The Glade 4.0

I selected four options.

I need 7 options ...

_________________

I don't own a gun. I think the chance that I'll need one to protect my life or health is pretty slim, and I don't own anything that I would be willing to kill someone to keep, even if I could somehow do so risk free. In fact I really believe that it's pretty sociopathic to be willing to kill someone to protect "things," especially trivial things worth only a few hundred bucks.

I don't own a gun, just not into that stuff, and I live near Boston so there's no way I could use it. I'd rather spend my money on an overclocked computer than something expensive that will sit in my closet forever. If someone breaks into my apartment, they can take my 2007 35" tv, and they can take my work laptop and my 2006 laptop. They won't even know wtf my new computer is, since it's pretty big and weighs 70 pounds.

I tend to agree, but most folks who buy a weapon for protection do so out of a desire to protect their (priceless!) family. I just don't fear home invasion or random violence that much.

And I live in LA. Probably just jinxed myself, of course (knock knock knock).

_________________
This cold and dark tormented hell
Is all I`ll ever know
So when you get to heaven
May the devil be the judge

You might want to keep in mind that when someone breaks into your house, you don't know what their intentions are, or what they're willing to do. Not only that, but even if he was only after your things, your life may not be worth as much to him as spending the next 7 years somewhere besides prison.

It's your decision what to do, and yes, there is a pretty slim chance you would be the victim of a violent crime. If, however, the odds go badly for you on that slim chance the consequences could be extremely severe. You may want to re-look at your assumptions, since you seem to be thinking there's some sort of line separating theft of your property from an attack on you, or that you'll be able to tell what is going to happen if it goes down.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

To be clear, I don't think it's sociopathic to shoot someone who breaks into your house or tries to rob you. In that case, you're defending yourself, you don't know what they're going to do. I think it's sociopathic to use lethal force to protect property when noone's life is at risk, like the widely publicized case a year or two ago about the guy who shot a burglar breaking into his neighbor's house, when he knew his neighbor was not there. You have to be pretty majorly messed up to choose, "deal with the psychological consequences of killing someone" over "replace a few thousand dollars worth of stuff." Seriously, see a therapist if this is you, you are majorly screwed up.

If that's what you meant then I didn't understand that to be the case. Thank you for clarifying.

Im certainly for the idea of dealing with a burglar in an armed fashion if you are at home. Im not concerned about the minute possibility to my own safety (since I know what's going to happen to me) versus all that owning a firearm entails.
Someday if I have other people to be concerned for in my household I might change my mind.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

I heard that in Massachusetts, if you shoot someone, you will always be arrested even if you were clearly in the right.

They likely have to detain you until they can ensure you are in the right. It's possible they could drop charges without even going to court though.

Isn't that generally par for the course?

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

No, actually you're not necessarily screwed up, and I don't think you're at all qualified to say that people who decide that way need mental help, or are sociopathic. You're saying that because they idea is personally unacceptable to you, but there is no real reason why a different person, who is completely healthy, couldn't make that decision.

This is one of the major problems of the gun control debate. The anti-gun side tends to think anyone not wearing a uniform or a badge who shoots someone must be some gun-happy nutcase. There are entirely too many people who cannot see that just because killing someone isn't something they could do that it isn't something anyone could do, or should do. This is why gun control arguments always proceed from "how can we find a reason to implement more gun control" rather than "what is the actual problem, and what would be the best means to address it?" It's a solution looking for a problem, and while I'm not saying you are advocating gun control here, your position is representative of the mentality.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

You won't go to court if it was clearly a rightful shooting, but I believe you will still be detained for a long time. It's a huge headache no matter what. Also you could get sued by whoever you shot, or by their family.

Whether you agree with it or not, a position that "a human life (even that of a criminal) is worth more than a few hundred bucks, and therefore killing someone to protect a few hundred bucks worth of property is wrong" seems reasonable and consistent, not irrationally knee jerk or emotional.

Clearly there are edge cases, some of which Xeq included; if life is in danger, or even if that danger is in question. Others might be if the 'few hundred bucks' object is something of critical necessity; medical supplies, food, the ability to keep a roof over your families head in a freezing winter, etc - but at that point the decision is really less about the loss of property, and more about the loss of (life providing attribute the property was providing)

I didn't say it wasn't reasonable and consistent. However, the position that it is ok to shoot someone who considers their own life worth no more than the few hundred bucks of property they are trying to steal is also reasonable and consistent. What's knee-jerk and emotional is thinking a person who makes a different decision in that regard is a sociopath or in need of mental help.



Those are all factors in the personal decision, but the bottom line is that it is a personal decision about what you are willing and able to do and willing and able to live with. Some people cannot bring themselves to pull the trigger even when being shot at themselves; for that reason those people should not be police officers or soldiers.

More importantly, even in those cases where it is about "a few hundred dollars of property", it usually isn't just about that. Someone breaking into your home is violating your private place of safety; this can be psychologically devastating to a family to the point where some people can no longer feel safe in a home that's been burglarized and have to move. Someone robbing you of your wallet is violating your person, and threatening your personal safety. Someone shoplifting from you is attacking your livelyhood.

Stealing of property is a very severe crime, not just because of the value of the theft but because of the violation of the person who is the victim. Often, the victim cannot know if they will be personally harmed in the process, and cases where they do know they aren't personally threatened are really a rare exception. Unfortunately in the modern age we've seen a great deal of attempting to reduce it to "a few hundred dollars..." and ignore the less tangible but often severe consequences, frequently by people who are looking for reasons for gun control. I notice this attitude is very common among Europeans, especially when addressing Americans on the issue, but it really is a case of the tail wagging the dog.

So yes, it seems reasonable and consistent to say property is worth less than the life of a criminal, but it is also perfectly reasonable and consistent to say that the overall well-being of a citizen is worth more than the life of a criminal; the criminal, after all, chose that course of action.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Hey, I resemble that remark! ;-p

I know. That wasn't a shot at you as a European, but Europeans do tend to start from the assumption that ownership and usage of guns is a special privilege that is completely subordinate to government whim, and has minimal social utility. The problem seems to be that in both European and American media, there is a focus on "gun crime" and "gun violence" which contains an implicit assumption that guns are causing the problem.

In point of fact, there's little evidence that guns have much effect on crime either way. I calculated once that banning guns in the U.S. would result in a modest increase in homicides, but it was still a fairly insignificant increase compared to the 300 million plus people that live here.

This is why I say gun control is a solution looking for a problem. Almost any harm committed with a gun aside from accidents will end up being caused some other way if there isn't a gun; for example male suicides in the absence of guns tend to stay steady and just shift methods to jumping.

Gun control largely gives the appearance of having done something about complex social problems. It serves no real purpose, and for the most part is advocated by people who simply do not like guns, and are willing to twist both the facts and the basis of utilitarian ethics however they wish to argue for ever-increasing restrictions. Part of this illustrates the basic worthlessness of utilitarian ethics for making social decisions but that's another issue.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Gun control doesn't reduce gun violence or crime. It would likely reduce the (already very rare) cases of accidental shootings, but as accidental shootings are already rather statisticly insignificant, any reduction in them would also be rather small.

We do not have a gun at all. I have no interest in having one for any reason. I'm also generally against gun control laws.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Fixed.

All gun control is ineffective. Reducing gun violence isn't a legitimate goal in the first place; there is nothing bout gun violence that makes it in need of reduction to the exclusion of any other type of violence.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

The Jews didn't have guns in concentration camps, and so they didn't shoot anyone. That's an example of effective gun control. Same with prisons.

Seriously? That's the best you could come up with?

_________________

I'm not trying to come up with the best?

You can't put regular people in prison. Moreover, prisoners aren't supposed to have shanks either but guess what? People get stabbed in prison.

Neither prison nor a concentration camp is gun control. It's total control, which necessarily precludes guns. It also only works in a small contained environment with people to control the inmates. It doesn't translate in any way to society... troll.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

It's an example of effective gun control, and you can't technicality your way out of this.

No, it isn't. It's not "gun control" at all. You don't put people in prison to restrict their access to guns; you put them in prison to restrict their freedom in general and gun control is merely an incidental effect.

All you're doing is trying to "technicality" this into being a form of gun control so that you can keep arguing.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."