Submitted by jonwilliamsl t3_zfe780 in washingtondc
innovationcynic t1_izc7zv8 wrote
Makes one almost wish for a law and order mayor and stand your ground laws in DC….
capsfanforever t1_izcoocj wrote
You would shoot someone over petty theft?
innovationcynic t1_izdyr9z wrote
No, but I would shoot someone who threatened me or my family in a heartbeat.
freshOJ t1_ize9148 wrote
All threats? What if I threaten you with a good time?
innovationcynic t1_izeb5b6 wrote
then we'd do shots.
​
duh.
ponderingaresponse t1_izcpsth wrote
You are right, but that's also a false simplification.
capsfanforever t1_izcqlem wrote
It’s deductive reasoning to suppose that someone wishing for a law deeming it allowable to defend your home with a gun, would be itching to utilize said law. Especially in the context of their comment. I don’t see this as a simplification, but a reasonable inference
Edit: deeming, not seeming
ponderingaresponse t1_ize2mo5 wrote
You aren't wrong that the itch to have/use a gun will increase gun violence.
At the same time, there is an immutable primitive need to defend one's nest against having it invaded and/or compromised. Where to draw the line on that defense? How does one know the intent of a trespasser? What forms of defense are allowable? How to sort all this out in a few seconds of fight/flight intensity? What weapons are acceptable?
capsfanforever t1_izf2smb wrote
It’s acceptable to defend your life by any means necessary, but we’re talking about an Amazon package in this case.
UnnecessaryBiscotti t1_izep9hp wrote
To be fair, speaking as a woman, I do not own a gun and would never want to use one, but I can understand feeling unsafe and physically unmatched in one’s home when dealing with criminals. That’s even before they pull a gun on you. I think it’s clearly a bandaid solution if anything, but I don’t think all people who’d like to be able to defend themselves from harm are overly violent men trying to play Wild West. This country (and many other but particularly the US) is very scary for women. I can empathize with wanting something to equalize physical differences that could result in their death.
capsfanforever t1_izf2y68 wrote
Your point is valid, and I’m glad my mother who lives alone owns a firearm. Would I want her to pull it on a porch pirate though?? Let’s remember the context we’re operating under for this example.
UnnecessaryBiscotti t1_izf4t8s wrote
No I agree 100% that no one should be pulling a gun on porch pirates. In nearly 10/10 scenarios it is illegal, unethical, and dangerous. No one’s life is worth an Amazon package. I just meant in general that I don’t believe everyone in favor of stand your ground/castle doctrine type legislation is itching to use a firearm. There is definitely a demographic that is, but I think many people just reach for it as an equalizing solution to a problem we can’t seem to solve (murder/home invasions/etc).
capsfanforever t1_izf55br wrote
Ah, understood. Personally, I’m against stand your ground laws in general, as I fear it gives a blanket immunity to those who would otherwise be convicted justly, but your point is taken. Thanks for your input, I always appreciate discussion.
innovationcynic t1_izdypd7 wrote
That’s an assumption on your part.
I was responding to the comments people made about not chasing to get your package back because the thief might shoot YOU over a petty item.
They would be less brazen if they were worried the homeowner could defend themself.
But go on making your assumptions. Seems to serve you well in life lol
capsfanforever t1_izf273c wrote
It’s not an assumption, chasing someone and getting shot would have nothing to do with a stand your ground law. There’s a difference between assumption and supposition, the latter is evidence based.
Again, you suggest that under the threat of being shot over a theft, folks would be less likely to commit one. So my supposition seems a likely one, that you see gun violence as a solution to porch piracy.
Thanks for your time.
capsfanforever t1_izf2f3h wrote
It’s not an assumption, chasing someone and getting shot would have nothing to do with a stand your ground law. There’s a difference between assumption and supposition, the latter is evidence based.
Again, you suggest that under the threat of being shot over a theft, folks would be less likely to commit one. So my supposition seems a likely one, that you see gun violence as a solution to porch piracy.
Thanks for your time.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments