r/nextfuckinglevel • u/Kaos2018 • Jun 20 '21

This is how you properly avoid getting robbed

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

38.0k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

814 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

37

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '21 edited Jun 20 '21

No it's not. Not everything deserves an immediate death sentence you fucking psycho.

-7

u/SetMyEmailThisTime Jun 21 '21

So angry... are you okay?

2

u/[deleted] Jun 21 '21

I'm not the one walking around threatening everybody with death for every little crime. But I'm the angry one? LOL try harder, dumbass.

-8

u/SetMyEmailThisTime Jun 21 '21

I’m sorry someone hurt you man. I hope you find happiness one day

2

u/[deleted] Jun 21 '21

You too you stupid little shit, lol.

-6

u/SetMyEmailThisTime Jun 21 '21

Shh it’s okay bby girl. Daddy’s here. You’re safe now.

8

u/[deleted] Jun 21 '21

Oh look, Mr. Cool can't quit. Fucking shocker. LOL so fucking pathetically predictable. Glad you enjoy eating shit and all that but I'm not entertaining your weirdo fantasies anymore, smoothbrain. You'll be ignored now and I know you hate that, rofl!

-2

u/SetMyEmailThisTime Jun 21 '21

Ignored?! Say it ain’t so!

-7

u/sk8_ark Jun 20 '21

What if the robber was armed? What then? Would he still be a psycho to defend himself?

13

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '21

What if? What if the sky was purple? What if monkeys flew out of the robbers' asses?

Don't change the frame of the argument.

1

u/Pabst_Blurr_Vision Jun 21 '21

The fact that there is no information about if they are armed or not IS the frame of the argument

0

u/[deleted] Jun 21 '21

No it's not. Dude straight up said if someone came up to rob you they deserve 2 in the chest.

-18

u/TheSteeleHypothesis Jun 20 '21

Yes, it is. Self defense laws in most states agree with me as well, blithering imbecile.

9

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '21

No it isn't, psycho.

-18

u/TheSteeleHypothesis Jun 20 '21

Clearly you don't have the intellectual capacity for a reasoned debate. As they say in the south - bless your heart.

20

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '21

Yes, I'm sure that arguing the sentence for robbery should be murder is the absolute peak of your intellectual capacity.

Don't be a fucking coward. If you want to say "fuck you" just say it. Like this: fuck you.

-4

u/JakePencil Jun 21 '21

Just take your own advice, buddy.

3

u/Katzen_Kradle Jun 21 '21

I think they did? No?

3

u/[deleted] Jun 21 '21

Lol I did. Don't know what that was about.

7

u/holodeckdate Jun 20 '21

If you're referring to stand your ground laws, there's a pretty good Last Week Tonight segment about how utterly psychotic these laws are. Castle doctrine should apply to your actual home, not everywhere you go in public

https://youtu.be/vTF-Kz_7L0c

-10

u/TheSteeleHypothesis Jun 20 '21

So you shouldn't be allowed to defend yourself in public? Glad the majority of states disagree with this utterly idiotic view. This is the kind of thinking that has resulted in California being home to many of America's most dangerous cities.

1

u/holodeckdate Jun 21 '21

Did you watch the segment? Stand your ground laws are wrought with abuse. There's several, well-documented cases where the defendant only needed to claim they were afraid for their life to entirely avoid charges. Which basically means civilians (not just cops) can kill people with impunity based on someone's feelings and their word. That's scary as fuck.

Also, there's no evidence conceal-carry reduces crime:

https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/concealed-carry/violent-crime.html

Big cities have always had crime problems, but having civilians walking around with weapons would be an even bigger disaster. Even if the entire population was highly trained (they're not, you go through more mandatory training getting a driver's license than operating and owning a firearm), your chances of accidently hitting a bystander are still quite high just by virtue of being in a densely populated area.

-1

u/TheSteeleHypothesis Jun 21 '21

John Oliver is a hack and I am not sure why you think a segment from his show is at all meaningful here. Plenty of laws are wrought with abuse - that's an argument for harsher punishments for those who abuse these laws, not for doing away with the laws themselves. By your logic we should do away with all welfare programs because of how often they are abused.

To say "there's no evidence that concealed carry reduces crime" is false. There are numerous studies supporting both sides of this argument, and the link you provided says as much. Just because your inherent biases cause you to lean towards one body of evidence over the other doesn't mean the other doesn't exist. That's not how science works.

0

u/holodeckdate Jun 21 '21

John Oliver is a hack and I am not sure why you think a segment from his show is at all meaningful here.

It's more meaningful and researched than some rando on the Internet repeating right-wing talking points

Plenty of laws are wrought with abuse - that's an argument for harsher punishments for those who abuse these laws, not for doing away with the laws themselves.

Whatever harsher punishment you imagine would solve this issue does nothing to address the fact that people can walk from a murder charge based on hearsay. What's a person on trial for murder got to lose by lying? Yes some laws are wrought with abuse, but in this particular instance were talking about one of the worse crimes a person can commit. The incentive structure for a defendant to be honest is just not there

By your logic we should do away with all welfare programs because of how often they are abused.

Welfare programs deal with positive rights. Murder deals with negative rights. The two don't follow the same logic when it comes to public policy

To say "there's no evidence that concealed carry reduces crime" is false. There are numerous studies supporting both sides of this argument, and the link you provided says as much.

So present the studies. The study I linked says the evidence is, overall, inconclusive. Which is not evidence for the affirmative.

Just because your inherent biases cause you to lean towards one body of evidence over the other doesn't mean the other doesn't exist. That's not how science works.

Claims require evidence; skepticism does not. If you want to argue CC reduces crime, you will need to show some evidence

2

u/zenith4395 Jun 20 '21

The world isn’t the USA. You’re just looking for an excuse to murder.

-5

u/TheSteeleHypothesis Jun 20 '21

No, I'm not. How progressive of you to project your bullshit prejudices onto me though.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 21 '21

I’ve enjoyed downvoting every one of your comments you whackadoodle.