When a monument gets to a point it's worth killing and dying for.

[Shadow Wolf]

Not always so.
The media & foes of self-defense love to portray vigilanties as naught
but lynch mobs. Why? Demonization sells news. And statist types
want their government to have sole power to defend & protect.
So positive examples of vigilantism aren't newsworthy. For example,
few know of Korean store owners's armed defense in Los Angeles riots.

The risk of ordinary citizens messing up is too high. Such as George Zimmerman killing Travon Martin. Self defense is one thing, taking the law into your own hands is entirely different. Sure, it can work. But that doesn't mean the behavior deserves anything better than condemnation because then an unarmed jogger is nistaken for a fugitive and killed.

 

[Tambourine]

Do you guys think the police should attempt to remove these violent, dangerous political terrorists by force, like they do with BLM protesters?

 

[Tambourine]

Not always so.
The media & foes of self-defense love to portray vigilanties as naught
but lynch mobs. Why? Demonization sells news. And statist types
want their government to have sole power to defend & protect.
So positive examples of vigilantism aren't newsworthy.

I have read numerous accounts from US sources reporting neutrally or positively about vigilantes.
Perhaps I am particularly sheltered when it comes to these things.

For example,
few know of Korean store owners's armed defense in Los Angeles riots.

As far as I have read on the subject, one of these Korean store owners killed a man they had suspected of stealing.
Do you find such a thing praiseworthy?

 

[Father Heathen]

History didn't hold no meaning to me either, but I actually am starting to see the value of it because it's supposed to give people a sense of perspective and reflection and provides a way to avoid making mistakes and to see what can be improved.

We have schools, libraries, and museums. Nobody is going to forget about the Confederacy and slavery without statues (made many decades afterwards) to celebrate them. Stop regurgitating this stupid fallacy.
Saddam will have historic significance. Does the fact our troops helped tear down his statues also make you angry?

 

[Tambourine]

I had felt the same way in the past.

History didn't hold no meaning to me either, but I actually am starting to see the value of it because it's supposed to give people a sense of perspective and reflection and provides a way to avoid making mistakes and to see what can be improved.

But I get it why you say that.

Do you think people should put up monuments to Adolf Hitler so we won't forget about the Holocaust?

 

[Father Heathen]

I think those people over there might just make it real.

You could also ask if it's equally worthy in attacking it?

People shouldn't stop standing up for what is right just because some redneck trash tries to threaten and intimidate them.

 

[Revoltingest]

The risk of ordinary citizens messing up is too high. Such as George Zimmerman killing Travon Martin. Self defense is one thing, taking the law into your own hands is entirely different. Sure, it can work. But that doesn't mean the behavior deserves anything better than condemnation because then an unarmed jogger is nistaken for a fugitive and killed.

Of course there are risks.
There are great risks in not defending oneself & one's property.
Cops pose risks too (perhaps greater than vigilantes).
And they are not there to defend us. That's not their job.
After the crime, they make chalk outlines on sidewalks,
& then investigate, rounding up the usual suspects.
Vigilanteism, like policing, can be positive.

 

[Revoltingest]

I have read numerous accounts from US sources reporting neutrally or positively about vigilantes.
Perhaps I am particularly sheltered when it comes to these things.

I read of such things too.
But seldom from leftish media.
More so in The American Rifleman.

As far as I have read on the subject, one of these Korean store owners killed a man they had suspected of stealing.
Do you find such a thing praiseworthy?

That would depend upon the circumstances.
Have a link to the incident?
Do you oppose defending one's property & livelihood?
I don't.
Countering a threat of violence with a threat of violence
is useful to avoid violence. But there will be occasions
where violence happens anyway. This doesn't mean
that we must tolerance violence, theft, & destruction.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Do you guys think the police should attempt to remove these violent, dangerous political terrorists by force, like they do with BLM protesters?

If they commit serious acts of crime, I would say certainly.

 

[Tambourine]

I read of such things too.
But seldom from leftish media.
More so in The American Rifleman.

I've never in my life read articles from The American Rifleman.

What is "leftish media" by your standards?

That would depend upon the circumstances.
Have a link to the incident?

Killing of Latasha Harlins - Wikipedia

Do you oppose defending one's property & livelihood?
I don't.

I oppose the application of lethal violence in any situation.

Countering a threat of violence with a threat of violence
is useful to avoid violence. But there will be occasions
where violence happens anyway. This doesn't mean
that we must tolerance violence, theft, & destruction.

And yet you are willing to tolerate violence in retaliation to nonviolent crime.

 

[Tambourine]

If they commit serious acts of crime, I would say certainly.

What do you mean by "serious acts of crime"?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Of course there are risks.

There are great risks in not defending oneself & one's property.
Cops pose risks too (perhaps greater than vigilantes).
And they are not there to defend us. That's not their job.
After the crime, they make chalk outlines on sidewalks,
& then investigate, rounding up the usual suspects.
Vigilanteism, like policing, can be positive.

Thats not vigilantism. Its defense. Those are different things. Vigilantism would be going after the assaulting rioters after the crime was committed and the act is not in the present. Arming yourseld against a mob heading your direction to challenge themand defend the fort, though foolish, is self defence.
And, BTW, they don't actually do that chalk body outline thing.

 

[Revoltingest]

I've never in my life read articles from The American Rifleman.

It's available to NRA members.

What is "leftish media" by your standards?

NPR, Wash Po, Huff Po, Mother Jones, NY Times, The Atlantic, MSNBC....to name a few.

Killing of Latasha Harlins - Wikipedia
I oppose the application of lethal violence in any situation.

That was clearly a wrongful killing.

And yet you are willing to tolerate violence in retaliation to nonviolent crime.

Not at the disparate levels of theft & violence in your offered incident.
Be reasonable, man.....don't suggest that I condone killing over a de
minimis purchase misunderstanding.

 

[Revoltingest]

Thats not vigilantism. Its defense. Those are different things. Vigilantism would be going after the assaulting rioters after the crime was committed and the act is not in the present. Arming yourseld against a mob heading your direction to challenge themand defend the fort, though foolish, is self defence.
And, BTW, they don't actually do that chalk body outline thing.

I see vigilanteism as broader than do you.
And I agree that seeking out rioters to assault them is wrong.

The chalk outline is an old TV joke.

 

[Tambourine]

That was clearly a wrongful killing.

She was defending her property, was she not?

Not at the disparate levels of theft & violence in your offered incident.
Be reasonable, man.....don't suggest that I condone killing over a de
minimis purchase misunderstanding.

Of course not, this argument is always framed in terms of home invasions, savage gangbangers threatening home and hearth, pitting brave underdog home defenders against brutal, violent Urban Thugs; situations which are largely mythical rather than plausible.

But as far as I can tell, situation like the one I linked to seem to be a lot more plausible occurrences.
You know, people defending their property against "looters" and "thugs".

 

[Revoltingest]

She was defending her property, was she not?


Of course not, this argument is always framed in terms of home invasions, savage gangbangers threatening home and hearth, pitting brave underdog home defenders against brutal, violent Urban Thugs; situations which are largely mythical rather than plausible.

But as far as I can tell, situation like the one I linked to seem to be a lot more plausible occurrences.
You know, people defending their property against "looters" and "thugs".

I underlined the dubious portion.
Legit self defense situations are very real.
They cannot be dismissed by making a carefully culled incident writ large.

 

[Tambourine]

I underlined the dubious portion.
Legit self defense situations are very real.
They cannot be dismissed by making a carefully culled incident writ large.

According to the Violence Policy Center, in 2017, there were 298 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm.
So as a citizen of the US, your chance of getting into a situation to apply lethal force in self defense is roughly one in a million.

But we both know that it's not about that. It's about conservative identity, about masculine empowerment, about freedom, and feeling secure and in control. It's the Cowboy myth given form as legal doctrine and government policy.

 

[Revoltingest]

According to the Violence Policy Center, in 2017, there were 298 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm.
So as a citizen of the US, your chance of getting into a situation to apply lethal force in self defense is roughly one in a million.

This is a common problem with calculating probability....faulty premises.
You're not considering the fact that the vast majority of uses of guns for
self defense don't involve firing a shot. Check out Gary Kleck's research.
The best way to meet a threat of violence is not with violence, but with
another threat of violence. Convince the assailant to back off.

But we both know that it's not about that. It's about conservative identity, about masculine empowerment, about freedom, and feeling secure and in control. It's the Cowboy myth given form as legal doctrine and government policy.

Viewing things thru the lens of movies is one way to discern reality.
I don't share it.

 

[Tambourine]

This is a common problem with calculating probability....faulty premises.
You're not considering the fact that the vast majority of uses of guns for
self defense don't involve firing a shot. Check out Gary Kleck's research.
The best way to meet a threat of violence is not with violence, but with
another threat of violence. Convince the assailant to back off.

Viewing things thru the lens of movies is one way to discern reality.
I don't share it.

That's okay, nobody forces you to believe in factual evidence when it's presented to you.
I will no longer waste my time and yours. Goodbye.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's okay, nobody forces you to believe in factual evidence when it's presented to you.
I will no longer waste my time and yours. Goodbye.

I'll continue to waste a little.
You presented a single statistic, & constructed an argument around it,
without addressing additional relevant facts, & different uses of guns.
The claims of "cowboy myth", "conservative identity", & "masculine
empowerment" are just speculation. So I didn't dismiss your one fact.
Twas your argument based upon it that I countered.

While Gary Kleck's work is controversial, if we divide the results of
his research by a factor of 10, there are still over 100,000 successful
uses of guns in self defense per year in the USA. This makes them
far more efficacious than you claim.
Some background.....
Dr. Gary Kleck's Self-Defense Research Destroyed Gun Control Arguments

Parenthetical aside....
There's a long history on RF of gun control discussions. You've not
been a part of those, & wouldn't be aware of the complexities that others
& I have covered. Moreover, I've advocated in favor of some gun control
measures. And I'm not a conservative (can't even post in their forum).