Why is it difficult? You shouldn't be able to kill someone to avoid getting punched. If someone doesn't have a visible weapon you should not be allowed to kill them. Regardless of visible weapon you should not be allowed to shoot someone in the back.

If these seem too hard for a poor gun owner to understand then require them to have training before they own a gun and to keep that training current for as long as they own a gun.

If the situation would have ended with nobody hurt at all were the gun not there, it is not that puzzling to understand if needing a coroner is the correct outcome.

First I'll say I'm not talking about the video. I haven't watched it since it's behind a paywall.

If it were easy there wouldn't be so much variation in the law across jurisdictions.

Fists can be lethal weapons. The initial aggressor having a weapon shouldn't be required to justify lethal force. I'm an 80 year old, 90 lb woman and you're a 26 year old, 200 lb MMA fighter. If I'm in the process of being assaulted, I should be allowed to use a gun to defend myself despite my opponent being unarmed.

You're only talking about the right to shoot someone. There are lesser degrees of force. In general, I think it's okay for a victim to respond with slightly greater force in defense against the initial aggressor. A shop owner should have the right to restrain a thief, for example, which is a small escalation of force. If the thief responds by trying to fight, the shop owner should have the right to attempt to incapacitate him (not kill him). If the thief then pulls a knife, the shop owner has the right to shoot him. In this example, I believe every escalation of force by the thief is unjustified because he was the initial aggressor, and every escalation of force by the shop owner is justified.

When someone makes a dumb JAQoff post it's ok for me to respond with my nuts to their face

I don't have a strongly formed opinion on what justifies various degrees of force. I want to know people's perspectives. Asking questions is a necessary part of discourse.

If you don't like my posts, 2+2 has a great feature to help you not see them.

I no longer find the self defense doctrine valid. Particularly since the number of people who are legitimately deadly with their fists and the number of times someone is legitimately trying to kill someone else with their fists is laughably small. I'm going to suggest that the price we pay for a secure society is occasionally someone dies trying to defend stuff instead of letting their stuff be taken. The number of people who are killed in that situation would be markedly smaller than the number of people who are killed by guns.

I see no reason to allow a shop keeper to kidnap a suspected thief, they are not judges or juries. They should certainly not be allowed to "incapacitate" anyone. I want to value human life higher than physical stuff.

Lol at this guys fantasies for blasting someone .

Here's an answer to every one of ur questions: No.

Shoplifting is not being an “aggressor”. Attempting to restrain a shoplifter instead of calling the police is being the “aggressor”. I hope that helps your attempt at justifying ridiculous vigilantism.

I agree with this, people have some distorted view of life if they think there are random attacks to kill people by total strangers who are unarmed.

I very strongly disagree and suspect that, not only most people, but most shop owners disagree as well.

What is so unique about a shop owner that they get to try and convict someone of a crime and deprive them of their freedom?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen%27s_arrest

I've had several (right-leaning of course) friends/family in the past make an argument that something like this should basically be acceptable if not encouraged, if only as a crime deterrent. It's pretty amazing how many people share this view, I think it speaks to a level of narcissism and a clear lack of desire for a free society.

Whatever happened to shooting someone in the leg? Why does it always have to escalate from 0 to deadly with no in-between?

Shooting to wound has never been a thing has it? Cops are trained to shoot center mass and don't train with their weapons near enough to try and get them to shoot the gun out of someone's hand.

FedEx drops NRA deal by snail-mail

Maybe this is "better late than never" but with Pittsburg in mind...

"...the closure of its NRA discount program from Nov. 4 has no connection to that incident or any other shooting. Rather, the NRA just didn’t bring in enough business to merit its own deal."

...leaves a sour taste.

I had some junky enter my office the other day trying to rob things. I told him to get his thief ass out of my office and he tried to claim the papers he had in his hand were a curriculum and I got vigilante on him. The workmen next door had to shut me down or he'd have left on a stretcher. Thief is a thief and if he tries to steal from me he will be met with full on force.

Sad you value paper higher than someone’s life.

I love paper, but I value my life.

Nothing you said implied your life was in danger.

yeah nothing about that story contradicts my statement. in your cool story bro, you are the aggressor, you are not entitled to self defense claims for your actions. if you were to have physically hurt him you should be charged with battery.

defense of study materials is not valid defense in a court of law.

but hey i bet you feel like a big man, good for you bud..

Nothing from that story happened.

Ew

this is a dumb story somehow made even dumber by the fact that it never happened

lol obv ponied