I’ve often said, America doesn’t have a gun problem, America has a culture problem.

I’m 53 for reference. When I was a kid there were guns everywhere, and they were hilariously easier to get. FFS, one of my vintage shotguns was rebranded by Mossberg to be sold in Western Auto Stores. No one would bat at eye at some dude in his pickup with a rack full of long guns in the rear window.

And we didn’t have these problems.

That’s all in the past, I’m afraid.

deleted by creator

Those murderers obviously have 0 empathy for any humans beside themselves so the next best thing to convince them is to say how bad it would go for them

You don’t seem to understand the second-most important reason we have prisons: to deter people from committing crimes in the first place due to their fear of the consequences.

Deliberately misunderstanding my post? Point being, even in obvious self-defense, it can be a tricky thing. But yeah, there are very certain circumstances where I would take a life. Namely: Home invasion (while someone is home) and attacking myself or my family. I would defend a stranger, but it would have to be a clear case of “stop this or that person dies”.

In no case does property damage of theft justify a shooting.

You’re talking about people without empathy for others and who question what stops an atheist from raping and murdering if not the fear of hell.

Nah couldn’t be that simple.

I had quoted this in my post:

“In the anti-gun Spokane newspaper, internet comments indicated that many people had the clueless idea that Gerlach had shot the man – in the back – to stop the thief from stealing his car. One idiot wrote in defense of doing such, “That ‘inert property’ as you call it represents a significant part of a man’s life. Stealing it is the same as stealing a part of his life. Part of my life is far more important than all of a thief’s life.”

Analyze that statement. The world revolves around this speaker so much that a bit of his life spent earning an expensive object is worth “all of (another man’s) life.” Never forget that, in this country, human life is seen by the courts as having a higher value than what those courts call “mere property,” even if you’re shooting the most incorrigible lifelong thief to keep him from stealing the Hope Diamond. A principle of our law is also that the evil man has the same rights as a good man. Here we have yet another case of a person dangerously confusing “how he thinks things ought to be” with “how things actually are.”

As a rule of thumb, American law does not justify the use of deadly force to protect what the courts have called “mere property.” In the rare jurisdiction that does appear to allow this, ask yourself how the following words would resonate with a jury when uttered by plaintiff’s counsel in closing argument: “Ladies and gentlemen, the defendant has admitted that he killed the deceased over property. How much difference is there in your hearts between the man who kills another to steal that man’s property, and one who kills another to maintain possession of his own? Either way, he ended a human life for mere property!”

― Massad Ayoob, Deadly Force - Understanding Your Right To Self Defense"

But muh things!

Deadly force is never authorized to protect property.

Never say never. In Texas there are some specific instances where it is, but they are narrow enough that most people probably can’t cite them offhand and they’re certainly narrower conditions than what those people think.

Texas penal code 9.42:

https://txpenalcode.com/sec-9-42/

Make what you will of “criminal mischief in the nighttime.”

deleted by creator

Can I see that post please?

Question from someone outside the US who’s genuinely curious about why law-abiding citizens feel the need to carry guns to begin with:

If you’re aware of this, how often are you carrying a gun in the first place? When/Why?

Following what you say, there’s obviously the scenario where you have to defend your life (not your property).

On the other hand, as I see it, the victim in the article would not have benefited from a gun in the car and the odds of a shell-shocked BF turning the whole thing into an actual shootout would’ve been >0.

I’m not trying to argue crime statistics or morals here, I’m genuinely interested in a gun owner’s perspective.

And this is the type of people that our current education system spits out. Complete inability to be self-critical. Complete inability to think critically about anything.

Its 2024 now.

I was really hoping we’d have the phasers from star trek by now, and we could just use the ‘stun’ setting for defense. Though, I’m sure conservative gun nuts would make a little club dedicated to only using the ‘kill’ setting on their phasers, because it’s their God given right to murder someone over inanimate objects.

You can get a CO2 stun gun that is very unlikely to kill anyone. Not fun getting hit with one either. It is an imperfect solution.