Just a little friendly compromise, what could go wrong? - eviltoast
    • perdvert@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      8 months ago

      No, you shoot them because you have no way of knowing why they’re in your home or what they’ll do.

      • WoahWoah@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        Good luck with that. I would advise you to get a very good attorney and have a robust bank account.

          • lennybird@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            New York is a castle doctrine state. That guy who shot those kids who pulled into his driveway, his private property, just got convicted and is going to prison for a long time.

            Be careful, folks. The dude who enters your home could just be a drunk. Use your brain before bullets.

            • Passerby6497@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              8 months ago

              You mean the guy that shot someone who wasn’t breaking into his house or being a threat was found guilty? Color me shocked that an event wasn’t protected by a law that didn’t cover what happened.

      • Socsa@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        No, you lock yourself in a defensive position and call the police. Hunting baddies in your dark house is statistically more likely to result in you shooting your kid who tries to sneak out.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        8 months ago

        Or you just die, because the home invader has the drop on you.

        Its always cute to see people mind-palace how they would John Wick their way out of an armed conflict.

    • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      Home invasions aren’t stealing, they’re a threat of violence and personal harm.

      If you’re just looking to steal you do it when no one is home.

        • ThunderclapSasquatch@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          It saddens me to see leftists left toothless in the face of those that would hurt them. Yet yall insist on being victims and relying on the same cops that oppress you. Total pacifism has a more accurate name, “I like letting fascists win.”

          • lennybird@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            Buddy, if it comes to the point where my family needs to shoot back against the things you mentioned, then we already lost long before that.

            Like, if you just took half the amount of time it takes psyching yourself up and purchasing your ammunition and channeled that into – you know – civic duty and getting your friends and family to vote, then that would be a far more productive use of your time to avert fascism.

            So just take it a step back, okay? Use your brain over bullets.

            Besides, guns don’t make you safer.

          • lennybird@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            8 months ago

            This trope is tiresome.Your fallacies are:

            • No True Scot / Gatekeeping
            • Strawman
            • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              You’re ignorant and you don’t know what words mean, including fallacy.

              Which is, in fact, an identifying feature of a liberal.

              • lennybird@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                8 months ago

                Oh? Did you need me to walk you through it, buddy?

                1. Where did I say anything about liberals? (Herein lies the strawman)

                2. I just had a far-leftist espouse arming up because Karl Marx said so; so whether they’re Liberal or Leftist, the point remains.

                3. Liberalism In the United States has traditionally either been short-hand for social liberalism, or the polar-opposite to conservatism. As Howard Zinn points out in The Case for Socialism, Left and Liberalism were used interchangeably throughout American history and distanced itself from that of right-wing conservatism.

                4. Do you speak on behalf of all liberals and leftists? <— Herein lies the gatekeeping / No True Scot fallacy.

                Classic over-confidence of a sub-22-year-old tankie.

                But viva la revolution, amirite. Send me a screenshot of your Che Guevera poster.

      • Socsa@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Which is why you’ve put a security door on your bedroom, right? A sane home defense strategy has nothing to do with protecting your stuff, and should focus on creating a defensive enclave.

    • Gabu@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      For stealing shit from a supermarket, or a bank, or something of that sort? Nah, fuck the corporations. For invading someone’s inner sanctum and defiling their most important space? Justified.

    • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      Right, the more accurate analogy would be someone breaking into your house, shooting your grandfather, raping your wife, and trying to take your children away as slaves. And also stealing your stuff.

        • FarmTaco@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          truly spoken by someone who has never actually had to deal with anything close to this in reality.

          you hear glass break and you what, help them fill up the van and make them a sandwich, because they need it more than you and are of no threat?

          • WoahWoah@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            Yes. Those are your two options. You’re a genius! You hear glass break, you start blasting!!

            Most American-ass shit ever.

            • FarmTaco@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              I like how you don’t have a real response, just insults, Id try to guess where you are from, but I’m not a generalizing bigot.

    • Jax@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      8 months ago

      🤷‍♂️ I’m not about to send the message that people can come to my house and take my shit.

      • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        16
        ·
        8 months ago

        Yeah but it should be conditional imo. If they’re armed or you have suspicion they could be armed, then kill them. Otherwise, maybe aim for the leg or shoulder?

        • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          20
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          8 months ago

          If you’re shooting, shoot to kill. There’s not a non-lethal place to shoot a human being.

          But yeah, jumping straight to the gun might be a bit much for some guy rummaging through your living room drawer. Russia is more like a hardened criminal who’s been threatening you every night for the past month busting down your door and beating your kid to death.

          • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            Humans very regularly survive gunshots. About twice as many people are injured by gunshots as those who die from them each year in the USA, even when suicides are included. My philosophy is to minimize harm and suffering whenever possible, even at risk to myself.

            But yeh Fuck Russia.

              • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                8 months ago

                You were going to kill them regardless, why tf do you care if the other places you shoot them have a chance of fatality? Minimizing harm is all about reducing chances of undue death or suffering.