3 ms·

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 j

by 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.
  - chmod600 3y ago
    "Guns are far more likely to kill oneself or a loved one in an accident or suicide than to stop an attacker or robber." Accident rates are really low[1], part of a 3% "Other" bucket for gun-involved deaths. Suicide is not commonly viewed as a threat to one's safety. You could try to look at it that way but I don't think it's very convincing as you presented it. So if your point is that guns are a net decrease to an individual's safety, you need something more. [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-...
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)

by ajkjk 3y ago

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.
- chmod600 3y ago
  "Guns are far more likely to kill oneself or a loved one in an accident or suicide than to stop an attacker or robber." Accident rates are really low[1], part of a 3% "Other" bucket for gun-involved deaths. Suicide is not commonly viewed as a threat to one's safety. You could try to look at it that way but I don't think it's very convincing as you presented it. So if your point is that guns are a net decrease to an individual's safety, you need something more. [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-...

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)