the act of defending oneself, one’s property, or a close relative

I don’t care. Like I said, in some states you can employ deadly force to keep someone from making off with your shit. I do not value those people more than my property. Straight up. I’m not deflecting or side stepping or mincing words. They’re trash and I do not morn them should they be shot and killed during the course of taking things that aren’t theirs.

There is a solution, it’s called insurance. I know that you wouldn’t get your family heirlooms back

Then it isn’t exactly a solution, is it? The jewelry probably only would appraise for <$1000 (probably far less). It’s not about the monetary cost.

but neither would you being armed but not home.

Yeah…? I don’t get this line of argument. This just in - guns only effective when there’s a human there to operate it. No shit…

You’re simultaneously arguing that guns are overkill to solve theft and that guns don’t solve theft.

I fear that you could end up shooting a porch pirate in the back while claiming self defense.

The state I live in currently wouldn’t allow for me to use deadly force to protect property. But states I’ve lived in in the past sure would. As of now, I would have to be in fear of great bodily harm or death in order to employ deadly force and that’s the standard I will follow. Just keep in mind that many robberies involve a deadly weapon on the perpetrators side which is an immediate green light on my end.

Instead of arming civilians for vigilantism pressure should be put on the government to deal with the root causes of criminal behaviour.

Sure, I advocate for that too. Until then…

As far as I was aware the legal punishment for theft wasn’t…

There’s one weird trick to not being shot for stealing shit.

Sorry, are you implying it isn’t?

Just say what you mean.

Fascism is when you don’t let people steal your stuff.

The word has been devalued on Lemmy but this is a new low.

You want me to believe there’s no situation in which you would use deadly force?

You’re lying or lack imagination.

By that logic we all are. Your line is just somewhere else.

You sound like a thief who’s mad.

You’re expecting me to value people who steal shit.

And before this goes in a disingenuous direction, no, I don’t mean stealing bread from a damn grocery store.

Okay, sure. I wish people didn’t steal, kill, and rape too but it happens. Just the reality.

If stopping someone in the act of stealing my shit or trying to harm me is vigilantism, then sure.

You’ve made an analogy about preparedness and let the assumption hang that that makes both things equal.

No. It doesn’t do that at all. Nothing in my comment should be construed as to equate the wearing of seat belts and the carrying of firearms. They are different things, meant for different purposes, with different consequences for their misuse.

The analogy demonstrated ways in which they are the same - having it and not needing it is usually what happens and needing it and not having it can be very bad.

Edit: Y’all think Eliza Fletcher would have been better off carrying that day?

There are a lot of disingenuous replies in this comment section but I’ll just go on explaining as if you actually don’t understand.

The rating comment was meant to demonstrate that I am not at my peak physical condition and am more vulnerable than my outward appearance portrays.

I mean, I don’t require your trust.

But consider the consequences if I misuse my gun. They’re quite a lot more serious than those caught stealing.

Yeah the people stealing shit are… different people and not me?

What is your point?

Was my statement wrong in any way?

Do you know how analogies work? Of course the two things I compared are different.

It’s like if I said “a fish swimming is like a bird flying” and you coming along and saying “omg swimming and flying are the same now???/”

I even spelled it out - it’s about preparedness.

Then I guess you should have used one of those videos rather than an example where your gun wouldn’t have helped you.

That was an example of the police not getting my shit back.

In just about every response in this thread you’ve shown you’re not actually here to engage in good faith by being a sarcastic dickhead so I think I’m done with you.

Uh, no. There are quite a lot of laws governing when deadly force is allowed which vary by country and state. I’m quite sure none of them allow it when someone “bothers you”.

You’re shitting me, right?

In this thread where I describe my fucked up back, rating from the VA, my inability to win fistfights, my worry about my wife and daughter defending themselves from men. And you can’t figure out what I mean by “strong” and “weak”. Bullshit. But fuck it, let’s do this.

You haven’t defined “the strong” or “the weak”

Both of these are used to describe ones physical prowess in relation to the other. They’re relative. Someone “stronger” than me can overpower me through physical means and I would be helpless to defend against it, given no other tools.

or what you mean by “self-defense.”

I’ll just go with the dictionary on this one:

the act of defending oneself, one’s property, or a close relative

Now feel free to explain what you mean by “take advantage of” in the context of my using a gun to defend myself.

Edit: I just fucking knew I would go as far as to define these well-known words to get nothing in return. You can tell it was going that way this whole exchange.