Ah, understood. Personally, I’m against stand your ground laws in general, as I fear it gives a blanket immunity to those who would otherwise be convicted justly, but your point is taken. Thanks for your input, I always appreciate discussion.

Your point is valid, and I’m glad my mother who lives alone owns a firearm. Would I want her to pull it on a porch pirate though?? Let’s remember the context we’re operating under for this example.

It’s acceptable to defend your life by any means necessary, but we’re talking about an Amazon package in this case.

It’s not an assumption, chasing someone and getting shot would have nothing to do with a stand your ground law. There’s a difference between assumption and supposition, the latter is evidence based.

Again, you suggest that under the threat of being shot over a theft, folks would be less likely to commit one. So my supposition seems a likely one, that you see gun violence as a solution to porch piracy.

Thanks for your time.

It’s not an assumption, chasing someone and getting shot would have nothing to do with a stand your ground law. There’s a difference between assumption and supposition, the latter is evidence based.

Again, you suggest that under the threat of being shot over a theft, folks would be less likely to commit one. So my supposition seems a likely one, that you see gun violence as a solution to porch piracy.

Thanks for your time.

It’s deductive reasoning to suppose that someone wishing for a law deeming it allowable to defend your home with a gun, would be itching to utilize said law. Especially in the context of their comment. I don’t see this as a simplification, but a reasonable inference

Edit: deeming, not seeming

You would shoot someone over petty theft?

Love this! How would one even get started with the basics of pixel art? It’s always FASCINATED me.