Question For Democrats On Gun Control

[Belsnickel]

(06-03-2020, 02:48 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The same source that feeds the narrative that all of the protests are violent riots. Social media creates a bubble of misinformation for many. 

It's not just social media; it's corporate media as well. They focus on the sensational stories to drive clicks and ad revenue. This creates the false idea that what is going on in most places are these riots and looting instead of peaceful protests.

[Truck_1_0_1_]

(06-03-2020, 03:34 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: 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?

As a non-American, all I can say is, "when the **** did it devolve into this?"

Montreal Riots, London Riots, etc.; these are places where guns are not allowed.

You think ANY of them, were fearing for their lives because, "they didn't have a gun to protect them?"

This is a question that shouldn't even be asked, as the US is so ass-backwards with their goddamn gun laws and hasn't caught up with the rest of the world.

Ugh...

[*Nately120*]

(06-03-2020, 02:51 PM)Truck_1_0_1_ Wrote: As a non-American, all I can say is, "when the **** did it devolve into this?"

Montreal Riots, London Riots, etc.; these are places where guns are not allowed.

You think ANY of them, were fearing for their lives because, "they didn't have a gun to protect them?"

This is a question that shouldn't even be asked, as the US is so ass-backwards with their goddamn gun laws and hasn't caught up with the rest of the world.

Ugh...

Americans seem overly preoccupied with the notion that sooner or later someone is going to put you in a situation where you have to shoot them.  Perhaps we've seen too many movies where the hero doesn't just kill people willy-nilly, the hero is put in a position where he HAS to shoot and kill people because they are making him do it.

We kinda want to shoot people but we want to be able to do it in a manner which doesn't conflict with our notion that we are a good person, ergo we picture ourselves as the leading man in an action movie where evil faceless henchmen show up and force us to defend ourselves.  I mean, I support a person's right to self-defense, but Americans (due to our zeal for jingoistic rhetoric, perhaps) have intertwined offense and defense.

Are we looking for a reason to defend ourselves?  Possibly.  That's just my take.  

[fredtoast]

Lot of people here don't know the law. If the owner is inside a locked business when people break in he is usually considered justified in killing them.

If someone tries to set a building or car on fire and you are inside then you are usually justified in killing that person.

If a person is runing away with your property you can't shoot him.

[Belsnickel]

(06-03-2020, 03:08 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Lot of people here don't know the law. If the owner is inside a locked business when people break in he is usually considered justified in killing them.

If someone tries to set a building or car on fire and you are inside then you are usually justified in killing that person.

If a person is runing away with your property you can't shoot him.

I'm aware of the laws on these sorts of things. As a CCP holder I had to take a course on these things and I try to stay current on them as best as possible. However, what is legal is and what is moral/ethical are two different things.

[*Nately120*]

(06-03-2020, 03:08 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Lot of people here don't know the law. If the owner is inside a locked business when people break in he is usually considered justified in killing them.  

If someone tries to set a building or car on fire and you are inside then you are usually justified in killing that person.

If a person is runing away with your property you can't shoot him.

I recall reading a few years ago a woman in the parking lot of a Home Depot or Lowes opening fire at a guy in a vehicle driving away who had stolen stuff from the store.  She was completely shocked why she wasn't being lauded as a would-be hero by opening fire in a public space. I believe her quote was "From now on I'm never going to try to help anyone again."

Around that same time a buddy and I were in line at a Home Depot getting something and a guy ran out the door with some merchandise and my buddy was carrying and had a permit and he sort of shrugged and said he wasn't going to a shoot a man in the back over something the store had insurance to cover.

We just have this romanticized hero fantasy about being forced to save the day through some sort of sharpshooting and/or martial arts we don't actually know.  

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(06-03-2020, 02:43 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: None of this justifies deadly force for a property crime.


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.

Assuming they have insurance, or that they have the right type of insurance, or that the insurance company doesn't try to avoid paying, or that the insurance company doesn't delay paying. Ask Katrina victims how quickly and well their life rebounded back to normal thanks to insurance.

Why should an innocent law abiding citizen have their life ruined because some asshole wants to burn and loot their life's work and livelihood while the arsonist's safety is paramount?

If we're talking about arsonists, "loss" isn't the word I would use to describe it. Your idea of a world where we should protect arsonists from innocent victims is F'd up, man. 

You know how you can REALLY value and protect life? Don't loot and burn down people's buildings in the first place. The arsonists and looters don't get shit, and innocent people don't have their lives ruined. That sounds like by far the easiest and best method. A real win-win. Until they choose that, I will choose to back the path where the violent criminal suffers and the innocent person doesn't because that's the only logical and moral choice.

[Benton]

(06-03-2020, 03:40 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Assuming they have insurance, or that they have the right type of insurance, or that the insurance company doesn't try to avoid paying, or that the insurance company doesn't delay paying. Ask Katrina victims how quickly and well their life rebounded back to normal thanks to insurance.

Why should an innocent law abiding citizen have their life ruined because some asshole wants to burn and loot their life's work and livelihood while the arsonist's safety is paramount?

For me, it's a religious belief. Life is sacred.  Not one piece of property on this earth is worth a life. 

[*Nately120*]

(06-03-2020, 03:40 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Assuming they have insurance, or that they have the right type of insurance, or that the insurance company doesn't try to avoid paying, or that the insurance company doesn't delay paying. Ask Katrina victims how quickly and well their life rebounded back to normal thanks to insurance.

Why should an innocent law abiding citizen have their life ruined because some asshole wants to burn and loot their life's work and livelihood while the arsonist's safety is paramount?

If we're talking about arsonists, "loss" isn't the word I would use to describe it. Your idea of a world where we should protect arsonists from innocent victims is F'd up, man. 

You know how you can REALLY value and protect life? Don't loot and burn down people's buildings in the first place. The arsonists and looters don't get shit, and innocent people don't have their lives ruined. That sounds like by far the easiest and best method. A real win-win. Until they choose that, I will choose to back the path where the violent criminal suffers and the innocent person doesn't because that's the only logical and moral choice.

THese are good points, but insurance companies who knowingly weasel out of paying when they are on the hook are also thieves who destroy people's businesses and livelihoods.  If your insurance doesn't cover theft or arson you aren't going to shoot your insurance agent for stealing from you too, are you?

Though I can't imagine insurance agents are too popular these days.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(06-03-2020, 03:52 PM)Benton Wrote: For me, it's a religious belief. Life is sacred.  Not one piece of property on this earth is worth a life. 

And that's fair, you're welcome to it as is your right. Are you also staunchly anti-abortion?

I'm not particularly religious, but not sure I would consider myself atheist. Maybe a lukewarm agnostic?

Either way, if the looters and arsonists treated their OWN life as if it's sacred and if they believed that no piece of property in this earth was worth stealing and burning in exchange for their life, then there'd be no problem. They value ruining other people's lives more than preserving their own life, and I find it hard to agree with letting innocent people become victims because of it.


- - - - - - - -

EDIT: I'm a little out of my depth on religious talk, but didn't the Old Testament have quite a few things where death was the punishment?

[*Nately120*]

(06-03-2020, 04:03 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: EDIT: I'm a little out of my depth on religious talk, but didn't the Old Testament have quite a few things where death was the punishment?

According to the old testament the law was justified in killing you for all sorts of stuff and god was justified in killing you for doing nothing more than existing.

[Belsnickel]

(06-03-2020, 03:40 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Assuming they have insurance, or that they have the right type of insurance, or that the insurance company doesn't try to avoid paying, or that the insurance company doesn't delay paying. Ask Katrina victims how quickly and well their life rebounded back to normal thanks to insurance.

That's because insurance companies are ******. That's on our capitalist system, though. Take it up with them

(06-03-2020, 03:40 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Why should an innocent law abiding citizen have their life ruined because some asshole wants to burn and loot their life's work and livelihood while the arsonist's safety is paramount?

No one should have their life ruined. You act like I have some sympathy towards arsonists when in reality I am just someone that values human life over property.

(06-03-2020, 03:40 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: If we're talking about arsonists, "loss" isn't the word I would use to describe it. Your idea of a world where we should protect arsonists from innocent victims is F'd up, man. 

I think the right to life is an inalienable right that should be defended. I think the circumstances in which someone can legally take the life of another should be very, very limited. Property crimes do not fall in that category.

(06-03-2020, 03:40 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: You know how you can REALLY value and protect life? Don't loot and burn down people's buildings in the first place. The arsonists and looters don't get shit, and innocent people don't have their lives ruined. That sounds like by far the easiest and best method. A real win-win. Until they choose that, I will choose to back the path where the violent criminal suffers and the innocent person doesn't because that's the only logical and moral choice.

I don't disagree with the first part, but here is the problem. You are saying "violent criminal" when I am talking specifically about property crimes. Property crimes are not violent crimes. A violent crime, where someone puts the life of another in danger, can and should be met with self-defense. But I am not talking about violent criminals, I am strictly talking about disagreeing with the use of deadly force to protect against people committing property crimes.

[fredtoast]

(06-03-2020, 03:22 PM)Belsnickel Wrote:  However, what is legal is and what is moral/ethical are two different things.

If you are inside a locked business or residence and someone breaks in then there is nothing immoral about shooting that person.  People who break into occupied dwellings or businesses are assumed to be a threat.

There are certain gray areas, like if a person is inside a business with all the lights out laying in wait to kill someone that may not be a justified shooting, but if you break into  place and you know, or should know, someone is in there then you are taking the risk of getting killed.

You can't shoot people for running away with your property, but you can shoot them fro breaking in on you.

[BmorePat87]

(06-03-2020, 02:49 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It's not just social media; it's corporate media as well. They focus on the sensational stories to drive clicks and ad revenue. This creates the false idea that what is going on in most places are these riots and looting instead of peaceful protests.

Absolutely. My coworker shared an image of the top clicks on Facebook regarding the protests. The sources were:

1. Franklin Graham
2. CNN
3. Ben Shapiro
4. Fox
5. Fox
6. Fox
7. Robert Reich
8. AARP
9. ForAmerica
10. Blue Lives Matter

[Stonyhands]

(06-03-2020, 10:49 AM)GMDino Wrote: 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?

Yes, how about attempted murder while it’s being committed? Somebody is attempting to harm my loved ones or my life they are getting put down, or as you call it immediate execution.

If an arsonist is chucking a Molotov cocktail at a police officer, that officer has every right to defend his life. If the officer is witnessing somebody throwing a Molotov cocktail at another person or group of people, the officer has the responsibility of putting that person down if it will save lives.
No, I do not believe the officer has the right or anybody for that matter to kill/execute another person over property.

However, if you are defending your property/livelihood and your life is then put in danger I believe you have every right to defend yourself by any means necessary.

For example...there’s a nice video where business owners came out of their business to stop rioters/looters from breaking into their store...the rioters then beat the unarmed man and woman with 2x4s. Are you saying the man and woman have no right to defend themselves at that point. If either the man or woman were packing should they be charged if they were to pull their firearm and start shooting after they are being attacked?

[*bfine32*]

Yeah, folks shouldn't be allowed to protect their property with firearms:

https://www.stltoday.com/news/state-and-regional/missouri/widow-retired-police-captain-died-protecting-friends-store/article_f1b2333b-41e3-5afc-a427-4ced84a00c1d.html

Quote:A retired police captain who died during a night of violent protests was trying to protect his friend's pawn shop, his widow said.

David Dorn's last moments were caught on video and apparently posted on Facebook Live, though the video has since been taken down. He was killed by people who had broken into Lee’s Pawn & Jewelry, and his body found on the sidewalk at about 2:30 a.m. Tuesday. No arrests have been made.

GTFO

[*Nately120*]

(06-03-2020, 07:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yeah, folks shouldn't be allowed to protect their property with firearms:

https://www.stltoday.com/news/state-and-regional/missouri/widow-retired-police-captain-died-protecting-friends-store/article_f1b2333b-41e3-5afc-a427-4ced84a00c1d.html


GTFO

I'll admit I'm not following this thread very closely, but how many people here believe we should have no right to protect ourselves from people trying to kill us?

[GMDino]

I don't think a single person said someone could not/should not defend their own life.  It was clearly stated that loss of property isn't worth killing someone over.  

We do still have laws.  In fact I've the phrase "law and order" more in the last three days than during advertisements for a marathon of the Law & Order show.  

The argument *I* am making is that the concept of a citizen killing someone because they broke the law, even if it's against their own property, is what many would call a "slippery slope" toward actual anarchy.

Would you also have supported someone shooting the officer who choked Mr. Floyd to death?  There were plenty of people standing around watching and yelling.  Had one decided to save Mr Floyd by shooting the officer what then?  Can the other police officers shoot THAT person for shooting the first?  Then what?  Shoot out in the street?

I'd bet someone else's salary that people want the officer to have a trial...even though there is a video of the death and lots of witnesses.

[*Nately120*]

(06-03-2020, 07:12 PM)GMDino Wrote: I don't think a single person said someone could not/should not defend their own life.  It was clearly stated that loss of property isn't worth killing someone over.  

To each his own, but when I look at this situation I think it's more important to say that loss of property isn't worth dying over.  I honestly can't grasp how we as a society understand that running back into a burning building to grab your TV is stupid and insane but we find the idea of fighting to the death to protect property to be so heroic.

I'm not saying what is right or wrong, I'm just saying that I look at these situations and think that things just don't add up in my warped mind.


It's just talk but if I'm out of town and I get a call that one of my friends or family members died because he/she saw someone breaking into my house and got killed trying to protect my "stuff" I'd be upset for all sorts of reasons.  Maybe I just don't have enough awesome stuff? I don't mean for this to sound like victim shaming, but geez. Dying to protect stuff is like running back into a burning building, getting sucked up by a tornado because you're too busy trying to film it to take cover, and possibly attempting to molest a grizzly bear because you want to light up Tik Tok.

[Stonyhands]

(06-03-2020, 07:12 PM)GMDino Wrote: I don't think a single person said someone could not/should not defend their own life.  It was clearly stated that loss of property isn't worth killing someone over.  

We do still have laws.  In fact I've the phrase "law and order" more in the last three days than during advertisements for a marathon of the Law & Order show.  

The argument *I* am making is that the concept of a citizen killing someone because they broke the law, even if it's against their own property, is what many would call a "slippery slope" toward actual anarchy.

Would you also have supported someone shooting the officer who choked Mr. Floyd to death?  There were plenty of people standing around watching and yelling.  Had one decided to save Mr Floyd by shooting the officer what then?  Can the other police officers shoot THAT person for shooting the first?  Then what?  Shoot out in the street?

I'd bet someone else's salary that people want the officer to have a trial...even though there is a video of the death and lots of witnesses.

Who is making the argument for a citizen being able to kill someone for because the law was broken over their property? Nobody is saying they have the right to kill anybody because someone damaged their property. You are saying that’s what others are arguing...only because it fits your argument.

Everyone I see posting says they have the right to defend their property. If in the course of defending their property the looter/rioter decides to threaten that person’s life, they now have the right to defend their life any means possible.