Question For Democrats On Gun Control

[*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.