Sounds like you feel similarly about the role of firearms in protecting property as did a few of my in-laws at Thanksgiving.
When you dig deeper you find out that it isn’t as much about protecting property as it is about belonging to an ethos that fetishizes having the ability to end someone’s life.
You said yourself that you’d wait until after your property was destroyed to kill the perpetrator. Seems like it is more about enacting vengeance and retribution against someone who has committed a wrong. Sort of like a vigilante. Sort of like Kyle.
And that’s not a dunk or anything - lots of people feel this way and as I said it is part of the ethos that is romanticized in the firearm enthusiast community. The wild Wild West “touch my truck and I’ll blow your head off” moxie.
My in-laws were legitimately surprised when I said that I’d walk away from someone who was about to destroy my house or my car rather than kill them. Like I was some kind of circus curiosity that put property behind human life. Was eye-opening to me but I suppose it shouldn’t have been. This is who we have become.
Literally saying the quiet part out loud. At that point, he’s already destroyed your property, so clearly it isn’t about preventing destruction to your property. You just want an excuse to kill someone.
are you thinking of them as molotov and anti-molotov particles that annihilate when they collide?
i’m just wondering if you didn’t have a gun, is there some other method of lethally stopping someone who is destroying your property? where is the line, etc? can you throw a rock? how about a concrete block directly over the head? molotovs? napalm? hit them with your car?
C’mon, don’t be like the people who actually believe I jog and swim with a gun lmao! I’m just trolling the trolls. I wouldn’t kill someone who was mentally unstable unless my life was in imminent danger. And such an individual would have to be mentally unstable because he’s basically committing suicide in that spot. I’d also consider if he felt justified in burning my house down. Does he feel I wronged him somehow? Etc.
But I also think you’re correct that for many, it’s a matter of right and wrong. If I knew a guy was trying to burn my house down just to be an asshole or wrongly taking a grievance out on me, I’d be much more inclined to exercise my rights under the law. You say this is about guns and wanting to kill someone, but let’s take it down a couple notches and use a real life example that happened with a buddy of mine…
The way he tells it, his sister who was 8 months pregnant lived in a large apartment complex with assigned parking. Her neighbor who is a giant dick kept parking in her space causing her to drive around each time searching for a spot at least another 100 yards further away. This really sucked when she had groceries and would have to make several trips. She confronted him several times and also told the management company, but he kept doing it. She was nice at first, but the last time things got heated and the guy slapped her so hard that her earring came off causing her to bleed…
Now if a guy slapped your pregnant sister that hard would you want to have a “talk” with him? If not, then you are a pacifist, which is fine by me. And I can already anticipate people trying to dunk saying, “There’s a big difference between fighting a guy and shooting them dead you moron!”, But I submit that once you accept violence is sometimes justified ,you are now just quibbling over degrees. If you take pacifism to its logical conclusion then violence as a form of retribution or scare tactics should never be the answer. If you are not, then violence up to, and including lethal force is morally justified
This is different than saying guns don’t kill people, people kill people. What I’m saying is that my moral compass allows for violence in certain instances and I think it would be inconsistent of me to quibble over the level with which it is used. Had my buddy been shot and killed, I’d place the blame and cause of his death squarely on him even though I wouldn’t think he deserved it. He made the decision to go over there and beat the piss out of the guy. What I’m saying is violence is violence and if you commit a violent act or threat then you should be prepared for any level of violence in return. That’s the right and wrong of it for me. I haven’t been in a physical altercation since high school. I go out of my way to avoid them. Had I been the guy in the video Melkerson linked I never in a million years would’ve went back in to get a gun. This avoidance is because I don’t want to kill anyone and I don’t want to be killed
That’s my piece. Everyone is now welcome to point out inconsistencies and poke holes in my thinking
I’m not a great athlete by any means, but my goal in a physical fight is to break as many of MMA’s unified rules as possible. I’ve done enough research to know what body parts I plan to target.
Pacifism isn’t declining to use violence for on the spot vengeance, it’s declining to use violence for any reason. Vengeance still isn’t legal, though in the Molotov scenario you can probably lie your way out of an arrest.
I guess the question was if you were on a jury would you send the shooter to prison?
It sounds like that’s a no, based on the fact that you say the shooting is not justified.
I don’t understand how you reconcile that with some of the other stuff you said. Didn’t you say somewhere above that if someone starts acting in an aggressive way towards you, then they don’t get to decide the magnitude of your response. I’m paraphrasing, but I think it was something like that. So how does that thinking lead to unjustified in this case?
I would have expected you to say, that the victim threatened to take the shooter’s gun and then actually grabbed at it. Then shooter shot him in response. Nothing wrong with that, good shoot. That’s what I thought you would have said based on your past posts. So it’s a bit puzzling that, according to you, this shoot is no good for some reason.
KM is ancient garbage. Better to just learn situational awareness or how to avoid conflict than poking someone in the eye or grabbing their nuts. If that all fails, just shoot the poor bastard.
I don’t really have any strong feelings about Krav Maga. It just seemed like NBZ was trying to re-invent the wheel, so I wanted to save him some time. I have no idea if it is actually a worthwhile pursuit.
I decided to comment because I remember taking a MA class that discussed KM when I was pretty young and the instructor didn’t seem too keen on in, iirc. It was teached as a defense technique when you’re basically getting your ass beat. But this was for a younger audience. The only info that I felt was helpful was learning how to avoid conflict and then to de escalate. Then poke em in the eye.
From what I saw, I would. There never seemed to be an imminent threat of serious bodily harm making the shooting unjustified imo
Why would it sound like a no? Well over 50% of the thoughts people try to put in my head around here are wrong
The guy was there for his kids arguing with his ex over times. He presumably had a right to be there doing that. The short dude seemed the bigger antagonist. He came out of the house aggressively. You also can’t trespass someone without giving them ample time to leave
That was definitely the dicey part, but again I never saw an imminent threat. If you’re going to try and disarm someone you gotta do a better job than that. Maybe the bigger guy thought the gun was unloaded or was convinced the little dude wouldn’t really shoot him? I don’t know, but he definitely wasn’t taking the situation seriously enough. Also, the shooter quickly regained control of his weapon neutralizing whatever threat there was
Maybe what you’re missing about my position on defense (of which guns just happen to be one aspect of), is that I favor the non-aggressor. The one who’s just going about his business and gets fucked with. And I’ll usually side against the person who goes out of their way and inserts themselves into someone else’s business. You can argue that’s what Rittenhouse did, but the reality is he had a right to be there just as the protesters did and some of them were armed as well. I didn’t see too much hand wringing on here about them though
So you think prisons should serve as institutions for retribution? I think that’s precisely one of the things wrong with our judicial system. They should be designed for rehabilitation for all but the Jeffrey Dahmers of the world imo.
