Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
“You Don’t Need a Gun” … Remember That?
All over the country, Americans are learning the truism that Second Amendment supporters have known: When you have seconds, police are minutes away. And this week, they aren’t just minutes away, they’re probably not coming and you’re on your own. And so, how have Americans reacted?
From sea …
Line up for a gun shop in Long Island right now. +50 people and over a 2 hour wait. pic.twitter.com/SOVAfoc3Gk
— Clarion Project (@clarionproject) June 2, 2020
To shining sea…
Wow there are really long lines outside all the gun stores in #Burbank. Please be careful out there. Seems like people are preparing for more violence. pic.twitter.com/tx1tvNzuRl
— Ed Larson (@Eddietunes_) June 2, 2020
Here in the Marland suburbs of D.C. the line wasn’t quite as long, but on my way home from an errand I swung by and took this shot of United Gun Shop in Rockville:
After the dust settles, it’ll be interesting to see how the gun debate shifts.
Life comes at you fast pic.twitter.com/RPkHqllZlz
— Kyle Kashuv (@KyleKashuv) June 1, 2020
Published in General
More or less agree with this part.
Strongly disagree with this part. I don’t think anyone has a moral right to kill some 15-year-old jackass who steals $3.78 in change from your unlocked car (or whatever).
Great post Bethany!
Black Lives Matter- so get a gun.
The best argument against gun control has always been is -“what do people in the ghettos and barrios do without a gun”
“Who is going to protect them from the gangs, thieves and murderers”?Surely not the police. The police cannot be everywhere.
It’s just now us white folk may be put in the same boat.
CarolJoy-“For those of us who live in Calif, I can state my big fear, and that of many others, is that of arsonists.”
Me too! I live in the hills above the riots- it wouldn’t take much to cause a huge problem.
We will have to disagree.
Stealing is wrong. At 15 he knows it. Under this system, it is really easy not to get shot for stealing: Don’t steal.
In general, I think we would have less theft with this threat there. If anything, there would be a stead reduction of those inclined to steal.
I am not saying stone people for adultery. However, theft is so easy not do to.
Well, yikes.
I’m reminded of the conversations I used to have when I was a libertarian. Libertarians are kind of famous for seeing the world in stark contrasts, for applying rules inflexibly, for perceiving compromise as a moral failing.
Meanwhile, in the real world, if we started shooting teenagers for minor theft most Americans — even staunch pro-gun guys like me — would recoil in horror, and the pressure to regulate gun ownership would be overwhelming. From a pragmatic standpoint, it’s simply nuts.
There are countries where crime is dealt with more in the manner Bryan suggests, where thieves lose hands and minor infractions result in public flogging. We don’t do it that way, and I’m proud of our sensibility in that regard.
I like less crime. You, apparently, are just fine with more crime. Where do you draw the line? Maybe the kid should not even be punished. Is there a line of theft where shooting him is justified? Either you think not, and it is clear moral line, or you thing so, and we are haggling about the price, so to speak.
I spoke of morals and not laws, and not pragmatically, so your point is not valid. It does make it easier to attack me by ignoring what I said, however. You get to make some sort of pragmatic point.
I think we should crush criminals, harshly. Metaphorical heads on pikes. Stealing is wrong, and it often happens to the people least able to afford it. That $3 might mean quite a lot. Any of you ever have your home broken into and everything of value stole, repeatedly? I have a friend that happened too. All his precious heirlooms that cannot be replaced gone. Mostly teens, so they think. Guess that is OK for y’all. Just kids being kids. Nothing bad should happen to them, right?
What punishment does fit that crime?
Morally, they are monsters who deserve no quarter and mercy. They knew it was wrong and it was premeditated. Grace comes from God.
This might be a good place to point out that there is a considerable amount of real estate between “nothing bad should happen to them” and “execute them!”
This is an unproductive way to approach this discussion. Yup, you got me, I just loooooooove crime!
It seems pretty straightforward to use a tiered system of punishment based upon the severity of the crime. (In fact, isn’t that what we actually have?) If you’re ready to execute a dumb kid who stole a candy bar on a dare, then what’s to distinguish him from a serial killer? This makes no sense to me.
Why not? An act of cheating on a spouse is usually far more ruinous of more lives than an act of petty theft.
Ah. Well, if it makes you feel better, I think your position is morally deficient as well as pragmatically loopy. But morality is a subjective thing, so all I’m really saying is that, based on my own sense of morality, what you’re advocating is monstrous. No telling which of us is right. Morally speaking.
LOLing out loud.
I think I really like you.
I have a CCW. That was more in the way of sarcasm.
The cop was an idiot and if you or your wife follow that advise, you’ll be in big trouble.
Sorry, I should have read your reply before I responded.
I see it as moral to use deadly force to protect my property.
That us different than execution.
You blame me for putting words in your mouth. See how that stinks.
Maybe I made my point about what is being done to me.
It makes me old fashioned. I wager the Founders would be on my side.
Earlier you said, “morally I should be able to kill any thief”. I took that to mean that you are on board with death being an appropriate punishment for any act of theft (hence my use of the term execute). Are you making a distinction between what a property owner can/should do to a thief and what the state can/should do to a thief for the same act?
Also, Bryan, for heaven’s sake. Please dial down the hostility.
I just reread your comment #37, where you said you were speaking of morals not laws. Ok, fair enough. But then you go on to talk about heads on pikes, what “we” should do to criminals, the punishment fitting the crime, etc. All of which sounds to me like more of a state/official/government response to crime than a private individual acting to protect his own property.
Darn, shoulda kept it. It’s not the best home defense weapon for the reason you cite, but if you live in the country (especially out west), a .44 magnum is good against large four-legged predators.
A pump-action riot shotgun with birdshot is pretty good for home defense. The pellets are not likely to go through a wall, but a direct hit against a perp will make his chest one helluva mess. Besides, that “cli-click” of chambering a round would send most perps fleeing . . .
The problem is even in public, you might not be able to retreat. How does a sixty-five year old woman retreat from a two-hundred pound, fit-as-a-fiddle teenager? She can’t, and if she tries, he’s got her.
Stand your ground is a good law, and perps should be aware their illegal actions could cost them their lives . . .
This story isn’t connected to the current rioting, but it shows why a 30 round magazine is standard, not high-capacity:
https://www.guns.com/news/2012/08/14/gun-store-owner-shoots-thieves
If you’re at home and gangs of rioters approach your house carrying torches and bricks, you’d wish you had a thousand round magazine . . .
Right… But there is proportion. If someone is stealing your car, that represents maybe 1/2 of a year of your life, which is why he would get 6 months in jail. If you kill him, you are taking way more than he took, and you will deserve the murder charge.
I’ve done stupid things, I’ve represented plenty of teens who do stupid things. It is good that our morality comes with a sense of proportion.
I tell kids to think about consequences, though. If you break into my house, I will most certainly point a gun at you. If it’s at night and my family is in bed, you might get shot.
There is a clear difference between the morality is defending myself and the State coming along after the fact.
6 months in jail for stealing a car is not enough.
Stealing is not being stupid. It is wrong.
As far a proportional punishment? Punishment should inflict a higher cost than the basic crime. You are not just taking the car, but hurting my peace of mind, and my sense of security.
Again though, morally, I have the God given right to defend myself and my property. It is really easy not get caught up in that. Dont steal.
The moment someone is in my home their right to breath is gone. I suppose that is morally loopy too.
My home is my safe place. If you invade it I have no choice but to assume you are a threat to me and my family. Anyone shot as a home invader deserves what he gets.
Serious proposals exist to eliminate the police departments (the only force authorized to incarcerate people accused of crimes). Some of these proposals also include releasing prisoners from jails and presumably eliminating jails in the future.
Were a jurisdiction to carry out these proposals, the morality of a citizen using violent (even deadly) force changes.
One of the reasons people in a civilized society do not use deadly force in the face of most crime is that we rely on a criminal justice system (police, courts, jails) to punish and/or to rehabilitate the criminal so as to deter that criminal and others like him from repeating that crime, and to deter the criminal from escalating his criminal activity.
But if there’s no criminal justice system, there is no system of deterrence, and it becomes up to each individual citizen to provide that deterrence. In the absence of a system of police and jails for criminals, more people will consider it moral to use deadly force in the face of any crime by becoming the only meaningful deterrence to widespread criminal activity.
And of course without a police force or a criminal justice system, the citizen has no legal deterrent to going as hard as the citizen chooses against a criminal the citizen encounters.
So, those who advocate eliminating the police force and jails should expect that we would see citizens using deadly force to stop theft, property damage, and other non-life-threatening crime.
Eliminating police does put all judgement on the individual.
Like Prohibition, if enacted, people will learn what a fallacy having no police is.
It takes time.
I’m not looking forward to that.
Maybe Trump should let the mayor’s and governor’s decline assistance, but not without a clear discussion about what to expect, and who is responsible for the consequences.
Isn’t that federalism?
Just how much violence and destruction would leaders permit?
Maybe would should have graphs and charts for that too?
The Left are like teenagers who think they know everything, think they have seen and explored all the possibilities. Yet they know nothing. Absolutely nothing.
Nothing new under the sun.