Technology

59374 readers

7416 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

649

Men Harassed A Woman In A Driverless Waymo, Trapping Her In Traffic (www.404media.co)

submitted 1 month ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

363 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 month ago

There is a solution, it’s called insurance. I know that you wouldn’t get your family heirlooms back

Then it isn't exactly a solution, is it? The jewelry probably only would appraise for <$1000 (probably far less). It's not about the monetary cost.

but neither would you being armed but not home.

Yeah...? I don't get this line of argument. This just in - guns only effective when there's a human there to operate it. No shit...

You're simultaneously arguing that guns are overkill to solve theft and that guns don't solve theft.

I fear that you could end up shooting a porch pirate in the back while claiming self defense.

The state I live in currently wouldn't allow for me to use deadly force to protect property. But states I've lived in in the past sure would. As of now, I would have to be in fear of great bodily harm or death in order to employ deadly force and that's the standard I will follow. Just keep in mind that many robberies involve a deadly weapon on the perpetrators side which is an immediate green light on my end.