JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Status
Fair point but there is a reason it's only lawful to use deadly force to defend human life and not property. Property damage is not violence, it just isn't. If people were attacking housing I think it'd be a more reasonable comparison but it's lawful for me to use deadly force to stop a threat to my life or limb. It's not lawful (nor should it be) to use deadly force to stop people from looting a Target. That's what insurance is for.

You might want to review Oregon law on defense of a building. In Oregon, it is legal to use deadly force to stop an arson attack on "any building", (as it should be).


I recommend you study the gun and self-defense laws of the state where you live. With the unhinged-lunatic-left looting, burning, murdering on a nightly basis and no help from the popo, you may need to make a quick decision one night that could bankrupt you if decide incorrectly. Leftist DAs will not be on your side. Welcome to the world you voted for.
 
Fair point but there is a reason it's only lawful to use deadly force to defend human life and not property. Property damage is not violence, it just isn't. If people were attacking housing I think it'd be a more reasonable comparison but it's lawful for me to use deadly force to stop a threat to my life or limb. It's not lawful (nor should it be) to use deadly force to stop people from looting a Target. That's what insurance is for.
Would you feel that way if it was your shop burned and looted? Insurance costs money and when you get looted or burned they tend to raise rates or even cancel policies. To say the destruction of someone's business which may have been their life's work or was in their family for generations is not violence is facile. Convince the owner of that burned out family grocery store he isn't the victim of violence.:rolleyes:
 
You might want to review Oregon law on defense of a building. In Oregon, it is legal to use deadly force to stop an arson attack on "any building", (as it should be).


I recommend you study the gun and self-defense laws of the state where you live. With the unhinged-lunatic-left looting, burning, murdering on a nightly basis and no help from the popo, you may need to make a quick decision one night that could bankrupt you if decide incorrectly. Leftist DAs will not be on your side. Welcome to the world you voted for.

My understanding is the case law on that only applies to arson of an occupied building. But maybe I am confusing Oregon with Washington. Regardless, no property is worth killing someone over. People here posturing about being the next Rittenhouse forget that most voters are horrified by that and the quickest way to get people back on the side of the protesters is to start shooting people for committing simple property crimes.

Would you feel that way if it was your shop burned and looted? Insurance costs money and when you get looted or burned they tend to raise rates or even cancel policies. To say the destruction of someone's business which may have been their life's work or was in their family for generations is not violence is facile. Convince the owner of that burned out family grocery store he isn't the victim of violence.:rolleyes:
Yes, I would, because I don't think property is worth more than a human life. That's what insurance is for. And I would like to see a source for the claim that they cancel policies when you file a claim.
 
Oh man!

This all brings up memories of when I was teenager at the ripe old age of 19 and I 'fell in' with a group of local 'patriots' who were espousing the 'sovereign citizen' fad of the late 70's early 80's!

Oh, I was impressionable at the time, most of these guys were older than me so I hung out with them for a bit, went to their 'meetings' - Heck I even went shooting with a few of them.

Eventually I realized the 'error of their ways' and bowed out gracefully......
 
Absolutely. Right wing groups and individuals have killed more people. Business Insider puts the numbers at 117 vs 21 since 2010. (Story is a little outdated, but gives a pretty good picture). It's pretty dumb to only oppose violent groups on one side of the aisle.
Well the problem with this is cherry picked numbers. Only 21? What about the Orlando Night club:
In a 911 call made shortly before the shooting began, Mateen swore allegiance to the leader of the Islamic State of Iraq and the levant, Abu Bakr al_Baghdadi and said the U.S. killing of Abu Waheeb in Iraq the previous month "triggered" the shooting.
So 49 killed there alone. Thinking not right wing inspired.

Guessing the 5 Dallas PD officers are not included in that. Just out of the 2010 range was Nidal Hassan on the military base, oh wait, they called that "workplace violence." 13 dead.

The problem with articles / statistics like this is that they suffer from "garbage in" numbers. Media does not report non "right wing" violence that same way. The Federalist reported 30 have been killed since the riots began this year alone. Caused by "right wing extremists"? Not many.

Remember, media also blamed the person who shot Giffords as being right wing as well (he was not). I watched how the leaders of this state went to Defcon 5 because a rightwing group held a rally (which they denied permits). Guess they didn't notice officers suffering potential permanent vision loss after 100 days of riots in the city from the other side. Oh, and one of theirs had been killed by the other side in Portland.

Sorry, a rant yes. But I refuse to accept numbers like this when they are clearly not factual. (Directed toward media, not anyone here.)
 
My understanding is the case law on that only applies to arson of an occupied building. But maybe I am confusing Oregon with Washington. Regardless, no property is worth killing someone over. People here posturing about being the next Rittenhouse forget that most voters are horrified by that and the quickest way to get people back on the side of the protesters is to start shooting people for committing simple property crimes.


Yes, I would, because I don't think property is worth more than a human life. That's what insurance is for. And I would like to see a source for the claim that they cancel policies when you file a claim.
I'm guessing that you haven't owned your own business or put your life's work into something. Like I said before, it's facile to say that the destruction and/or theft of property is not violence. Your statement clearly fails to account for the emotional trauma the victim feels standing in the ashes of their store.
re: Insurance, They cancel policies when it becomes too costly for them to keep paying out. The other way they cancel policies is by making them too expensive for your average small business owner to afford the premiums. The owner gets screwed over twice, first by the looters then by the jacked up rates for insurance.
And frankly, I feel that your saying that looting etc. is not violence is giving these criminals a pass
 
2. Religious and non-firearm political content is prohibited
We are a single-issue organization, focused solely on bringing people together in support of the 2nd Amendment. Religious and political content is inherently divisive, working against the very goals of our organization. This includes news-related content that our staff believes may cause division. This rule applies to the site in its entirety, including the Off Topic section.

It is important to note that firearm-related political content is not prohibited. However, clear attempts to fabricate this relation may be considered a rule violation.

Locked.
 
Status

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top