Self defense. But also like someone else said proportionate response is key. If someone gets mad at you in a bar and throws a punch, pushing him away is fine. Hitting him to subdue him is probably okay. Shooting him dead is not.

I’m also not really okay with people using murder to defend their stuff. Like if someone sneaks into my house and I catch them going out the window with my tv, shooting them is not to me justified. There are more TV’s. That guy gets one life. Remember what Gandalf said.

I think a lot of people have like tough guy fantasies about shooting a burglar and it always makes me uncomfortable.

On the other hand, if someone was on trial for shooting a Nazi dead I would find them not guilty. Shame that Nazi spontaneously bled out. But at least he’s gone before he killed my entire family and friends.


I’m good with you shooting someone entering your house, but not when they’re leaving. I don’t expect people, especially vulnerable ones, to bet their life that the guy breaking in is a thief and not a rapist or murderer.


It might be availability bias or similar, but there are a lot of stories about people shooting people entering their house or property that should not have been shot.

There was one about a kid who went to the wrong house nbcnews.com/…/ralph-yarl-shooting-victim-highly-i…

There was a story about delivery drivers who got shot at recently. npr.org/…/south-florida-shot-at-instacart-deliver…. That’s actually a good example of the shooter unnecessarily escalating. He could’ve just… Not shot at them. They were trying to leave.

There’s the related story of npr.org/…/kaylin-gillis-new-york-driveway-kevin-m… that page links

None of these are okay.

It’s possible there’s a bunch of unreported instances of people successfully defending themselves with guns. Scenarios like that where the person on the property really was there with deadly intentions. But I kind of feel like no. I’m pretty sure the scenario of “someone breaks into your house to murder you!” is actually extremely rare. (or if it does happen, it’s the police)

We should also take a moment to think on the chilling effect accepting this level of violence has. I don’t want this to be a world where I have to worry about being shot because some idiot feared for his life or property.

I was visiting a friend in upstate New York and I was legit worried walking from the train to their place. I wasn’t sure which house was my friend’s. I called them and had them come out and greet me because I didn’t want to risk going to a neighbor’s house by accident, and have that neighbor shoot me because they thought I was a burglar. And I’m a white guy.


I would agree those are unreasonable uses of force. And bad raids don’t end with LEO getting shot nearly enough.

The comment I was replying to mentioned someone stealing a TV through a window if I’m not mistaken, and that’s what I’m referring to. But if you decide to force your way into someone’s house, it’s not on them to interrogate you to determine your intent. I have respect for people that would risk themselves in a situation they didn’t create, but I don’t think it’s reasonable to force everyone to behave as tho the guy that just broke your window or forced his way into your house is just there for a cup of tea.

Damaskox avatar

Striking someone that could cause lots of violence to others otherwise...
Of course violence would be the last resort in this case as well, in my opinion, but it would be the lesser evil.

Some people use violence to fuel their morbid curiosity.
Can it help an individual who delves into such topic through discussions and material?

RizzRustbolt, (edited )

When folks are mean to service staff.


If I’m out by myself and I see someone hassling an employee, I get some enjoyment out of being a Large, Unpleasant Man™ and hassling them right back. It’s funny how little they care about their little problem when some random weirdo who doesn’t work there gets involved.

@Asudox@lemmy.world avatar

Self defense

snownyte avatar

When all passive and non-violent options have been thoroughly exhausted.

There can be only enough times when asking someone nicely to stop what they're doing, before prompting a smack upside the head to get it through to them.


When the rich break the social contract.



Arthur_Leywin, (edited )

Well put.


Use of some violence is justified to stop another bigger, ongoing violence.


I would argue to stop other violence, not necessarily bigger, is also justified. It’s never allowed unrestricted, especially as the bigger entity, but a tactical or measured response to prevent further violence can make sense.


Ah yes dropping a 2kton tactical Nuke to stop a mugging


Not even you believe that is what I meant.

arthur, (edited )

I don’t believe that is what you meant, but @dewritoninja has a point: on your definition, where is the acceptable limit for the violence-to-supress-violence?

PS: “An eye for an eye” (law of exact retaliation) was written to suppress escalation of violence. And usually people consider even that excessive.


My point is that it’s an absurd argument.

Let’s talk real world, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Do you think a reasonable argument can be made that those bombings made sense? If not, what about in 1945?

I’m not asking you to agree, just to understand the argument. It’s a discussion worth having, even if you disagree with the answer.


I don’t think it made sense, even at that time. Those cities were mainly built with wood, and US used a lot of fire against Japan.

The use of nuclear power against Japan was more like a test and a message, it was not needed to win the war. (At least this is what I remember from this documentary )


Self defense, as part of a game (such as wrestling) or in BDSM, when both sides are okay with it and don’t face actual danger.


Safe, sane, consensual.


Violence is justified when you have no other means left to defend yourself or someone else otherwise.

At which point I would like to add that people will sometimes not be able to see the means they have left because they are put in a stressful situation in a second. I feel like you can’t really blame them for that.

Violence as a response should always be in proportion. That should avoid escalation. In an ideal world.

Unfortunately some people won’t stop. Those people need to be put into prison where they cannot hurt anyone anymore.


Punching nazis. Always acceptable, even encouraged.

snooggums avatar

Punching nazis is always self defense.


It’s kind of infuriating how many un-punched Nazis there are out there.


I want to hear from the two down votes who didn’t comment. Fuck nazis and their shitty sympathizers. A punch isn’t enough


Self défense, yep. On a battlefield ? Let these old fuck fight one vs one to resolve their conflict. A noble end is so fucking subjective that I think it would be a terrible idea.

@backhdlp@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

when someone is WRONG on the internet


You are wrong

HubertManne avatar

this is where the mythological concept of sin sorta helps. So its a bad thing but basically you decide at what point doing the bad thing is worse than other bad things but you can't ever make it not a bad thing. You just accept its price at some point and its ultimately and individual decision and I don't think many will know until that moment. For myself I try to avoid it as much as I can but I don't know in what situation I will be driven to it.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • asklemmy@lemmy.ml
  • oldschoolgamer
  • InstantRegret
  • Egalitarianism
  • Youngstown
  • NeutralPolitics
  • cisconetworking
  • ethstaker
  • rhentai
  • Kemonomimi
  • TeamSpeak
  • slotface
  • DreamBathrooms
  • osvaldo12
  • everett
  • kopitiam
  • cubers
  • smallboobs
  • tester
  • tacticalgear
  • GTA5RPClips
  • Durango
  • Leos
  • OmnivoreApp
  • normalnudes
  • modclub
  • lostlight
  • morbius
  • relationshipadvice
  • All magazines