111–120 of 155 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
an univited intruder in your home shouldn't be considered dangerous? We have a word for this, it's called naive.
Not everything dangerous has to be shot on sight. That's not being naive, it's being reasonable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not about a death sentence, but about staying alive yourself. If a stranger's inside of your home, there is a significant chance they're going to murder or grievously harm you or others in your house. I think this is true whether or not you're in a country where guns are commonplace. Even if their goal was purely to steal something, things progress very quickly in chaotic situations like those; especially when t…
> Even if their goal was purely to steal something, things progress very quickly in chaotic situations like those You are perpetuating that danger. Now the would-be thief knows you will attack him if you see him, so he has to be ready to shoot you. By powertrippig and "protecting" your home, you are making a banal situation more dangerous for everyone, including yourself. If you didn't have a gun you might do the mor…
Its hard for some to imagine standing up for themselves. They fantasize about retreat; rational conversations with thieves; happy outcomes when one has already broken all social constraints.
Finally, by definition, an intruder who's shot on sight isn't going to know, later, that you're going to shoot them. They'll not be robbing anybody, later.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In the US people are allowed to use deadly force for self-defense. It's not quite that simple. Self-defense must be proportionate, so you can only use deadly force against an imminent deadly threat.
> you can only use deadly force against an imminent deadly threat This varies by locale. In Texas, in a situation where the use of force is permitted, the use of deadly force is permitted to stop arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime. Most states permit the use of deadly force to protect against serious injury, not just a deadly threat.
Specific facts of each case will matter, but things that cause serious injury tend to get into the life-threatening realm.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
an univited intruder in your home shouldn't be considered dangerous? We have a word for this, it's called naive.
Not everything dangerous has to be shot on sight. That's not being naive, it's being reasonable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not about a death sentence, but about staying alive yourself. If a stranger's inside of your home, there is a significant chance they're going to murder or grievously harm you or others in your house. I think this is true whether or not you're in a country where guns are commonplace. Even if their goal was purely to steal something, things progress very quickly in chaotic situations like those; especially when t…
> If a stranger's inside of your home, there is a significant chance they're going to murder or grievously harm you or others in your house. Why would you assume this? Do you have any studies that back this up? My default assumption, way more logical I'd say, would be that they want to steal stuff. Stealing is logical and rational, under some circumstances. Attacking someone (so putting yourself at risk as the attack…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> you can only use deadly force against an imminent deadly threat This varies by locale. In Texas, in a situation where the use of force is permitted, the use of deadly force is permitted to stop arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime. Most states permit the use of deadly force to protect against serious injury, not just a deadly threat.
Self-defense and defense of property are related, but not the same. The castle doctrine doesn't change the rules on self-defense; it permits similar use of force in non-self-defense scenarios. Specific facts of each case will matter, but things that cause serious injury tend to get into the life-threatening realm.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not about a death sentence, but about staying alive yourself. If a stranger's inside of your home, there is a significant chance they're going to murder or grievously harm you or others in your house. I think this is true whether or not you're in a country where guns are commonplace. Even if their goal was purely to steal something, things progress very quickly in chaotic situations like those; especially when t…
> If a stranger's inside of your home, there is a significant chance they're going to murder or grievously harm you or others in your house. Why would you assume this? Do you have any studies that back this up? My default assumption, way more logical I'd say, would be that they want to steal stuff. Stealing is logical and rational, under some circumstances. Attacking someone (so putting yourself at risk as the attack…
A service which receives information from an app reporting which cell towers are in range of the phone. The server triangulates the positions of cell towers and updates users about their authenticity.
Probably this isn't technically possible but here is a possible way to collectively authenticate cell towers: A service which receives information from an app reporting which cell towers are in range of the phone. The server triangulates the positions of cell towers and updates users about their authenticity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you think happens when someone just wants to steal your stuff and runs into property owners in the process? 1/4 of the time when a person is present for their burglary they are assaulted, robbed, raped, or murdered. If someone breaks into your home and you shoot them to death they have zero chance of harming your family. Decreasing the risk of breaking into people's homes incentivizes human trash to convert y…
> human trash > Being kinder to garbage See, that's where we probably don't think the same way. I consider few people "human trash". Drug addicts I don't count as "human trash", they're just victims of an addiction and in need of help. People who are not drug addicts and are just plain evil, those would be "human trash" in my eyes (think Mengele). The words we choose to frame a situation are important. Your mindset c…