571
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2023
571 points (94.3% liked)
politics
19120 readers
2221 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Finally a somewhat intelligent comment that isn't just restating a talking point.
You're (understandably) conflating as one position what is actually two
I think in general it should be legal to use deadly force to defend major property. IE I don't think it should be legal to shoot someone for stealing a pack of gum, but I think in many cases it should be legal to shoot someone for stealing larger items that make up a person's livelihood. I take this position not because I think human life is worth less than tools or cars (I don't feel that way) but because if you take any other position, you have a situation where the lawful owner of said property is legally required to basically sit there and watch while a criminal steals their shit.
Police aren't always seconds away. In much of the USA, police are tens of minutes or hours away.
What should be legal is one half of the coin, the other half is what I as a gun owner want to actually do.
To make an extreme example- I'm a strong advocate of the 1st Amendment (free speech). I believe I should have the right to take off all my clothes, cover the bare minimum in duct tape and cardboard, and walk down public streets telling all passers-by that I am the reincarnation of Napoleon and they should join my new army and help take over the world.
But while I support the right to do that, while I'd strongly advocate for that right, I have no desire to do such a thing myself.
As a gun owner, I have no desire to kill anyone ever. The same is true of virtually all gun owners I know, both online and off. (The one notable exception is a slightly nutty friend of mine who ended up joining the military and volunteered to go fight in Iraq/Afghanistan). There is nothing in my car that's worth taking a life for- even if the perpetrator is a lowlife criminal.
But I also take that as my choice to make for myself. Millions of gun owners would make the same choice- go on any gun forum or subreddit that deals with such things and you'll find few if any people suggesting that just shooting a guy who's stealing your unoccupied car is a good plan.
Does that make sense?
Thanks for the reply. It makes sense, though I would jump off at a different point from you. I tend to feel that if it comes to life vs property, even the life of a robber who is making others miserable and afraid, life generally wins no matter what the property is. That is, I don't myself feel like it is ever worth taking a life to preserve property, and I hope that if I found myself in the situation of being robbed of something dear to me, I would be able to let the property go and the robber live, painful though it would be. But I also don't believe ethical questions can arrive at a final answer. There's too much nuance in every situation so I wouldn't propose this as "the right answer". It's just how I currently feel on the matter. Another aspect of this view is that while I wouldn't condemn in advance anyone who shoots in such a situation, I'd understand it better if they were afraid for themselves rather than just for their property.
Thankfully I'm not a legislator so I don't need to try to codify this into law, and I appreciate your position, which seems that be that although you probably wouldn't yourself shoot in this situation, you don't think others should be branded criminals for doing so. I don't want to pronounce on that matter, but just to observe that your position is probably more common in the USA than in, for example, many European countries, hence it seeming unusual to many of us non-Americans.
And that is my position exactly.
Go on various self-defense subreddits or online forums, like /r/CCW, and you'll find a very similar attitude. There will be a couple who'd say 'shoot the thief' but the overwhelming majority take the position of 'you shoot to stop the threat, in self defense, only when necessary' and many would even take the position that it's a 'bad shoot' to shoot someone just breaking into a car. Confront them maybe, shoot them if they move to attack, but don't just shoot the guy in the back as he's stealing your MacBook.
The other issue is- while I'm not a legislator, I am a citizen of a representative democracy. So in a sense, it is my job to write the law, or at least, to make educated choices in what laws and policies I advocate for and against.
To that end, anyone making any law must consider that there will be times it backfires, doesn't apply correctly, etc. And whenever that happens, I'd always rather err on the side of giving the citizen defending themself or their property more leeway than providing additional protections to a criminal who's engaged in clearly illegal acts against said citizen (which necessarily means punishments for the citizen defending against said criminal).