5 ms·

Agreed, and at the risk of saying something inflammatory, it really grinds my gears when I hear people argue against lethal defense of property with comments al

Agreed, and at the risk of saying something inflammatory, it really grinds my gears when I hear people argue against lethal defense of property with comments along the lines of, "Is your X really worth more than someone's life?", as if the moral and ethical burden should fall on the victim and not the aggressor. Property and ownings aren't free, you often cannot replace them without cost or replace them at all if they are sentimental. The money I spent to buy them, and the money I will spend to replace them, did not come from nowhere, that represents time wasted out of my life, that I will never get back. In a sense someone stealing something from you is not just about the material value of what was stolen but the transfer of all the hours of your life you wasted to afford it to someone who didn't. In an abstract sense it is an indirect assault on your lifespan. The real question to thieves should be, is YOUR life less valuable to you than my possessions?

ajkjk 3y ago
Well, I mostly agree although I think lethal force is often not in the 'within reason' clause of my stance. Depends on the circumstances but Americans love to jump to talking about lethal force way too fast and it's creepy. Not to mention that it results in, well, a lot of death. But it is really more than just the hours it took, or sentimental value. It is also the coherence of the worldview that "one's stuff is theirs and they'll get to keep it and the world will agree". That worldview in its own has value: it causes things to make moral sense; it's necessary for our lives to function. I would not allow it to be compromised without a defense.
- ultimafan 3y ago
  >Well, I mostly agree although I think lethal force is often not in the 'within reason' clause of my stance. For sure, there definitely are situations in which case it would be absurd to try to justify as within reason. But I would say burglaries, home invasions, muggings, carjackings or any theft that has an implication of violence towards the victim and the like squarely fall into the "within reason" category regardless of the actual amount attempted to be stolen. >Depends on the circumstances but Americans love to jump to talking about lethal force way too fast and it's creepy. Not to mention that it results in, well, a lot of death. I know what you mean, but I think this comes about as a result of Americans being one of the few peoples in the world in the unique position where they have the right to do something about it, and many of them are afraid of this right being curbed or taken away. There are not many countries where your average everyman can just walk into a store to buy a weapon that would actually be reasonable to use in a self defense scenario without harming yourself and then use them to legally protect themselves, their families, their properties. And those are rights sadly that many people in the US campaign against even knowing that once they are gone they are not likely to get them back. In other countries, people do not bring up such topics because they know the reality of having such rights in the future are more or less an impossibility.
  - zwirbl 3y ago
    Or people in other countries are actually glad that the risk of being shot are minimal while still being safe
    - ultimafan 3y ago
      Crime exists everywhere on different scales. The genie is out of the bottle so to speak in the US, so gun control on a scale that brings America in line with other countries while also keeping citizen's rights and safety intact is imho not so much possible anymore. Does not feel like there is a good black and white answer to that, I would say the risk of being shot while not committing crimes is quite minimal in the US as well.
      - wisemang 3y ago
        You might say that but it is certainly incorrect compared to other countries. Have a look at mass shooting statistics across countries just as one example. Those victims are not committing crimes.
      - ponector 3y ago
        You could easily find news about a lot of cases when a child shot on playground in US. That is impossible in EU.
  - Obscurity4340 3y ago
    Its weirdly almost on the level of a fetish for some of them in the sense they crave and fantasize about coming out guns a'blazing. You can hear it in their voice, see it in their eyes, and their body language completely radiates their contempt for any world where they are not the main character killing "bad guys"
  - paulryanrogers 3y ago
    > ...a weapon that would actually be reasonable to use in a self defense scenario without harming yourself... Such a tired narrative. Guns are far more likely to kill oneself or a loved one in an accident or suicide than to stop an attacker or robber. If one must rely on such a device for defense then the state has already failed spectacularly. Fixing such situation with guns, or bigger cars, or moving away won't make things better. In fact it entrenches the problems.
- valianteffort 3y ago
  The notion that a thief would have to pay for their crimes with their life, either because anyone could be armed and its legal to protect your property with lethal force, or the government would punish repeated theft with death, I think would be enough to deter most people from doing so. It's the fact that a jail/prison sentence is meaningless to most criminals (if they're even sent there), that we have such rampant crime. Just look at any country that has strict laws, and serious punishment like Singapore, Japan, South Korea. They enjoy unparalleled safety in their cities.
  - Epa095 3y ago
    I agree that the immediate risk of death would probably influence it a bit. On the other hand, it's pretty clear that there is not a strong negative correlation between "risk of death" and "crime rate" in the world, just think about south America (high death risk and high crime) and the Nordic countries (low death risk low crime). I also strongly disagree with the statement "It's the fact that a jail/prison sentence is meaningless to most criminals (if they're even sent there), that we have such rampant crime.". Again, compare prison sentences in the USA with e.g Norway, then compare their recidivism rates. There are many many factors that play into crime rate (poverty, education, and recidivism being important ones), reducing it to 'our prisons are too nice' is way too simple.
    - qwytw 3y ago
      > (low death risk low crime). If you look at lower level crime (theft etc.) Western Europe and especially the Nordic countries are not doing that well. Sweden for instance has the highest levels of theft and burglary in the whole Europe by quite a margin. Not saying "too nice" prisons are too blame for this, there are certainly some more important factors (hint: recent immigration and failure to integrate second/third generation "immigrants" (couldn't find a better word to describe this group)).
  - qwytw 3y ago
    > They enjoy unparalleled safety in their cities. Plenty of countries/cities which don't are pretty safe too (e.g. Eastern Europe these days)
wahnfrieden 3y ago
The largest category of property theft in the US is wage theft. Are workers justified to use threat of lethal force to regain stolen wages from their employers?
- droopyEyelids 3y ago
  Leaving aside the question of justification, one of the mysteries of life in the United States is that with so much gun violence there is so little of what you describe.
  - kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 3y ago
    That becomes less of a mystery when you look at the gun violence details. A significant chunk is self-inflicted, and another significant chunk is gang related. Remove those and that leaves a surprisingly small amount of gun violence when you consider there are 1.5 guns per American.
  - nradov 3y ago
    In the vast majority of cases when people use guns to prevent theft, no shots are fired. Usually brandishing a weapon is sufficient. These incidents happen all the time, yet they don't appear in any official statistics.
- ultimafan 3y ago
  Wage theft is abhorrent but does not have the implication of violence behind it, so I would say no, take it to the law and go work somewhere else. It's a far cry from knowing a stranger has broken into your house and violated one of the few sanctuaries you have and potentially put your family at risk, and left behind the trauma of family members never feeling safe in that home again (and that is something I can tell you from experience). You do not know what he is thinking or what his motivations are. You do not know how he will react to your presence or to the presence of your family, but you do know for him to have broken in he is not in the right state of mind and his reasoning skills have issues.
  - 3y ago
i8comments 3y ago
Lethal force is only to be used in self defense, when your life is truly threatened and you truly have no other way of stopping them.
- ultimafan 3y ago
  I don't know the context in which you mean that, so maybe I am misunderstanding you. But in my eyes someone who has chosen to commit theft on your property is already showing enough of a blatant disregard for social norms and the safety of you or your family that your life would be considered threatened. It's not possible to know their intentions or motivation and I wouldn't pass judgement on someone who chose lethal force in that kind of situation.
  - jemfinch 3y ago
    For what it's worth, the only state in the United States which agrees with your philosophy is Texas. Every other state requires an imminent threat of death or grave bodily harm to justify the use of lethal force. (And honestly, Texas only holds that position because of its huge size and ranching background, where cattle rustling stood a major risk to the state's economy.)
- balderdash 3y ago
  100% agree - but I think that extends to when your life was threatened in defense of your property
Obscurity4340 3y ago
I hate that argument too because it very callously disregards the assymetry of intention and information when in fact you almost can't responsibly assume its anything other than life or death. Its so very easy for the barristers perched up in their High Courts to dictate homilies while after the fact of someone trying to kill you and they don't want to put them back in prison or get the press hounding them due to statistical irrelevancies although that should not be totally ignored in other more appropriate forums for such civil discussion
okasaki 3y ago
Unfortunately, ultimafan, we can't just kill people for wasting our time.
chmod600 3y ago
TR went to significant risk and effort to retrieve his boat and see that the thieves were jailed. It would have been much easier - expected, even - that he would have just shot them dead. Of course not everyone is TR. He is a high moral standard to live up to, and he was also a lot stronger than most then and certainly most today.

ajkjk 3y ago

Well, I mostly agree although I think lethal force is often not in the 'within reason' clause of my stance. Depends on the circumstances but Americans love to jump to talking about lethal force way too fast and it's creepy. Not to mention that it results in, well, a lot of death. But it is really more than just the hours it took, or sentimental value. It is also the coherence of the worldview that "one's stuff is theirs and they'll get to keep it and the world will agree". That worldview in its own has value: it causes things to make moral sense; it's necessary for our lives to function. I would not allow it to be compromised without a defense.

ultimafan 3y ago
>Well, I mostly agree although I think lethal force is often not in the 'within reason' clause of my stance. For sure, there definitely are situations in which case it would be absurd to try to justify as within reason. But I would say burglaries, home invasions, muggings, carjackings or any theft that has an implication of violence towards the victim and the like squarely fall into the "within reason" category regardless of the actual amount attempted to be stolen. >Depends on the circumstances but Americans love to jump to talking about lethal force way too fast and it's creepy. Not to mention that it results in, well, a lot of death. I know what you mean, but I think this comes about as a result of Americans being one of the few peoples in the world in the unique position where they have the right to do something about it, and many of them are afraid of this right being curbed or taken away. There are not many countries where your average everyman can just walk into a store to buy a weapon that would actually be reasonable to use in a self defense scenario without harming yourself and then use them to legally protect themselves, their families, their properties. And those are rights sadly that many people in the US campaign against even knowing that once they are gone they are not likely to get them back. In other countries, people do not bring up such topics because they know the reality of having such rights in the future are more or less an impossibility.
- zwirbl 3y ago
  Or people in other countries are actually glad that the risk of being shot are minimal while still being safe
  - ultimafan 3y ago
    Crime exists everywhere on different scales. The genie is out of the bottle so to speak in the US, so gun control on a scale that brings America in line with other countries while also keeping citizen's rights and safety intact is imho not so much possible anymore. Does not feel like there is a good black and white answer to that, I would say the risk of being shot while not committing crimes is quite minimal in the US as well.
    - wisemang 3y ago
      You might say that but it is certainly incorrect compared to other countries. Have a look at mass shooting statistics across countries just as one example. Those victims are not committing crimes.
    - ponector 3y ago
      You could easily find news about a lot of cases when a child shot on playground in US. That is impossible in EU.
- Obscurity4340 3y ago
  Its weirdly almost on the level of a fetish for some of them in the sense they crave and fantasize about coming out guns a'blazing. You can hear it in their voice, see it in their eyes, and their body language completely radiates their contempt for any world where they are not the main character killing "bad guys"
- paulryanrogers 3y ago
  > ...a weapon that would actually be reasonable to use in a self defense scenario without harming yourself... Such a tired narrative. Guns are far more likely to kill oneself or a loved one in an accident or suicide than to stop an attacker or robber. If one must rely on such a device for defense then the state has already failed spectacularly. Fixing such situation with guns, or bigger cars, or moving away won't make things better. In fact it entrenches the problems.
valianteffort 3y ago
The notion that a thief would have to pay for their crimes with their life, either because anyone could be armed and its legal to protect your property with lethal force, or the government would punish repeated theft with death, I think would be enough to deter most people from doing so. It's the fact that a jail/prison sentence is meaningless to most criminals (if they're even sent there), that we have such rampant crime. Just look at any country that has strict laws, and serious punishment like Singapore, Japan, South Korea. They enjoy unparalleled safety in their cities.
- Epa095 3y ago
  I agree that the immediate risk of death would probably influence it a bit. On the other hand, it's pretty clear that there is not a strong negative correlation between "risk of death" and "crime rate" in the world, just think about south America (high death risk and high crime) and the Nordic countries (low death risk low crime). I also strongly disagree with the statement "It's the fact that a jail/prison sentence is meaningless to most criminals (if they're even sent there), that we have such rampant crime.". Again, compare prison sentences in the USA with e.g Norway, then compare their recidivism rates. There are many many factors that play into crime rate (poverty, education, and recidivism being important ones), reducing it to 'our prisons are too nice' is way too simple.
  - qwytw 3y ago
    > (low death risk low crime). If you look at lower level crime (theft etc.) Western Europe and especially the Nordic countries are not doing that well. Sweden for instance has the highest levels of theft and burglary in the whole Europe by quite a margin. Not saying "too nice" prisons are too blame for this, there are certainly some more important factors (hint: recent immigration and failure to integrate second/third generation "immigrants" (couldn't find a better word to describe this group)).
- qwytw 3y ago
  > They enjoy unparalleled safety in their cities. Plenty of countries/cities which don't are pretty safe too (e.g. Eastern Europe these days)

wahnfrieden 3y ago

The largest category of property theft in the US is wage theft. Are workers justified to use threat of lethal force to regain stolen wages from their employers?

droopyEyelids 3y ago
Leaving aside the question of justification, one of the mysteries of life in the United States is that with so much gun violence there is so little of what you describe.
- kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 3y ago
  That becomes less of a mystery when you look at the gun violence details. A significant chunk is self-inflicted, and another significant chunk is gang related. Remove those and that leaves a surprisingly small amount of gun violence when you consider there are 1.5 guns per American.
- nradov 3y ago
  In the vast majority of cases when people use guns to prevent theft, no shots are fired. Usually brandishing a weapon is sufficient. These incidents happen all the time, yet they don't appear in any official statistics.
ultimafan 3y ago
Wage theft is abhorrent but does not have the implication of violence behind it, so I would say no, take it to the law and go work somewhere else. It's a far cry from knowing a stranger has broken into your house and violated one of the few sanctuaries you have and potentially put your family at risk, and left behind the trauma of family members never feeling safe in that home again (and that is something I can tell you from experience). You do not know what he is thinking or what his motivations are. You do not know how he will react to your presence or to the presence of your family, but you do know for him to have broken in he is not in the right state of mind and his reasoning skills have issues.
- 3y ago

i8comments 3y ago

Lethal force is only to be used in self defense, when your life is truly threatened and you truly have no other way of stopping them.

ultimafan 3y ago
I don't know the context in which you mean that, so maybe I am misunderstanding you. But in my eyes someone who has chosen to commit theft on your property is already showing enough of a blatant disregard for social norms and the safety of you or your family that your life would be considered threatened. It's not possible to know their intentions or motivation and I wouldn't pass judgement on someone who chose lethal force in that kind of situation.
- jemfinch 3y ago
  For what it's worth, the only state in the United States which agrees with your philosophy is Texas. Every other state requires an imminent threat of death or grave bodily harm to justify the use of lethal force. (And honestly, Texas only holds that position because of its huge size and ranching background, where cattle rustling stood a major risk to the state's economy.)
balderdash 3y ago
100% agree - but I think that extends to when your life was threatened in defense of your property

Obscurity4340 3y ago

I hate that argument too because it very callously disregards the assymetry of intention and information when in fact you almost can't responsibly assume its anything other than life or death. Its so very easy for the barristers perched up in their High Courts to dictate homilies while after the fact of someone trying to kill you and they don't want to put them back in prison or get the press hounding them due to statistical irrelevancies although that should not be totally ignored in other more appropriate forums for such civil discussion

okasaki 3y ago

Unfortunately, ultimafan, we can't just kill people for wasting our time.

chmod600 3y ago

TR went to significant risk and effort to retrieve his boat and see that the thieves were jailed. It would have been much easier - expected, even - that he would have just shot them dead. Of course not everyone is TR. He is a high moral standard to live up to, and he was also a lot stronger than most then and certainly most today.