Question For Democrats On Gun Control

[Belsnickel]

(06-03-2020, 07:34 PM)Stonyhands Wrote: 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.

If that was the case, then there wouldn't be an argument occurring. But some people have said that people should be able to defend their property with deadly force. It all started because I said no property is worth taking a life over, and then the argument went on. So yes, people are making the argument that people should be able to use deadly force for their property alone.

[Belsnickel]

(06-03-2020, 04:34 PM)fredtoast Wrote: 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.

Morality is subjective. From my point of view, even if I am in there and someone is breaking in, I'm not going to use deadly force unless they threaten me with a weapon, first. That is my morality. I don't consider the act of breaking in alone to be a threat to my person. This is where the law and morality differ in my book.

[*Nately120*]

(06-03-2020, 07:43 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Morality is subjective. From my point of view, even if I am in there and someone is breaking in, I'm not going to use deadly force unless they threaten me with a weapon, first. That is my morality. I don't consider the act of breaking in alone to be a threat to my person. This is where the law and morality differ in my book.

That's the way I see it.  I realize it's probably not too flattering to openly admit that I'd "surrender" in that case, but that's how I feel.  I will admit, without entirely joking, that there was a time I was so stressed out and miserable with my life that I may have actually be more than willing to attack and/or kill someone if I had the justifiable chance to do so but I've really done a lot to get my life and mind in order since then.

[Belsnickel]

(06-03-2020, 07:50 PM)Nately120 Wrote: That's the way I see it.  I realize it's probably not too flattering to openly admit that I'd "surrender" in that case, but that's how I feel.  I will admit, without entirely joking, that there was a time I was so stressed out and miserable with my life that I may have actually be more than willing to attack and/or kill someone if I had the justifiable chance to do so but I've really done a lot to get my life and mind in order since then.

I'm with you on that. It's just as simple, to me, as saying that I value human life more than any property. My property is not worth the loss of my life or the life of anyone else.

[grampahol]

There are such concepts as law and order. When anyone with a gun gets to arbitrarily decide life and death and kill anyone they might deem a threat it makes real law and order meaningless. That's essentially vigilantism when you get right down to it. Riots are rare events in the grand scheme of a civil society and you really can't decide to just waive the rule of law just because you might be afraid or you might lose some property. Many people lose property with little to no legal recourse, but that doesn't necessarily give them the right to kill. Suppose that you lose everything during a tornado. It wipes out your life savings and everything you ever worked for. You don't have the option to murder anyone you deem a threat. That doesn't excuse rioters and looters, but you're advocating for waiving the rule of law for essentially the same results.  
It seems many people seem to believe that they and they alone are the sole arbitors of what constitutes a lawful killing. 
If you truly believe that then try it out and take your chances in a criminal court of law. Chances are you'll end up with the rest of the criminals you're so eager to kill off. Prisons are full of people who thought they and they alone were the sole arbitors of law and order .
For the record I'm a life long Democratic voter and have never advocated for lawlessness. I am most definitely opposed to anarchy,  murder, looting and stealing in general. Where this idea that Democrats want all criminals running loose to terrorize everyone is just plain crazy. In fact I'd suggest that the vigilantes are the criminals trying to skirt the true rule of law. 

[*bfine32*]

(06-03-2020, 07:43 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Morality is subjective. From my point of view, even if I am in there and someone is breaking in, I'm not going to use deadly force unless they threaten me with a weapon, first. That is my morality. I don't consider the act of breaking in alone to be a threat to my person. This is where the law and morality differ in my book.

So you have to wait until they break in and then you further have to wait until they threaten you with deadly force before you'd consider eliminating the threat that broke into your home? Then suddenly, you're going to out deadly force them. 

Do you have a wife and/or kid in your home? 

[Belsnickel]

(06-03-2020, 08:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So you have to wait until they break in and then you further have to wait until they threaten you with deadly force before you'd consider eliminating the threat that broke into your home? Then suddenly, you're going to out deadly force them. 

Do you have a wife and/or kid in your home? 

I have a wife and my father-in-law. Were there to be a break-in, I would barricade in one room with a sidearm at the ready in case they came into the room and posed a threat.

[*bfine32*]

(06-03-2020, 07:40 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: If that was the case, then there wouldn't be an argument occurring. But some people have said that people should be able to defend their property with deadly force. It all started because I said no property is worth taking a life over, and then the argument went on. So yes, people are making the argument that people should be able to use deadly force for their property alone.

People are saying you should be able to defend yourself from someone who enters your property by force and threatens your livelihood. 

Not one person is saying you should exchange a life for a TV on Let's Make a Deal. 

[*bfine32*]

(06-03-2020, 08:26 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I have a wife and my father-in-law. Were there to be a break-in, I would barricade in one room with a sidearm at the ready in case they came into the room and posed a threat.

Would smashing the door and breaking into the room you were barricaded in be a threat? 

[*Nately120*]

(06-03-2020, 07:53 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm with you on that. It's just as simple, to me, as saying that I value human life more than any property. My property is not worth the loss of my life or the life of anyone else.

That and the idea that the moment I decide to introduce the threat of death to the intruder the stakes have raised for him as well and he may very well find himself in a position where he's suddenly having to put killing me on the to-do list, now.  So in short, my property isn't worth putting a desperate person into the most desperate state of them all where he feels the need to protect his own life against me taking it.  "I'm here to steal your TV."  "Oh yeah, well I'm going to kill you."  "Geez, ok well I guess I'm going to have to put the TV on hold and possibly kill YOU now."  

I have a friend and his old man owns a business and one of their employees was stealing from them and he was telling me how this guy carries a gun and they're going to confront him but it's ok because they have a revolver and there are two of them and he won't know why they're there to talk to him and I just said "Don't we pay the police to do stuff like this for us?"

Hats off to law enforcement or military personnel who willingly enter into dangerous situations (after buttloads of training, of course) but the layperson's assumed zeal for life and death situations is just based in fantasy.

(06-03-2020, 08:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: People are saying you should be able to defend yourself from someone who enters your property by force and threatens your livelihood. 

Not one person is saying you should exchange a life for a TV on Let's Make a Deal. 

I'm glad we agree, but I think there is also evidence that there are plenty of people in this country who think opening fire and killing someone who isn't threatening your life is justifiable.  I'd wager a lot of what is going on now is due to people thinking being a black male is dangerous enough to warrant the threat of lethal force.  

[*bfine32*]

(06-03-2020, 08:47 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I'm glad we agree, but I think there is also evidence that there are plenty of people in this country who think opening fire and killing someone who isn't threatening your life is justifiable.  I'd wager a lot of what is going on now is due to people thinking being a black male is dangerous enough to warrant the threat of lethal force.  

What is your standard for not threatening your life?

[Benton]

(06-03-2020, 04:03 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: 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?

To the first question, I'm mixed on the issue. I don't agree with abortions for abortion sake. But in the instance where the mother is in danger, rape or incest, or of the child won't make it to term, that's up to the mother and her physicians. I'm glad I'll never have to consider any of those.

To the edit: it did. Part of Christianity was Christ doing away with the old laws, so stoning a woman for adultery wasn't a thing any more. You could also eat shellfish. People rejoiced.

The problem now (and since Christ's time really) is people still want to pick and choose. They want to use the nt to justify wearing polyester and the ot for condemning gays. Kind of a 'love your cake but hate it too' situation.

[*Nately120*]

(06-03-2020, 08:58 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What is the liberal standard for not threatening your life?

I don't know, I've been a registered "throwing away my vote" my whole adult life.  I'm pretty sure most liberal white people are a lot more afraid of minorities than they let on.

EDIT - Ok, you changed it to my standard. And the answer is that I don't know. I personally recognize that people who are put in situations where they must make life or death decisions aren't infallible despite rigorous training. So I don't KNOW what I'd do, unlike a lot of people who are supremely confident that they'd wipe the floor with any intruder and feel awesome for doing so.

Honestly, the scenario that someone comes into my home with the mindset that he/she is very willing to kill me is right up there in likelihood of what I'd do if I won the lottery or which supermodel I'd most want to sleep with. And that gets back to my original point about Americans...we spend an inordinate amount of time thinking about life or death situations with evil strangers that almost never happen. Meanwhile we drive too fast, eat too many trans fats, and don't own fire extinguishers or learn CPR.

Easy answers are for the moves and television...oh and political talking points.

[BmorePat87]

(06-03-2020, 07:34 PM)Stonyhands Wrote: 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.

Myself and Matt stated that property isn’t worth more than a life (either the victim or the criminal) and Leonard then responded to Matt by saying “that property is their life”, which seemingly suggests he believes one should be able to use deadly force to protect property.

The two then went on for a while over whether or not property crimes justify a life, with Leonard oddly stating that Matt doesn’t want the police to ever use force when arresting people who commit property crimes.

I think it’s safe to say that everyone agrees that people have the right to defend themselves and their property, some people just don’t think property is worth losing or taking a life over.

[*bfine32*]

(06-03-2020, 09:00 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I don't know, I've been a registered "throwing away my vote" my whole adult life.  I'm pretty sure most liberal white people are a lot more afraid of minorities than they let on.

EDIT - Ok, you changed it to my standard.  And the answer is that I don't know.  I personally recognize that people who are put in situations where they must make life or death decisions aren't infallible despite rigorous training.  So I don't KNOW what I'd do, unlike a lot of people who are supremely confident that they'd wipe the floor with any intruder and feel awesome for doing so.

Honestly, the scenario that someone comes into my home with the mindset that he/she is very willing to kill me is right up there in likelihood of what I'd do if I won the lottery or which supermodel I'd most want to sleep with.  And that gets back to my original point about Americans...we spend an inordinate amount of time thinking about life or death situations with evil strangers that almost never happen.  Meanwhile we drive too fast, eat too many trans fats, and don't own fire extinguishers or learn CPR.

Easy answers are for the moves and television...oh and political talking points.

Yeah, it seems I changed it as you were typing.

I personally think anyone who breaks into your residence, business, ect.. is willing to kill you; they've already shown a disregard for you and the law so you pick your lottery numbers tonight.

Of course there's folks out there that view themselves as Charles Bronson (Bruce Willis for the younger folks), but I'd say they are more rare than the person that breaks into your property who is willing to do what is required to complete his/her task.

I do appreciate your answer and I accuse many in here of participating in group think. I do not lump you in with those folks. I consider you more WTFthink.  

[*Nately120*]

(06-03-2020, 09:19 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I do appreciate your answer and I accuse many in here of participating in group think. I do not lump you in with those folks. I consider you more WTFthink.  

Well people rarely try to steal from the neighborhood whack job, and I've lived in enough slums to know how to look very "not worth the trouble" if nothing else.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(06-03-2020, 09:00 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I don't know, I've been a registered "throwing away my vote" my whole adult life.  I'm pretty sure most liberal white people are a lot more afraid of minorities than they let on.

EDIT - Ok, you changed it to my standard.  And the answer is that I don't know.  I personally recognize that people who are put in situations where they must make life or death decisions aren't infallible despite rigorous training.  So I don't KNOW what I'd do, unlike a lot of people who are supremely confident that they'd wipe the floor with any intruder and feel awesome for doing so.

Honestly, the scenario that someone comes into my home with the mindset that he/she is very willing to kill me is right up there in likelihood of what I'd do if I won the lottery or which supermodel I'd most want to sleep with.  And that gets back to my original point about Americans...we spend an inordinate amount of time thinking about life or death situations with evil strangers that almost never happen.  Meanwhile we drive too fast, eat too many trans fats, and don't own fire extinguishers or learn CPR.

Easy answers are for the moves and television...oh and political talking points.

I'm sure there was a woman who agreed with you assessment of the likelihood before some 6'6 guy named George Floyd broke into her home and shoved a gun into her stomach as he and 5 other men robbed her.

(The police officer still murdered him, and should be found guilty and go to jail, I just thought it was interesting you mentioned how unlikely it was when the front-and-center name for these riots is a guy who literally did just that.)

[*Nately120*]

(06-03-2020, 10:27 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I'm sure there was a woman who agreed with you assessment of the likelihood before some 6'6 guy named George Floyd broke into her home and shoved a gun into her stomach as he and 5 other men robbed her.

(The police officer still murdered him, and should be found guilty and go to jail, I just thought it was interesting you mentioned how unlikely it was when the front-and-center name for these riots is a guy who literally did just that.)

Hey, I'll never say guns don't come in handy but unless you think she should have tried to shoot all 6 of them I don't see what would have changed.  She's alive isn't she?  I don't see how getting gunned down in her own home would have fixed things, but I hear people tell me it's the path they're willing to take. I've never been in that situation though so maybe it's like that William Wallace speech where if you don't fight you'll live the rest of your days wishing you could go back and put your life on the line in that moment. 

My point is that Americans spend a lot of time sitting around picturing themselves springing to action and gunning down baddies rather than picturing themselves opening fire and ending up dead themselves.

[CarolinaBengalFanGuy]

(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.

You know I don't agree with a lot of stuff you've said in this thread, but I am glad to see people realize how hard the media drives this shit and it only causes more division and anger.

[Belsnickel]

(06-03-2020, 08:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Would smashing the door and breaking into the room you were barricaded in be a threat? 

Depends. Do they have a weapon in hand? Do they back away from the doorway when they see a .357 magnum pointed at their face? If they were unarmed doing that and/or did not advance after seeing me, then they will walk away unscathed by my hand.