Yet your solution is to disarm the victim of the crime, and not stop the person who committed it. You want to make a world with less material inequality so people rob less, we can talk about that through the political process. But demanding people give up both their own means of dissuasion and protection, and their own property at the whim of a burglar or robber is repugnant. The point is not to shoot the criminal; it’s to dissuade, and failing that to detain, and failing that to chase off, and only failing that to shoot them. Only the last requires actually pulling the trigger. “Just let the criminals get away with it or someone might get hurt” is no basis for a society. It’s what a mugger says to their victims. By the same token we should not have alarm systems so that burglars don’t become good at electrical engineering and learn more effective ways to steal. Or police forensics so that they don’t learn not to leave fingerprints. Of course. That’s negligent. But you’ll have to do a hell of a lot more to convince me that all firearm possession is negligent just because some is.
Harm reduction does not include letting the junkies steal from CVS for their clean needles. The violation is itself harm to others, unlike the drug use. If they don't break in while I'm home because I have guns, then their purpose is accomplished. Everything else is secondary. If they spend all their time watching my house and not breaking into others', society benefits. If they break in while I'm not home, I had better make sure they're all secured so as not to be negligent. (I suppose you'd also say I shouldn't keep my valuables in a safe either because it forces thieves to get better at safecracking, which they can use to steal my neighbor's guns. ) And if they do break in while I'm home because I let someone borrow the car and they mistook it for me leaving, a gun will serve one of its fallback purposes, hopefully detention. That's what must be weighed against the risk of accidental injury or negligent theft (and the legal consequences that come with it) or having it taken away by an assailant. And personally I come down on the side of not having them as a result. But that's a personal choice, not one I'm willing to make for everyone else, particularly when the implication is that people should just lie back and enjoy the theft since it's going to happen anyway. In and out in 2 minutes. Fuck that noise.
I've never made that argument... the point is that a gun in the house is more of a prize than a deterrent. They don't break in while you're home for reasons already repeatedly given. They will break in heavily armed if running into you isn't a concern. Perfect sets of circumstances not withstanding-although they'd still likely flee once they figured out you are home. Are you really gonna try nitpicking with idiotic shit like "if they're watching my house..." or "the safe is futile" (I've consistently argued for gun safes as a component of "responsible ownership", BTW).
If they don't care, I sure as shit want to be armed. If they do care, my hypothetical guns are in a safe, so it doesn't matter. Unless *you* want to argue they're futile. Not futile, the same kind of dissuasion as gun ownership, subject to the same kinds of 2nd-order hazards.
Who are you quoting there? Google search might have missed something, but searching for the term " never happens" comes up with precisely one thread unrelated to this subject.
Should I be allowed to landmine my front yard to deter trespassers? If so, then yay for consistency. If not then the debate is clearly over what level of force is appropriate for what situations, not a straightforward case of people did the wrong thing so they forfeit their lives.
you're onto Albert levels of obtuseness here... you have the highest levels of violent crime in the developed world, and gun crime comparable to some failed states. ya really gotta stop and ask yourself what unique qualities there are that contribute to this.
That's no mystery. People glorify violent, thieving, predatory behaviors in this country, and the worse living conditions are perceived to be, the more excuses people make to be shitty to each other. Is that a backhanded endorsement of doling out free cash and prizes to bribe people into acting right? Absolutely fucking not. If you only conduct yourself with integrity when it's easy, I have no use for you in my world.
First paragraph I agree with, but would add that we also have shitty medical care and the gun industry has prevented legislation that would help prevent mentally unstable people from obtaining guns.
As well as a government that sees women as a subspecies and allows assholes to obtain guns and then those assholes go on to kill wives, ex-wives, girlfriends, and ex-girlfriends.
there's also been about 40 years of glorifying the angry vigilante, built on a history of glorifying slightly less angry vigilantes. Red herring, but it's precisely because living conditions are so shitty for an ever growing number of people-and you have the gall to wonder why I perceive you as privileged and oblivious for sucking Bezos' dick?
If only there were some way for those women to overcome a physical disadvantage with their attackers....
You are no mystery, either. People like you try to shoehorn everything through your own narrow perspective. THIS experience must result in THAT demeanor. No nuance or alternate reactions are possible. Fortunately, your validation is woth jack shit.
if only there were studies on the topic to prove your point!!! however, here are three that disagree... DOJ Rape Crisis Center Harvard
wow... every thing you said is not only wrong, it's self contradicting in the same sentence. Didn't you give me shit about my reliance on nuance some time back? Get a position other than your head up your ass, m'kay?
Funny, I was thinking the same of you. One has no or next to no concept of negligence, the other no concept of non-negligence when it comes to gun ownership. Both sorely lacking in support for their positions. Both without apparent understanding that averages are not individual behavior. Both willing to create hypothetical absurdities to make your point. You’re two peas in a pod.
And you seem incapable of understanding the difference between individual responsibility and statistical inevitability. On an individual level people absolutely have choices, few things are ever 100% going to lead to one result or another. For example someone growing up in poverty doesn't make someone any less responsible or deserving of punishment if they act violentally towards another. However we also know for as close to a fact as you can get with these things that there is a direct statistical causal relationship between certain social and economic situations and a whole range of undesirable outcomes.
One example of successful self-defense is all that is required. I'll not see one victim sacrificed in the name of collective outcomes, and it is fucking contemptible for anyone to advocate for that sacrifice without stating it outright. SOME people do manage to defend themselves, and I won't surrender the option to make you feel better.
Local story I just saw. If she had shot his ass dead, the world would be a better place, but that's not the world you people want. https://news.google.com/articles/CA...Da5Ac?uo=CAUiANIBAA&hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US:en