If they're 'just' teens who stray from the righteous path and enter the house only to steal or have some twisted and stupid sort of fun I don't think anyone has the right to shoot them. Especially since you don't shoot to incapacitate someone, you shoot to kill them. Why would you? Just call the police, or bring your gun and scare them out of your house.
Correct. Firing a gun must always be considered lethal force. And you don't have a right to use lethal force unless you reasonably fear for your life and/or the lives of bystanders. Now, in a break-in situation, the homeowner should get some benefit of the doubt, because a break-in is by its very nature a threatening act and it's hardly unreasonable to be fearful. But it's not normally a "shoot first" scenario, and obviously executing incapacitated criminals is never okay. Call the cops, then use the gun to order the invaders to surrender or leave. If they advance on you after being confronted, and/or produce weapons of their own, then firing becomes reasonable.
In some jurisdictions, the castle doctrine permits the use of deadly force to protect your dwelling, even when you don't fear for your life or the lives of others.
You're right that some states permit lethal force even to defend the home from lesser felonies; but these I would consider unjust laws. I see castle doctrines as valuable insofar as they let the law give the homeowner greater benefit of the doubt, like I said, recognizing that an intrusion is an inherently threatening situation. It is one thing to lower the burden of proof that the defendant must meet to establish that they feared for their life; it is another thing entirely to say they don't need to have feared for their life at all.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
You're right that some states permit lethal force even to defend the home from lesser felonies; but these I would consider unjust laws. I see castle doctrines as valuable insofar as they let the law give the homeowner greater benefit of the doubt, like I said, recognizing that an intrusion is an inherently threatening situation. It is one thing to lower the burden of proof that the defendant must meet to establish that they feared for their life; it is another thing entirely to say they don't need to have feared for their life at all.
I think the case in MN is a perfect example of how Castle Doctrine was working... If the guy had simply shot the intruders once and then called 911 he would have been fine... He had reason to suspect that they were armed (he believed a firearm had been stolen from his home in a previous break in), and he was protecting himself in what would be a very scary situation. Since he purposefully went over and "finished them off" after the threat was dealt with he was properly charged.
I dont like this idea that if someone breaks into your house you should just leave and call the cops... that's pretty *****ty.
You're right that some states permit lethal force even to defend the home from lesser felonies; but these I would consider unjust laws. I see castle doctrines as valuable insofar as they let the law give the homeowner greater benefit of the doubt, like I said, recognizing that an intrusion is an inherently threatening situation. It is one thing to lower the burden of proof that the defendant must meet to establish that they feared for their life; it is another thing entirely to say they don't need to have feared for their life at all.
Are you arguing that it is always unjust to use deadly force except when imminently threatened with deadly force?
In the context that the castle doctrine originated (common law England), I think the ability to use deadly force to protect property was an important and necessary right. If someone broke into your home and stole from you, there was no homeowners insurance to cover it, no 911 calls, and very little chance that the theif could ever be apprehended. The threat of deadly force was essentially the only way to effectively deter burglary.
Whether the doctrine is still just today is much more questionable, but I think there's a line of argument that would analogize the integrity of your domicile with the integrity of your body. If deterring a rape with deadly force is just, deterring the violation of your dwelling with deadly force is arguably just by analogy.
Are you arguing that it is always unjust to use deadly force except when imminently threatened with deadly force?
I'd imagine he's saying that situations like that kid who essentially walked into his neighbor's house at night by accident and got killed a while back shouldn't happen.
However, the way you brought it up it seemed to me as though you thought it was a good argument in favor of allowing people owning guns. Which it really isn't, because of reasons I brought forward.
... I never wrote anything about how any argument is good for allowing people to own guns in the post you responded to. I get the strong feeling that you don't actually read what is written and instead respond to what MUST have been written.
No. Just no. Having your body violated in one of the worst ways imaginable and having someone enter your property without your consent and stealing stuff are violations of such a different degree that they can't be compared as being equal. You wouldn't seriously find being raped just as bad as having your labtop stolen, wouldn't you?
Do you have any actual reasoning behind this besides "rape is bad!"?
I dont like this idea that if someone breaks into your house you should just leave and call the cops... that's pretty *****ty.
Is killing someone for a minor crime such as breaking into a house (which by itself really is a minir crime) a better alternative? Is a life really that invaluable?
False dichotomy. There's a third option and it's in a post that you quoted earlier in your post.
If they're 'just' teens who stray from the righteous path and enter the house only to steal or have some twisted and stupid sort of fun I don't think anyone has the right to shoot them. Especially since you don't shoot to incapacitate someone, you shoot to kill them. Why would you? Just call the police, or bring your gun and scare them out of your house.
Correct. Firing a gun must always be considered lethal force. And you don't have a right to use lethal force unless you reasonably fear for your life and/or the lives of bystanders. Now, in a break-in situation, the homeowner should get some benefit of the doubt, because a break-in is by its very nature a threatening act and it's hardly unreasonable to be fearful. But it's not normally a "shoot first" scenario, and obviously executing incapacitated criminals is never okay. Call the cops, then use the gun to order the invaders to surrender or leave. If they advance on you after being confronted, and/or produce weapons of their own, then firing becomes reasonable.
And I agree with Blinking: breaking and entering is certainly a threatening act, and for a person to continue to do so after the authorities have been alerted, and certainly after threats of lethal force have been made, is EXTREMELY threatening.
So this sentiment that someone is "just breaking and entering" in your house and that a gun is an overreaction is very disquieting.
Whether the doctrine is still just today is much more questionable, but I think there's a line of argument that would analogize the integrity of your domicile with the integrity of your body. If deterring a rape with deadly force is just, deterring the violation of your dwelling with deadly force is arguably just by analogy.
Reread post 52. He is arguing that deterring a break-in with deadly force when such a necessity arises is justified. What he's not advocating is automatically jumping to deadly force when other methods of deterring a break-in (such as threatening usage of deadly force) are still on the table.
In the context that the castle doctrine originated (common law England), I think the ability to use deadly force to protect property was an important and necessary right. If someone broke into your home and stole from you, there was no homeowners insurance to cover it, no 911 calls, and very little chance that the theif could ever be apprehended. The threat of deadly force was essentially the only way to effectively deter burglary.
I think you're qouting laws from a time where it was okay to drown women to assure that they were no witches. How does it apply to America's law of having the right to defend yourself or your property? Circumstances nowadays are significantly different I'd say.
I was responding to BS's seemingly categorical statement that the castle doctrine is unjust. If he meant "unjust in modern day America," then my argument you quoted is irrelevant. If he meant "unjust" for all societies and time periods, then I disagree for the reasons stated.
Whether the doctrine is still just today is much more questionable, but I think there's a line of argument that would analogize the integrity of your domicile with the integrity of your body. If deterring a rape with deadly force is just, deterring the violation of your dwelling with deadly force is arguably just by analogy.
No. Just no. Having your body violated in one of the worst ways imaginable and having someone enter your property without your consent and stealing stuff are violations of such a different degree that they can't be compared as being equal. You wouldn't seriously find being raped just as bad as having your labtop stolen, wouldn't you?
First, I said the situations were analogous, not the same. Second, I said the situation today is "much more questionable." So I am partly playing devil's advocate here, since I'm not sure whether I agree with the castle doctrine as it exists today. That said:
Some people would consider the sanctity of their home and their treasured possessions as comparable to the sanctity of their body. You might regard your watch that your grandfather gave you on his deathbed as equally intimate and sacred as, say, a finger or a toe. You might be willing to lose the latter to save the former, if given the choice. Some people might even chose rape over the loss of certain meaningful and treasured family heirlooms.
Moreover, there is the more ethereal notion that both your body and your home are "castles" to which only you control the gate. If someone sexually violates you, even if they cause no physical damage to your body, they are guilty of a grave crime because they trespassed your exclusive right to act as gatekeeper of your body. The same notion can be applied to the intimate space of your dwelling. Only you control who is a trespasser and who in an invitee. Forcible entry (even if it causes you little or no monetary harm) is a violation of your right to act as gatekeeper of your private, personal space.
Whether the doctrine is still just today is much more questionable, but I think there's a line of argument that would analogize the integrity of your domicile with the integrity of your body. If deterring a rape with deadly force is just, deterring the violation of your dwelling with deadly force is arguably just by analogy.
Reread post 52. He is arguing that deterring a break-in with deadly force when such a necessity arises is justified. What he's not advocating is automatically jumping to deadly force when other methods of deterring a break-in (such as threatening usage of deadly force) are still on the table.
I'm responding only to the statement "You're right that some states permit lethal force even to defend the home from lesser felonies; but these I would consider unjust laws." I take no position on the specific example that was being discussed earlier in the thread.
I do not know if a Stun Gun counts as a weapon but I keep it in my car and has saved me once from a road range incident.
In the US, depends on the state. In Massachusetts, you need an FID for a stun gun or even mace/pepper spray. Travel one state away to New Hampshire though, and just about every convenience store has them both in stock right at the counter for anyone to have.
That you seem to be offended quickly, but not a lot more I confess. It wasn't personal though; I merely intended to state that it is logical for one to be willing to defend their loved ones if the situation requires it. This includes you.
Apologies. I interpreted your "Of course you would. And so would everyone else I bet" as saying that I would hesitate.
Now you're just being dramatic. Read my post: I explained how I interpreted your posts in a manner that I suspected you used the family defense statement as an argument in favor of guns, seeing the nature of this thread and the timing of your comment. I didn't claim to know you intentions, I merely explained my interpretation and I leave it up to you to tell me whether I was right or wrong. Preferably without assuming any evil intentions from my part.
And I am saying that I never even mentioned guns in that very post. I wanted to question Slave's intention behind "I respect your decision, but I hope for your sake the moment never comes."
But instead of actually reading what I wrote, you capitalized on the possible scenario of having to defend yourself to the death by saying and made a couple baseless assumptions.
It is not being dramatic to point that out. Far too many people, me included, read either incorrectly or too deeply into what others write. It is bad. We need to stop doing this.
Yes, my reasoning is that 'stuff' is usually just 'stuff' that can be replaced, while rape can cause lasting physical and mental trauma of which the damage cannot be so easily undone.
You must never had a burglar break into your house while you were sleeping.
Or have someone break into your house while you're not there for that matter either.
Believe me when I say this, it is terrifying. Not because you lost stuff, but rather the reality that it is incredibly easy for someone to get in and out of your house completely undetected.
Are you arguing that it is always unjust to use deadly force except when imminently threatened with deadly force?
In the context that the castle doctrine originated (common law England), I think the ability to use deadly force to protect property was an important and necessary right. If someone broke into your home and stole from you, there was no homeowners insurance to cover it, no 911 calls, and very little chance that the theif could ever be apprehended. The threat of deadly force was essentially the only way to effectively deter burglary.
Which I think we can agree is an all-around undesirable state of affairs.
Yes, my reasoning is that 'stuff' is usually just 'stuff' that can be replaced, while rape can cause lasting physical and mental trauma of which the damage cannot be so easily undone.
Saying a home invasion is just a loss of stuff is like saying that rape is just mild to moderate physical injury (and not even that, sometimes). There's a lot more to them than that. They are not equivalent crimes, certainly. But in both cases the real damage is a psychological blow to the victim's sense of security, and to dismiss that aspect is pretty oblivious.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
But I think the argument comes down to this, and this only. You make a choice to take lethal force or not.
Don't dress it up or try to sanitize it. If you're cool with admitting that killing someone is something that you're cool with, I respect your decision, but I hope for your sake the moment never comes.
I think you're the one trying to dress this up, as something sociopathic. And what you seem to intend as magnanimity is coming off as distinctly insincere and patronizing. I also think you don't understand the laws involved. So let's be clear on one thing: if you are in a situation where you know you could choose not to use lethal force and still guarantee the safety of yourself and bystanders, but you choose to use lethal force anyway, you are looking at manslaughter charges. Self-defense only applies when you don't have a choice - or, if you want to be pedantic, if your sole alternative choice is death.
What's more, the purpose of a weapon is more often than not to avoid the need for lethal force. The only person who carries a gun with the intention of using it to kill someone else is a premeditated murderer. For all other gun-users, be they private citizens, muggers, police officers, or even soldiers, they carry in order to project the threat of violence, to convince people to acquiesce to their wishes so they can accomplish their other, non-lethal, goals. So it is absolutely consistent for a person to carry a gun and not be "cool with killing someone", as you put it.
I'm trying to dress it up? I'd rather help you to see this for what it is, another angle maybe, perhaps one you'd not considered before?
Let me explain my motivation.
I work in an ED department. I see someone die just about every single week, sometimes I'll see a handful die in a single shift.
Many of these people die from instances that were preventable, and/or from excessive force due to overzealous actions. We get to hear all the stories form the detectives/police present, so we get a pretty good idea as to what might have happened. Remember that statistically, over half of all murders are accidental.
Now just think for a minute how accepting attitudes towards violence, like "I wouldn't hesitate for a second, to use lethal force" sounds to me.
You're not cool with the fact that you may have to kill someone in order to defend yourself or your loved ones? And, given by the tone of your post, I think you consider people who are cool with that somehow... wrong.
Why?
To those two points;
Call me a pacifist, I value human life. I'm not cool with killing, no. I have no problem with defending my family, but I don't need to kill someone to do that.
Seriously, learn martial arts fella's, and especially you girls.
Secondly,
I do think that people who say they are cool with killing another person, should think deeply about why.
Have movies and modern culture taught us to value anothers' life so lowly?
I don't mean to sound condescending or patronizing or any of that *****, it's just my opinion, but you did ask.
For you guys who live in dodgy area's where gun crime is a constant everyday threat, why do you still live there?
Have you considered moving somewhere more peaceful? If not, why not?
How does "reduce the number of guns the common man has access to" correlate to "the world will be a safer place because criminals totally wouldn't illegally obtain guns from that point on"?
That's not really the purpose of this thread, (the general gun debate), but since you asked;
It's heavily reliant on geography.
Look at countries in South-East Asia that combat organised crime head-on.
You get busted with an unregistered firearm, you go to goal, and you still have a fair chance of heading to death-row in some of them.
Obviously the cats out of the bag in the USA, you guys could halve your guns and still not make much difference.
But try to understand what it's like in places with much fewer firearms, like Australia.
It's illegal to carry a weapon in Australia unless you have a reason to. The types of weapons the public can own legally is nothing like the USA.
Carrying a gun in public without reason will buy you time in court, and if you're repeatedly silly, prison time. Acquiring a gun requires you to need a reason for one, like pest removal on a farm for example. If you live on a property above a certain size, you are allowed to own certain types of guns. In the cities, you could join a gun club, but your gun is kept at the club. Getting one otherwise is difficult as the police would have to approve it.
Gun crime isn't common place > it makes the news pretty much every time it happens at a national level, even something like a victimless drive-by. BTW, the last time a gun-massacre happened in Oz was back in 1996. In the USA, massacres are all-too-frequent. Gun crime is frequent.
Doesn't take a brain surgeon to ponder a link there......
Now, to address your point with an even hand, look at a place like Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea.
It's commonly called one of the most dangerous places to live in the world, especially for women. The PNG govt has tried to curb violence for decades. Controlling illegal firearms is one such tactic. The trouble is, the locals have gotten pretty good at building guns in backyard sheds and the like, which the corrupt, ineffective and totally outnumbered police have been unable to prevent the spread of. If this was a western country with lots of western money, no doubt the police would have better resources, so this may not be a fair example to compare, but it does show peoples' ingenuity.
To those two points;
Call me a pacifist, I value human life. I'm not cool with killing, no. I have no problem with defending my family, but I don't need to kill someone to do that.
Seriously, learn martial arts fella's, and especially you girls.
You're conflating "defending my family with the willingness to take lives if I have to" with "low regard for human life". I really don't understand how you make this connection.
I consider my family's life so important that I am willing to do anything to protect it. That doesn't mean I try to kill every person who threatens my family, nor that I take human life cheaply.
Suppose a robber came up with a knife and demanded money from me while I was walking down a street with my parents. I will gladly give money to send the robber off his/her merry way.
But suppose that robber did not leave and instead made threatening actions towards my family. Then I am more than willing to attack with absolutely no regard for the robber's life. Because I consider my family's safety far above someone that I do not know, someone who is threatening me with violence at that.
In any case, it is more a mindset that I speak of. I will attack with the willingness to kill them, not that I will continue attacking until they die. Again, two very different things. Intent matters.
As for martial arts... Seeing as how I spent my entire life dabbling with various martial arts and is currently training judo as often as my schedule allows it, I'm not sure what your point is. If you honestly think that someone who does martial arts as a hobby (as does the vast majority of the martial-arts population) will be able to use it effectively in a real life situation, then I don't know what to tell you except you're very very wrong.
Secondly,
I do think that people who say they are cool with killing another person, should think deeply about why.
Have movies and modern culture taught us to value anothers' life so lowly?
I don't mean to sound condescending or patronizing or any of that *****, it's just my opinion, but you did ask.
Or... maybe they consider the lives of themselves and their loved ones far more important than the other fellow who is threatening the lives of yourself and your loved ones to the point that they decide such action is necessary?
Again, I really don't understand how you came to the conclusion that "willing to take another's life to defend yourself and family"= "low regard for human life".
And you let me know how movies and modern culture influenced anything when this line of thought has been around since virtually the dawn of humanity.
I'm trying to dress it up? I'd rather help you to see this for what it is, another angle maybe, perhaps one you'd not considered before?
You seem to think you know my mind rather well. But you can't even keep it straight that "I wouldn't hesitate for a second, to use lethal force" was said by someone else, and I have been saying things like "some states permit lethal force even to defend the home from lesser felonies; but these I would consider unjust laws."
Stop making presumptions. They make you presumptuous.
I'm trying to dress it up? I'd rather help you to see this for what it is, another angle maybe, perhaps one you'd not considered before?
Do you really think that the concept of shooting a person potentially resulting in that person's death is an angle we haven't considered before?
Call me a pacifist, I value human life. I'm not cool with killing, no. I have no problem with defending my family, but I don't need to kill someone to do that.
Seriously, learn martial arts fella's, and especially you girls.
Secondly,
I do think that people who say they are cool with killing another person, should think deeply about why.
Have movies and modern culture taught us to value anothers' life so lowly?
You assume that people who advocate the usage of guns for self-defense do not value human life. What makes you assume this?
Tell me, do you think a policeman or a soldier, when that person is out performing his job, armed, do you believe this person has absolutely no regard for the lives of others? Or do you acknowledge that maybe preparedness to use lethal force does not mean complete apathy or nonchalance towards the idea of killing another person?
Furthermore, are you against policemen carrying guns? If not, then why are you against the idea of a civilian being prepared to use lethal force, but not a policeman?
It's heavily reliant on geography.
Why would it be heavily reliant on geography? Shouldn't it be reliant on one variable, the amount of guns available?
Put simply, firearms ownership has gone up, and homicide rates have gone down. The idea that more guns equals more crime does not hold.
I dont like this idea that if someone breaks into your house you should just leave and call the cops... that's pretty *****ty.
Is killing someone for a minor crime such as breaking into a house (which by itself really is a minir crime) a better alternative? Is a life really that invaluable?
Minor crime?
10 seconds of googling... "Sometimes a burglar can steal more than just your belongings; he can steal your feeling of security. Initial emotional symptoms of burglary victims include fear, anger, guilt, resentment, shame, grief, and mood swings. These symptoms are similar to those victims of assault, rape, and other violent crimes."
So as other have been saying, having your home invaded is not so much different from having your body invaded. Both lead to a feeling of insecurity. Clearly both can lead to those around you trivializing the event you just went through... "well at least he didnt kill you"... "at least you didnt end up pregnant"... "at least you werent home"... "at least they left the pictures..." Because having a few pictures be untouched is somehow supposed to make you less pissed off and sad that your whole world just changed.
I live in a nice suburban neighborhood. I've actually accidentally left my garage door open all day when I went to work and nothing happened. My neighbors scared off what was probably some kids trying to break into their house. They let everyone in the neighborhood know to be vigilant. My wife didnt sleep for a week. That was just from the neighbors almost getting their house broken into. I can't even imagine if it was our house, or if they would have actually broken in.
Burglary is not a trivial crime. So yes, if killing someone is what is required for me to protect my home and my family, I would not hesitate to do it.
In my experience as a Western European, policemen are the only people who carry guns. If protection is needed, you call the cops and they are there within 15-30 minutes to lend a helping hand (and gun). That makes it so easy; we need not guns to defend ourselves, our police force has them for us. And we trust them to do so. Furthermore, we tend to think that if everyone citizen would have a gun it would turn into some unwanted Wild-West situation where people play judge, jury and executioner themselves.
15-30 minutes is forever... I can strip most of the valuables from your house in 15 minutes. The physical harm someone could cause in that time would be extreme... The thing about protection is it's needed instantly not 15 minutes from now.
Everyone having a gun does not mean there are no laws. In theory in a democratic society the majority of the people truly do believe in the laws. So... if someone robs someone's house... people arnt going to just turn a blind eye because they have a gun.... nor are they going to be ok with someone just shooting the robber. Even the way it is now many people are very critical of the police force and how they use force to supposedly uphold the laws. That doesnt just change because everyone holds a gun.
Furthermore I do not think this one correlation rules out a potential connection between gun availability and a higher number of gun casualties because of crime, for example.
That would be an irrelevant statistic. If there are zero guns.. there would be zero gun deaths. But that does not mean there would be zero violent crime. Who cares if it's a gun shot that kills someone or a baseball bat to the head? Dead is dead. You would have to show that availability of guns leads to more violent crime than if there were no guns.
I usually find that this gets my point across whenever it has been necessary. It's actually not that useful as a weapon, but it looks wicked and it's handy for car accidents (it's a seatbelt cutter and has a window punch): like BS said, you want to be able to project violence.
As far as the Castle Doctrine is concerned, I've got mixed feelings. If someone is breaking into your house while you're home, they recognize that at any point you could wake up and they'd be caught. This implies a general disregard of that scenario, which means they're either prepared for that scenario or stupid, both of which are very dangerous. There are literally only two options: fight or flight. That's why you should always issue a challenge, preferably while you're well away from the potential intruder, because you want to give them the chance to flee before risking deadly force. If they don't flee, surrender or announce themselves as your daughter's boyfriend having come to get his groove on, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. The issue here is that the person 'breaking into your house at night might be your stepson, your daughter's boyfriend or any number of plausible scenarios where you were never in danger.
Guns = crime prevention is a talking point, not a fact. The studies on deterrence are horribly skewed to the point of uselessness (as I've discussed before, they leap to conclusions about what constitutes 'deterrence' and can't take into account when lesser deterrence would have worked), and there is a correlation between rate of gun ownership and rate of homicides. That doesn't make it a causation: guns tend to be very popular among certain social and economic classes, and those classes may be predisposed towards homicide for a wide variety of reasons.
We do need certain gun controls in the this country and better policing of illegal weapons, and there are a lot of really basic things we can do to make that happen, but even the most basic common sense approaches are fought tooth and nail. Basically, I think owning a gun should be a lot like owning a car: you need a license and have taken safety classes, you need to register your weapon (and law enforcement needs to be able to search that information electronically - not wading through registrations written on toilet paper in a box of others just like it), you need to to keep your weapon secure (trigger locks and/or locked storage). It's amazing to me how difficult getting some of that can be.
Some people would consider the sanctity of their home and their treasured possessions as comparable to the sanctity of their body. You might regard your watch that your grandfather gave you on his deathbed as equally intimate and sacred as, say, a finger or a toe. You might be willing to lose the latter to save the former, if given the choice. Some people might even chose rape over the loss of certain meaningful and treasured family heirlooms.
I can understand this line of reasoning, but I simply think that someone's life always has more value than their posessions, since the latter can usually be (partially) replaced while the former cannot.
That's why I'm talking about rape, rather than murder. I agree that life > possessions. But bodily integrity may be equally important to intimate, irreplaceable possessions (at least to some people).
Moreover, there is the more ethereal notion that both your body and your home are "castles" to which only you control the gate. If someone sexually violates you, even if they cause no physical damage to your body, they are guilty of a grave crime because they trespassed your exclusive right to act as gatekeeper of your body. The same notion can be applied to the intimate space of your dwelling. Only you control who is a trespasser and who in an invitee. Forcible entry (even if it causes you little or no monetary harm) is a violation of your right to act as gatekeeper of your private, personal space.
Again, I agree with your line of reasoning but I think the severity of tresspassing someone's body is worse than someone's house. Maybe again you do not intend to imply that the two are equal, but still I wanted to mention this.
I understand that this is how you personally feel, but a reasonable person could disagree with you. If someone told you that the sanctity of their home, the place they dwell with their spouse and children, is of equal (or even greater) importance than their bodily integrity, would you think they were full of crap? Or would you just recognize that they have different priorities?
If someone is raped, even if they have no physical harm to their bodies and even if they manage to be perfectly fine psychologically afterwords, we still consider this a terrible crime because it's a violation of a sacred social rule that people have a near-absolute right to control their bodies. I think we have a similar social rule that people have a near-absolute right to exclude unwanted intruders from their dwellings.
So even if I concede that the psychological and physical harm from rape is typically much, much greater than from a home invasion, the nature of the right being violated is comparable. That's my point.
Are you arguing that it is always unjust to use deadly force except when imminently threatened with deadly force?
In the context that the castle doctrine originated (common law England), I think the ability to use deadly force to protect property was an important and necessary right. If someone broke into your home and stole from you, there was no homeowners insurance to cover it, no 911 calls, and very little chance that the theif could ever be apprehended. The threat of deadly force was essentially the only way to effectively deter burglary.
Which I think we can agree is an all-around undesirable state of affairs.
Undesirable - clearly. "Unjust" - not so clear, for the reasons I've explained.
When did I utter that rape is mild or moderate injury? In the post you're referring to - and the one before - I state that rape is one of the worst things that can be done to a person. I also discussed the psychological part of this damage.
Yes. That was my point. You acknowledge the psychological impact of rape, and think it would be horrible to trivialize it. But you trivialize the psychological impact of home invasion.
A government does not have the authority to presume that citizens who have committed no crime will do so, by preemptively banning an instrument used in that crime. It does have the authority to ensure that people who own and operate potentially dangerous instruments will do so competently and responsibly. The vast majority of gun owners in America are competent and responsible; compare the number of guns in this country to the number of gun crimes. The "gun nuts" are a vocal minority, and even they aren't the ones who are actually committing all the shootings - the real problem is American gang culture, but let's avoid that sidetrack. Gun manufacturers market their products irresponsibly, feeding the gun nut mentality and generally being cringeworthy in their immaturity. And the NRA is totally corrupt. Its dirty little secret is that it's in the pocket of the manufacturers and not actually advocating for the rights and interests of owners. This is why it fights tooth and nail against even the most commonsense regulations that the majority of gun owners fully support, like closing the loopholes for gun shows and such: they make guns harder to sell.
Let's be careful here. More guns leading to more gun crime is something we can probably all see is basically trivial - it's like more vehicles leading to more vehicular crime. Of course it does. What we're really interested in is whether more guns lead to more crime, period.
Let's be careful here. More guns leading to more gun crime is something we can probably all see is basically trivial - it's like more vehicles leading to more vehicular crime. Of course it does. What we're really interested in is whether more guns lead to more crime, period.
Sorry, I realize I wasn't clear (whoops), it leads to higher gun violence (duh) but the rest of the literature also states that there is a higher rate of overall homicide, too. My comments should make more sense in that context.
Let's be careful here. More guns leading to more gun crime is something we can probably all see is basically trivial - it's like more vehicles leading to more vehicular crime. Of course it does. What we're really interested in is whether more guns lead to more crime, period.
Sorry, I realize I wasn't clear (whoops), it leads to higher gun violence (duh) but the rest of the literature also states that there is a higher rate of overall homicide, too. My comments should make more sense in that context.
Why is their more homicide though? Is it just because it's easier to kill someone with a gun than a knife? What does it look like if you compare all violent crimes?
Why is their more homicide though? Is it just because it's easier to kill someone with a gun than a knife? What does it look like if you compare all violent crimes?
Good questions. The answer is that it's almost impossible, with our current studies and a lack of government funding to really say with certainty. Anyone who tells you otherwise doesn't understand the difference between correlation and causation.
I believe it must be terrifying. Not saying that you're implying this, but my first reaction wouldn't be to buy a gun (which doesn't prevent someone from sneaking into your house) but to improve the security of my home.
But yes, someone broke into my house, sort of at least. When I was still living in a dormitory someone broke into one of my roommate's rooms. Fortunately for me not my stuff was touched, but I understand the feeling of unsafety one experiences.
You missed the point I wanted to make.
You wrote-
No. Just no. Having your body violated in one of the worst ways imaginable and having someone enter your property without your consent and stealing stuff are violations of such a different degree that they can't be compared as being equal. You wouldn't seriously find being raped just as bad as having your labtop stolen, wouldn't you?
I then took the robbery to the next level and made it into a home invasion. Your recent comments essentially show that you consider a home invasion not at all comparable to sexual rape in terms of trauma, be it physical or mental.
I am saying that you are flat-out wrong. You won't know this until you have someone break into your house while you're sleeping in it and you never even notice them coming in and out though, I'd imagine.
And you do realize recommending me to "improve the security of my home" is essentially the same thing as telling a woman who got raped to "dress less like a ****", yes?
The fact of the matter is, times are tough right now. People on both sides of the gun debate are rallying, and more and more cases for both sides are being presented.
BUT, and its a big one...
Being a responsible gun owner is not just about carrying a gun (if you choose to carry) but it is also a mindset. As a human being your head should be on a swivel 24/7. Stop looking at your phone when you walk past a dark corner or alley, don't walk through a shady part of town wearing brand name clothing blathering on your phone. Pay attention to your surroundings. Be observant.
People have said in this thread "having a weapon when I got mugged from behind, without me noticing wouldn't have done anything" and the truth is, no, it would not. That is because you had already gotten into that compromised position.
While it sounds like blaming the victim here, the truth of the matter is when seconds count the police are minutes away. We are the ones responsible for our own safety, and if we should so choose we can be responsible for others.
So, on the topic of this thread, do I wear weapons in public? Yes, I have several knives on me at all times. Along with a lighter, earplugs, a flashlight, and a leatherman. When I am old enough to legally concealed carry I will do that as well, but I hope to god I never have to use it.
The first step is deterrence, folks. If we have to use or brandish a weapon, things have already gone downhill.
A final, potentially interesting read for some of you fellow 2nd amendment folks out there...
[quote from="Fluffy_Bunny »" url="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/outside-magic/debate/558344-wearing-a-weapon-in-public?comment=72"]
My first response was a strong NO!, but let me put it this way: that depends. If you don't lock your door in a bad neighbourhood, then the recommendation to improve your home security by buying a lock wouldn't be a bad piece of advice now wouldn't it, since it would probably prevent burglars from entering your house. The same goes if you for example have a holiday home in some areas Spain; it is commonplace there to install iron bars in front of your window to prevent people from breaking in, due to the nature of that area. If someone would disregard this and then have their house broken into, then improving their security would indeed have been the thing they should have done. My point in this part is, home security - considering in what neighbourhood you live in - is something pretty objectively relates to home safety.
****tiness however, is not so easily related to chances of being raped I think. Is showing too much skin improving your risk to get jumped? Or is the deciding factor for the assailant the fact that the girl is 20 and pretty, regardless of her outfit? See the thing is, home security can stop or hinder burglars from entering your house. The nature of you clothing style, however, does not stop a rapist from raping you.
Furthermore, I view rape as being morally more repugnant than burglary. I think many (not all) potential burglars may be not much more than junks or brats who are looking for an easy buck, while rapists are all scum with the highest degree of sociopathic behavior. That's an opinion I guess. It's fine we disagree on this, and we can discuss about why we think the way we do, but I don't think this will change much for me through this conversation.
Is telling a home invasion victim to lock their doors any different from telling a rape victim that she shouldn't have been alone drunk at a party? In either case the victim was practicing risky behavior, but again in both cases the law should have been protecting them. If everyone followed the law nobody would need to lock their doors, similarly if everyone followed the law, girls would have to consider the dangers of being alone at night.
Your assessment on burglars is nothing more than conjecture. I could just as easily say I think most people that go through the effort of break and entering are not just looking for a quick buck but are violent criminals. They have probably thought their crimes out and are prepared to deal with potentially being confronted. I'd much rather be in jail for shooting some idiot teenager that broke into my house, than be sitting in the morgue next to my family... or worse.
Semi-offtopic but... do you understand how homeowners insurance works? You seem to think you magically get to replace everything if your home is burglarized. Home owners insurance does not replace items... it replaces the value of items. For example... if I broke into your house and stole your magic collection. If you reported it to insurance you would get the value if you had sold your collection to a dealer. You would not get what it would cost to replace your collection. So... you have $200 of Dvds stolen? You probably get like $10 because used Dvds are pretty much worthless. If someone strips your house of valuables chances are you're going to loses thousands if not tens of thousands of dollars, even if insurance covers everything that was stolen and damaged.
In some jurisdictions, the castle doctrine permits the use of deadly force to protect your dwelling, even when you don't fear for your life or the lives of others.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I think the case in MN is a perfect example of how Castle Doctrine was working... If the guy had simply shot the intruders once and then called 911 he would have been fine... He had reason to suspect that they were armed (he believed a firearm had been stolen from his home in a previous break in), and he was protecting himself in what would be a very scary situation. Since he purposefully went over and "finished them off" after the threat was dealt with he was properly charged.
I dont like this idea that if someone breaks into your house you should just leave and call the cops... that's pretty *****ty.
Are you arguing that it is always unjust to use deadly force except when imminently threatened with deadly force?
In the context that the castle doctrine originated (common law England), I think the ability to use deadly force to protect property was an important and necessary right. If someone broke into your home and stole from you, there was no homeowners insurance to cover it, no 911 calls, and very little chance that the theif could ever be apprehended. The threat of deadly force was essentially the only way to effectively deter burglary.
Whether the doctrine is still just today is much more questionable, but I think there's a line of argument that would analogize the integrity of your domicile with the integrity of your body. If deterring a rape with deadly force is just, deterring the violation of your dwelling with deadly force is arguably just by analogy.
I'd imagine he's saying that situations like that kid who essentially walked into his neighbor's house at night by accident and got killed a while back shouldn't happen.
Of course I would? Really? What do you know about me to make claims on my behalf?
... I never wrote anything about how any argument is good for allowing people to own guns in the post you responded to. I get the strong feeling that you don't actually read what is written and instead respond to what MUST have been written.
Quit it with your asinine assumptions.
Do you have any actual reasoning behind this besides "rape is bad!"?
And I agree with Blinking: breaking and entering is certainly a threatening act, and for a person to continue to do so after the authorities have been alerted, and certainly after threats of lethal force have been made, is EXTREMELY threatening.
So this sentiment that someone is "just breaking and entering" in your house and that a gun is an overreaction is very disquieting.
Reread post 52. He is arguing that deterring a break-in with deadly force when such a necessity arises is justified. What he's not advocating is automatically jumping to deadly force when other methods of deterring a break-in (such as threatening usage of deadly force) are still on the table.
I was responding to BS's seemingly categorical statement that the castle doctrine is unjust. If he meant "unjust in modern day America," then my argument you quoted is irrelevant. If he meant "unjust" for all societies and time periods, then I disagree for the reasons stated.
First, I said the situations were analogous, not the same. Second, I said the situation today is "much more questionable." So I am partly playing devil's advocate here, since I'm not sure whether I agree with the castle doctrine as it exists today. That said:
Some people would consider the sanctity of their home and their treasured possessions as comparable to the sanctity of their body. You might regard your watch that your grandfather gave you on his deathbed as equally intimate and sacred as, say, a finger or a toe. You might be willing to lose the latter to save the former, if given the choice. Some people might even chose rape over the loss of certain meaningful and treasured family heirlooms.
Moreover, there is the more ethereal notion that both your body and your home are "castles" to which only you control the gate. If someone sexually violates you, even if they cause no physical damage to your body, they are guilty of a grave crime because they trespassed your exclusive right to act as gatekeeper of your body. The same notion can be applied to the intimate space of your dwelling. Only you control who is a trespasser and who in an invitee. Forcible entry (even if it causes you little or no monetary harm) is a violation of your right to act as gatekeeper of your private, personal space.
I'm responding only to the statement "You're right that some states permit lethal force even to defend the home from lesser felonies; but these I would consider unjust laws." I take no position on the specific example that was being discussed earlier in the thread.
In the US, depends on the state. In Massachusetts, you need an FID for a stun gun or even mace/pepper spray. Travel one state away to New Hampshire though, and just about every convenience store has them both in stock right at the counter for anyone to have.
Come join us in the MTGSalvation chat ||| My trade thread. ||| My Personal Modern Blog: The Fetchlands
Apologies. I interpreted your "Of course you would. And so would everyone else I bet" as saying that I would hesitate.
And I am saying that I never even mentioned guns in that very post. I wanted to question Slave's intention behind "I respect your decision, but I hope for your sake the moment never comes."
But instead of actually reading what I wrote, you capitalized on the possible scenario of having to defend yourself to the death by saying and made a couple baseless assumptions.
It is not being dramatic to point that out. Far too many people, me included, read either incorrectly or too deeply into what others write. It is bad. We need to stop doing this.
You must never had a burglar break into your house while you were sleeping.
Or have someone break into your house while you're not there for that matter either.
Believe me when I say this, it is terrifying. Not because you lost stuff, but rather the reality that it is incredibly easy for someone to get in and out of your house completely undetected.
Saying a home invasion is just a loss of stuff is like saying that rape is just mild to moderate physical injury (and not even that, sometimes). There's a lot more to them than that. They are not equivalent crimes, certainly. But in both cases the real damage is a psychological blow to the victim's sense of security, and to dismiss that aspect is pretty oblivious.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I'm trying to dress it up? I'd rather help you to see this for what it is, another angle maybe, perhaps one you'd not considered before?
Let me explain my motivation.
I work in an ED department. I see someone die just about every single week, sometimes I'll see a handful die in a single shift.
Many of these people die from instances that were preventable, and/or from excessive force due to overzealous actions. We get to hear all the stories form the detectives/police present, so we get a pretty good idea as to what might have happened. Remember that statistically, over half of all murders are accidental.
Now just think for a minute how accepting attitudes towards violence, like "I wouldn't hesitate for a second, to use lethal force" sounds to me.
To those two points;
Call me a pacifist, I value human life. I'm not cool with killing, no. I have no problem with defending my family, but I don't need to kill someone to do that.
Seriously, learn martial arts fella's, and especially you girls.
Secondly,
I do think that people who say they are cool with killing another person, should think deeply about why.
Have movies and modern culture taught us to value anothers' life so lowly?
I don't mean to sound condescending or patronizing or any of that *****, it's just my opinion, but you did ask.
That's not really the purpose of this thread, (the general gun debate), but since you asked;
It's heavily reliant on geography.
Look at countries in South-East Asia that combat organised crime head-on.
You get busted with an unregistered firearm, you go to goal, and you still have a fair chance of heading to death-row in some of them.
Obviously the cats out of the bag in the USA, you guys could halve your guns and still not make much difference.
But try to understand what it's like in places with much fewer firearms, like Australia.
It's illegal to carry a weapon in Australia unless you have a reason to. The types of weapons the public can own legally is nothing like the USA.
Carrying a gun in public without reason will buy you time in court, and if you're repeatedly silly, prison time. Acquiring a gun requires you to need a reason for one, like pest removal on a farm for example. If you live on a property above a certain size, you are allowed to own certain types of guns. In the cities, you could join a gun club, but your gun is kept at the club. Getting one otherwise is difficult as the police would have to approve it.
Gun crime isn't common place > it makes the news pretty much every time it happens at a national level, even something like a victimless drive-by. BTW, the last time a gun-massacre happened in Oz was back in 1996. In the USA, massacres are all-too-frequent. Gun crime is frequent.
Doesn't take a brain surgeon to ponder a link there......
Now, to address your point with an even hand, look at a place like Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea.
It's commonly called one of the most dangerous places to live in the world, especially for women. The PNG govt has tried to curb violence for decades. Controlling illegal firearms is one such tactic. The trouble is, the locals have gotten pretty good at building guns in backyard sheds and the like, which the corrupt, ineffective and totally outnumbered police have been unable to prevent the spread of. If this was a western country with lots of western money, no doubt the police would have better resources, so this may not be a fair example to compare, but it does show peoples' ingenuity.
You're conflating "defending my family with the willingness to take lives if I have to" with "low regard for human life". I really don't understand how you make this connection.
I consider my family's life so important that I am willing to do anything to protect it. That doesn't mean I try to kill every person who threatens my family, nor that I take human life cheaply.
Suppose a robber came up with a knife and demanded money from me while I was walking down a street with my parents. I will gladly give money to send the robber off his/her merry way.
But suppose that robber did not leave and instead made threatening actions towards my family. Then I am more than willing to attack with absolutely no regard for the robber's life. Because I consider my family's safety far above someone that I do not know, someone who is threatening me with violence at that.
In any case, it is more a mindset that I speak of. I will attack with the willingness to kill them, not that I will continue attacking until they die. Again, two very different things. Intent matters.
As for martial arts... Seeing as how I spent my entire life dabbling with various martial arts and is currently training judo as often as my schedule allows it, I'm not sure what your point is. If you honestly think that someone who does martial arts as a hobby (as does the vast majority of the martial-arts population) will be able to use it effectively in a real life situation, then I don't know what to tell you except you're very very wrong.
Or... maybe they consider the lives of themselves and their loved ones far more important than the other fellow who is threatening the lives of yourself and your loved ones to the point that they decide such action is necessary?
Again, I really don't understand how you came to the conclusion that "willing to take another's life to defend yourself and family"= "low regard for human life".
And you let me know how movies and modern culture influenced anything when this line of thought has been around since virtually the dawn of humanity.
Stop making presumptions. They make you presumptuous.
This is logically impossible. Murder is by definition intentional. Perhaps you meant to say that over half of all homicides are accidental...?
Take your own advice, and think for a minute how "killing someone is something that you're cool with" sounds to the people you're addressing.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
You assume that people who advocate the usage of guns for self-defense do not value human life. What makes you assume this?
Tell me, do you think a policeman or a soldier, when that person is out performing his job, armed, do you believe this person has absolutely no regard for the lives of others? Or do you acknowledge that maybe preparedness to use lethal force does not mean complete apathy or nonchalance towards the idea of killing another person?
Furthermore, are you against policemen carrying guns? If not, then why are you against the idea of a civilian being prepared to use lethal force, but not a policeman?
Why would it be heavily reliant on geography? Shouldn't it be reliant on one variable, the amount of guns available?
Put simply, firearms ownership has gone up, and homicide rates have gone down. The idea that more guns equals more crime does not hold.
Minor crime?
10 seconds of googling... "Sometimes a burglar can steal more than just your belongings; he can steal your feeling of security. Initial emotional symptoms of burglary victims include fear, anger, guilt, resentment, shame, grief, and mood swings. These symptoms are similar to those victims of assault, rape, and other violent crimes."
http://www.securityworldnews.com/2010/02/05/the-psychological-effects-of-home-burglary-3/
So as other have been saying, having your home invaded is not so much different from having your body invaded. Both lead to a feeling of insecurity. Clearly both can lead to those around you trivializing the event you just went through... "well at least he didnt kill you"... "at least you didnt end up pregnant"... "at least you werent home"... "at least they left the pictures..." Because having a few pictures be untouched is somehow supposed to make you less pissed off and sad that your whole world just changed.
I live in a nice suburban neighborhood. I've actually accidentally left my garage door open all day when I went to work and nothing happened. My neighbors scared off what was probably some kids trying to break into their house. They let everyone in the neighborhood know to be vigilant. My wife didnt sleep for a week. That was just from the neighbors almost getting their house broken into. I can't even imagine if it was our house, or if they would have actually broken in.
Burglary is not a trivial crime. So yes, if killing someone is what is required for me to protect my home and my family, I would not hesitate to do it.
15-30 minutes is forever... I can strip most of the valuables from your house in 15 minutes. The physical harm someone could cause in that time would be extreme... The thing about protection is it's needed instantly not 15 minutes from now.
Everyone having a gun does not mean there are no laws. In theory in a democratic society the majority of the people truly do believe in the laws. So... if someone robs someone's house... people arnt going to just turn a blind eye because they have a gun.... nor are they going to be ok with someone just shooting the robber. Even the way it is now many people are very critical of the police force and how they use force to supposedly uphold the laws. That doesnt just change because everyone holds a gun.
That would be an irrelevant statistic. If there are zero guns.. there would be zero gun deaths. But that does not mean there would be zero violent crime. Who cares if it's a gun shot that kills someone or a baseball bat to the head? Dead is dead. You would have to show that availability of guns leads to more violent crime than if there were no guns.
As far as the Castle Doctrine is concerned, I've got mixed feelings. If someone is breaking into your house while you're home, they recognize that at any point you could wake up and they'd be caught. This implies a general disregard of that scenario, which means they're either prepared for that scenario or stupid, both of which are very dangerous. There are literally only two options: fight or flight. That's why you should always issue a challenge, preferably while you're well away from the potential intruder, because you want to give them the chance to flee before risking deadly force. If they don't flee, surrender or announce themselves as your daughter's boyfriend having come to get his groove on, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. The issue here is that the person 'breaking into your house at night might be your stepson, your daughter's boyfriend or any number of plausible scenarios where you were never in danger.
Untrue, according to this 30 year study and this literature review. States with higher rates of gun ownership have disproportionate rates of gun homicides. Also this study.
Guns = crime prevention is a talking point, not a fact. The studies on deterrence are horribly skewed to the point of uselessness (as I've discussed before, they leap to conclusions about what constitutes 'deterrence' and can't take into account when lesser deterrence would have worked), and there is a correlation between rate of gun ownership and rate of homicides. That doesn't make it a causation: guns tend to be very popular among certain social and economic classes, and those classes may be predisposed towards homicide for a wide variety of reasons.
We do need certain gun controls in the this country and better policing of illegal weapons, and there are a lot of really basic things we can do to make that happen, but even the most basic common sense approaches are fought tooth and nail. Basically, I think owning a gun should be a lot like owning a car: you need a license and have taken safety classes, you need to register your weapon (and law enforcement needs to be able to search that information electronically - not wading through registrations written on toilet paper in a box of others just like it), you need to to keep your weapon secure (trigger locks and/or locked storage). It's amazing to me how difficult getting some of that can be.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
That's why I'm talking about rape, rather than murder. I agree that life > possessions. But bodily integrity may be equally important to intimate, irreplaceable possessions (at least to some people).
I understand that this is how you personally feel, but a reasonable person could disagree with you. If someone told you that the sanctity of their home, the place they dwell with their spouse and children, is of equal (or even greater) importance than their bodily integrity, would you think they were full of crap? Or would you just recognize that they have different priorities?
If someone is raped, even if they have no physical harm to their bodies and even if they manage to be perfectly fine psychologically afterwords, we still consider this a terrible crime because it's a violation of a sacred social rule that people have a near-absolute right to control their bodies. I think we have a similar social rule that people have a near-absolute right to exclude unwanted intruders from their dwellings.
So even if I concede that the psychological and physical harm from rape is typically much, much greater than from a home invasion, the nature of the right being violated is comparable. That's my point.
Undesirable - clearly. "Unjust" - not so clear, for the reasons I've explained.
Claimed by whom?
A government does not have the authority to presume that citizens who have committed no crime will do so, by preemptively banning an instrument used in that crime. It does have the authority to ensure that people who own and operate potentially dangerous instruments will do so competently and responsibly. The vast majority of gun owners in America are competent and responsible; compare the number of guns in this country to the number of gun crimes. The "gun nuts" are a vocal minority, and even they aren't the ones who are actually committing all the shootings - the real problem is American gang culture, but let's avoid that sidetrack. Gun manufacturers market their products irresponsibly, feeding the gun nut mentality and generally being cringeworthy in their immaturity. And the NRA is totally corrupt. Its dirty little secret is that it's in the pocket of the manufacturers and not actually advocating for the rights and interests of owners. This is why it fights tooth and nail against even the most commonsense regulations that the majority of gun owners fully support, like closing the loopholes for gun shows and such: they make guns harder to sell.
Let's be careful here. More guns leading to more gun crime is something we can probably all see is basically trivial - it's like more vehicles leading to more vehicular crime. Of course it does. What we're really interested in is whether more guns lead to more crime, period.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Sorry, I realize I wasn't clear (whoops), it leads to higher gun violence (duh) but the rest of the literature also states that there is a higher rate of overall homicide, too. My comments should make more sense in that context.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Why is their more homicide though? Is it just because it's easier to kill someone with a gun than a knife? What does it look like if you compare all violent crimes?
Good questions. The answer is that it's almost impossible, with our current studies and a lack of government funding to really say with certainty. Anyone who tells you otherwise doesn't understand the difference between correlation and causation.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
You missed the point I wanted to make.
You wrote-
I then took the robbery to the next level and made it into a home invasion. Your recent comments essentially show that you consider a home invasion not at all comparable to sexual rape in terms of trauma, be it physical or mental.
I am saying that you are flat-out wrong. You won't know this until you have someone break into your house while you're sleeping in it and you never even notice them coming in and out though, I'd imagine.
And you do realize recommending me to "improve the security of my home" is essentially the same thing as telling a woman who got raped to "dress less like a ****", yes?
BUT, and its a big one...
Being a responsible gun owner is not just about carrying a gun (if you choose to carry) but it is also a mindset. As a human being your head should be on a swivel 24/7. Stop looking at your phone when you walk past a dark corner or alley, don't walk through a shady part of town wearing brand name clothing blathering on your phone. Pay attention to your surroundings. Be observant.
People have said in this thread "having a weapon when I got mugged from behind, without me noticing wouldn't have done anything" and the truth is, no, it would not. That is because you had already gotten into that compromised position.
While it sounds like blaming the victim here, the truth of the matter is when seconds count the police are minutes away. We are the ones responsible for our own safety, and if we should so choose we can be responsible for others.
So, on the topic of this thread, do I wear weapons in public? Yes, I have several knives on me at all times. Along with a lighter, earplugs, a flashlight, and a leatherman. When I am old enough to legally concealed carry I will do that as well, but I hope to god I never have to use it.
The first step is deterrence, folks. If we have to use or brandish a weapon, things have already gone downhill.
A final, potentially interesting read for some of you fellow 2nd amendment folks out there...
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/05/22/Restaurant-With-No-Weapons-No-Concealed-Firearms-Sign-Robbed-At-Gunpoint
Is telling a home invasion victim to lock their doors any different from telling a rape victim that she shouldn't have been alone drunk at a party? In either case the victim was practicing risky behavior, but again in both cases the law should have been protecting them. If everyone followed the law nobody would need to lock their doors, similarly if everyone followed the law, girls would have to consider the dangers of being alone at night.
Your assessment on burglars is nothing more than conjecture. I could just as easily say I think most people that go through the effort of break and entering are not just looking for a quick buck but are violent criminals. They have probably thought their crimes out and are prepared to deal with potentially being confronted. I'd much rather be in jail for shooting some idiot teenager that broke into my house, than be sitting in the morgue next to my family... or worse.
Semi-offtopic but... do you understand how homeowners insurance works? You seem to think you magically get to replace everything if your home is burglarized. Home owners insurance does not replace items... it replaces the value of items. For example... if I broke into your house and stole your magic collection. If you reported it to insurance you would get the value if you had sold your collection to a dealer. You would not get what it would cost to replace your collection. So... you have $200 of Dvds stolen? You probably get like $10 because used Dvds are pretty much worthless. If someone strips your house of valuables chances are you're going to loses thousands if not tens of thousands of dollars, even if insurance covers everything that was stolen and damaged.