giant corporation that could afford to rebuild near instantly.

The idea that someone's desire to destroy innocent people's livelihood for the sake of chaos and getting free shit without consequence is more important than someone's right to protect their own livelihood and the security of their family's lives is part of the ***** problem.

[masonbengals fan]

Good post LeonardLeap. When that property is your whole life's work/source of income for you & your family then it is pretty dam important.

[NATI BENGALS]

I thought this was going to be about a president who wants to use the military to dominate American citizens.

[Belsnickel]

(06-03-2020, 08:46 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Except for a small business owner, their property IS their life. Even if insurance covers the rebuild, how long does it take for the insurance to approve it? Once the insurance does finally approve it, how long does it take for the work to get done while everyone else around you also needs the services of the same groups of people? Meanwhile the entire time their only income source is shut down. Do the banks stop the interest on your loan while your store is burned down? Do the banks stop the mortgage payments on your home while your store is burned down? Do groceries become free? How many customers come back after their store is reopened? Many small businesses rely on customer loyalty to survive, and then you're having months where those customers are now going to the giant corporation that could afford to rebuild near instantly.

The idea that someone's desire to destroy innocent people's livelihood for the sake of chaos and getting free shit without consequence is more important than someone's right to protect their own livelihood and the security of their family's lives is part of the ***** problem.

None of this justifies taking a life for a property crime. None of it. The problem is that our system doesn't have adequate support for that small business owner. I think theft and destruction of property deserve to have someone criminally charged, so they shouldn't go without consequences. But there is no amount of stuff that justifies homicide.

[Goalpost]

There is a Philly gun shop owner who did just that. Four men illegally entered his business, He shot and killed one of them. The others fled. He wasn't charged.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(06-03-2020, 09:16 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: None of this justifies taking a life for a property crime. None of it. The problem is that our system doesn't have adequate support for that small business owner. I think theft and destruction of property deserve to have someone criminally charged, so they shouldn't go without consequences. But there is no amount of stuff that justifies homicide.

None of any of this justifies ruining innocent people's lives and burning down their livelihood because you want to destroy things and get free stuff.


You want someone criminally charged, but you don't want the police to use force to apprehend them, you want anyone outside right now to be wearing a mask, and anyone who actually IS caught is getting immediately bailed out by celebrities donating hundreds of thousands of dollars to bail funds so they can go right back out and destroy some more shit.

How do you think people are actually going to face those consequences you mentioned like that?

It's just amazing to me how casual some people seem to be about telling innocent people that they should stand by and let arsonists destroy their lives work and their family's livelihood without doing anything to stop them because the arsonists desire to burn everything down is more important. So brave of you to take that view while nobody is trying to burn down your life while you have a family to support.

**** arsonists. I will side with innocent people every single time.

[GMDino]

(06-03-2020, 09:39 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: None of any of this justifies ruining innocent people's lives and burning down their livelihood because you want to destroy things and get free stuff.


You want someone criminally charged, but you don't want the police to use force to apprehend them, you want anyone outside right now to be wearing a mask, and anyone who actually IS caught is getting immediately bailed out by celebrities donating hundreds of thousands of dollars to bail funds so they can go right back out and destroy some more shit.

How do you think people are actually going to face those consequences you mentioned like that?

It's just amazing to me how casual some people seem to be about telling innocent people that they should stand by and let arsonists destroy their lives work and their family's livelihood without doing anything to stop them because the arsonists desire to burn everything down is more important. So brave of you to take that view while nobody is trying to burn down your life while you have a family to support.

**** arsonists. I will side with innocent people every single time.

Just my opinion but I think you're mixing messages here and not reading what Matt wrote.

[Belsnickel]

(06-03-2020, 09:39 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: None of any of this justifies ruining innocent people's lives and burning down their livelihood because you want to destroy things and get free stuff.

Never said it did.

(06-03-2020, 09:39 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: You want someone criminally charged, but you don't want the police to use force to apprehend them, you want anyone outside right now to be wearing a mask, and anyone who actually IS caught is getting immediately bailed out by celebrities donating hundreds of thousands of dollars to bail funds so they can go right back out and destroy some more shit.

The the bold, never said that. As for the rest, being bailed out doesn't mean they won't face consequences.

(06-03-2020, 09:39 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: How do you think people are actually going to face those consequences you mentioned like that?

By being arrested and criminally charged.

(06-03-2020, 09:39 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: It's just amazing to me how casual some people seem to be about telling innocent people that they should stand by and let arsonists destroy their lives work and their family's livelihood without doing anything to stop them because the arsonists desire to burn everything down is more important. So brave of you to take that view while nobody is trying to burn down your life while you have a family to support.

**** arsonists. I will side with innocent people every single time.

You're arguing against a point I never made. I am saying the right to life is more important than the right to property. That is all I am saying.

[masonbengals fan]

IMHO Arsonist give up their right to life when they bring molotov cocktails into my place of business. And no that wouldn't be a easy decision. The guilt of killing anyone would be overwhelming. Knowing you would have to answer for it when your time comes.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(06-03-2020, 09:52 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Never said it did.


The the bold, never said that. As for the rest, being bailed out doesn't mean they won't face consequences.


By being arrested and criminally charged.


You're arguing against a point I never made. I am saying the right to life is more important than the right to property. That is all I am saying.

So then you do want the police to use the force needed to stop looting and arson and arrest those responsible? Because that'll mean violently pushing into and breaking up mobs.

Being bailed out means they can keep on burning things in the mean time, though. Congrats, the police arrested an arsonist but they got bailed out and now you have to catch them again while they keep burning shit. That sounds like a recipe for successfully stopping this.

That's assuming they're even caught in the first place to be arrested because there's large groups of people in masks everywhere. What's the actual odds they face any consequences for their arson? What is the lead they're going to go on? That it was a person in a black hoodie with a black mask? I'm sure that'll narrow it down quickly and lead to justice as they look at a crowd of thousands of people who match that description.

The US has 298 police per 100,000 citizens, which ranks 88th out of 145.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_number_of_police_officers
I can't find world Firefighter numbers, but DC for example has 25 Firefighters per 100,000 people and it takes quite a few Firefighters per fire.

Even if they used force, the police simply don't have the numbers to arrest and criminally charge all the looters and arsonists, and put out all of the fires. This is just a front-and-center example of what rural people have already known. Police are often too spread out to instantly be of help. Often the fastest they can get there is still too late for an immediate emergency. That's why you own a gun.

Fact is the vast majority of the arsonists and looters are going to get absolutely zero consequences.

- - - - - - - -

And I am saying that property for a small business owner is pretty close to their life. 

If that life is an arsonist, and the property is the sole income and means to house and feed the owner's family, then no, no it's really not more important.

[*bfine32*]

I know the best way to avoid getting shot while breaking in and destroying someone's livelihood and it's NOT taking the gun out of the owners hand.

[GMDino]

(06-03-2020, 09:58 AM)masonbengals fan Wrote: IMHO Arsonist give up their right to life when they bring molotov cocktails into my place of business. And no that wouldn't be a easy decision. The guilt of killing anyone would be overwhelming. Knowing you would have to answer for it when your time comes.

So you are against trials and jail and are for immediate executions?

That's interesting.

Any other crimes you feel we don't need a judicial system for?

[BmorePat87]

(06-03-2020, 09:58 AM)masonbengals fan Wrote: IMHO Arsonist give up their right to life when they bring molotov cocktails into my place of business. And no that wouldn't be a easy decision. The guilt of killing anyone would be overwhelming. Knowing you would have to answer for it when your time comes.

But in this scenario, they’ve brought a deadly weapon. That completely changes things. In that case, it’s no longer just a property crime, there’s the chance of homicide.

[*Nately120*]

Though many of us here lean left, I can't imagine anyone here is of the "make all guns illegal" democrat mindset you're looking to question. I'm a little curious where you get your information to decide what democrats want and/or stand for.

[Belsnickel]

(06-03-2020, 10:27 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: So then you do want the police to use the force needed to stop looting and arson and arrest those responsible? Because that'll mean violently pushing into and breaking up mobs.

Being bailed out means they can keep on burning things in the mean time, though. Congrats, the police arrested an arsonist but they got bailed out and now you have to catch them again while they keep burning shit. That sounds like a recipe for successfully stopping this.

That's assuming they're even caught in the first place to be arrested because there's large groups of people in masks everywhere. What's the actual odds they face any consequences for their arson? What is the lead they're going to go on? That it was a person in a black hoodie with a black mask? I'm sure that'll narrow it down quickly and lead to justice as they look at a crowd of thousands of people who match that description.

The US has 298 police per 100,000 citizens, which ranks 88th out of 145.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_number_of_police_officers
I can't find world Firefighter numbers, but DC for example has 25 Firefighters per 100,000 people and it takes quite a few Firefighters per fire.

Even if they used force, the police simply don't have the numbers to arrest and criminally charge all the looters and arsonists, and put out all of the fires. This is just a front-and-center example of what rural people have already known. Police are often too spread out to instantly be of help. Often the fastest they can get there is still too late for an immediate emergency. That's why you own a gun.

Fact is the vast majority of the arsonists and looters are going to get absolutely zero consequences.

None of this justifies deadly force for a property crime.

(06-03-2020, 10:27 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: And I am saying that property for a small business owner is pretty close to their life. 

If that life is an arsonist, and the property is the sole income and means to house and feed the owner's family, then no, no it's really not more important.

Yes, it still is. Property can be replaced, even if it creates a hardship for someone. That hardship period will be temporary until insurance kicks in or what have you. Loss of life is permanent and irreversible.

[BmorePat87]

(06-03-2020, 02:35 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Though many of us here lean left, I can't imagine anyone here is of the "make all guns illegal" democrat mindset you're looking to question.  I'm a little curious where you get your information to decide what democrats want and/or stand for.

The same source that feeds the narrative that all of the protests are violent riots. Social media creates a bubble of misinformation for many.