“If somebody breaks into my house, they’re getting shot,” she said, laughing. “I probably should not have said that. My staff will deal with that later.”
“If somebody breaks into my house, they’re getting shot,” she said, laughing. “I probably should not have said that. My staff will deal with that later.”
I feel like this a cultural thing because that sounds wild to me.
The penalty for burglary where I am is not death, nor am I a judge or executioner.
We’ve been broken into a lot and it’s usually just some poor asshole who wants to steal things to buy meth. It’s horrible and scary and feels like a massive violation but shooting someone in that scenario just feels like straight up murder.
When someone breaks into your home you don’t have much of an opportunity to figure out why. Many times the reason is not to steal things and buy meth. Sometimes it’s to hurt, rape, or kidnap someone. Why take that chance?
You might be picturing someone slowly walking up and executing a pleading, weaponless burglar in cold blood. In reality these things happen with mere seconds to make a decision about the safety of you and your family. Again, Why take the chance?
If you’re breaking into a house, getting shot is a calculated risk you have chosen to take. If it happens, it’s only your fault. You had the choice to not put yourself or anyone else in harm’s way, and you chose the other option.
My thoughts exactly. “In Cold Blood” by Truman Capote is a true story about burglars who came to steal and ended up murdering a whole family. Awful thing to experience. Great book though.
The bigger problem is that people who buy guns for home defense are acting emotionally, not logically. The cold hard statistical truth is that if you own a firearm, it is most likely to be used by yourself or one of your family members to commit suicide, or to be the cause of a fatal accident, than it is to be used in self defense.
People have this deeply flawed belief about suicide that if someone wants to do it, they’ll find a way. But that isn’t how suicide actually works. Most actual suicides are spur-of-the moment things. And giving someone access, in their, home, to a quick and usually painless method of ending their own life serves to massively increase the risk of suicide. Everyone has bad days. Everyone who lives long enough and isn’t a psychopath will experience deep sorrow. In a drunken sorrow on the night after a bad breakup or the death of a close relative? It doesn’t take much for people to be vulnerable to the call of the void.
Yes, break-ins are scary. But the truth is, most thieves try NOT to break in when someone is home. And home invasions for rape, murder, or kidnapping are even rarer. There are a lot of scary things in this world, but you shouldn’t let that fear control your behavior. Rabies is a damn terrible thing, but it would be incredibly irrational to avoid going on a hike just due the risk of encountering a rabid wild animal.
In the US at least, if you own a gun, it is far, far likelier that that weapon will be used to end your life or life of one of your family members than it will end be used in self defense.
This is why I do not own a firearm. Yes, home invasions are terrifying. But if you own a weapon for the sake of home defense, you are letting your emotions and fear control your life. The simple statistical fact is that, on the net, buying a gun lowers your average expected lifespan.
Still sounds like a fear motivation, just this time for not having a gun.
Well the catch is everything can be broken down to some emotional response. Most would argue wanting to be alive to be somewhat objective.
That’s still the motivation for both sides. I’m not so much commenting on which one is right or wrong as pointing out that the logic won’t be effective at changing minds because the exact same argument can justify either side.
There was more to the argument above but then it was weakened by “don’t be ruled by fear, fear this other outcome instead”. IMO, it would have been better worded as, “if you fear x, consider whether you should fear y more instead” (or something like that, I’m not the most eloquent).
The first version is not only contradictory but also full of contempt. There’s an implied “what you’re doing is stupid, but what I’m doing isn’t”, which is fine for people who already agree that the other option is stupid, but can put those who don’t already agree on the defensive.
You are saying it makes no difference because the logic is the same for both sides, and km saying thats the point.
The real problem is that people do not evaluate guns appropriately, or themselves.
One half is regulation: “Do I think I’m a good gun owner? Of course!”, kind of stuff is wrong, but also a very common comment. Its also the requirement for buying a gun. Like a company that creates its own certification, and then certifies itself as safe.
The other half is a lack of understanding of what owning a gun might mean for the owner, and for this in the house with them, and those in their community. There are situations a gun makes someone safer, but the rest of their family of higher risk, or vice versa. There are also situations where a gun is necessary.
But we don’t honestly talk about this in America. Guns are always good here. Have a problem involving guns? Guns would have solved it for sure. Dont have a gun in your home? What, do you just want your family to get raped and murdered?
The lack of nuance is dizzying sometimes.
It was not my intent to say that, I agree with your overall point that it depends on the context and that in most cases a gun will make things more dangerous rather than more safe.
My point was that using logic that applies to both sides won’t convince anyone who would want to apply it to the other side.
All of those reasons are why I never owned a gun until I was 39, didn’t really get into the thing until I was 49. A younger me would have surely done something stupid or killed myself, purposefully or on accident.
After the armed robbery, yeah, PTSD, glad I didn’t have a gun after that. My much older roommate had a pistol, kept his eye on the situation and decided it not worth the legal hassle of shooting them. And keep my story in mind. I’ve had a black bear and a giant wolf-hybrid wander in.
Having said all that, I don’t keep a gun in my desk and on my nightstand out of fear. Same reason I carry in the woods and on the rivers and creeks, because I can. Let’s drop the fearful gun-nut thing. Yes, they exist, but for the vast majority of us guns are like any other safety tool. (Plus, we like to shoot!)
I have a fire extinguisher at home and at camp. I don’t fear fire. I carry a med-kit on me when hiking or on the water. No particular fear of being wounded. Among other safety items I carry a compass, fire starters, GPS, 2 knives, 2 flashlights, paracord, first-aid gear and medicines. Do I need those things? Rarely for safety reasons, but better to have than not have if needed.
Y’all are getting caught up on the word fear. The distinction is if someone takes actions that reduce their safety when they intend to increase it.
They are right on average, but outliers do exist. Its not a guarantee of what will happen, but you do have to have some sort of logic to risk assessment.
In my situation, its true a gun in my house increases risk, so I don’t have one. I’m sure some people have easily demonstrated needs for that type of protection, you should have to prove it first however.
Sort of like vaccines, guns affect more than the person who has one, so its important to consider the risk to your community as well.
I’m listening, and we can talk, but…
Whether you or I find gun ownership a Constitutional right, the courts agree it is, and have done so historically. (Unless the owner is black, but that’s another story.)
The “prove” part is a hard “no”. I don’t have to “prove” any of my Constitutional rights. New York had that notion and the court, rightfully IMHO, shot it down. In Alabama you had to have the county sheriff sign off on your “need” to conceal carry. Any guesses as to how that was applied?
I think we’re close here…? What do you mean exactly? In any case, how would we remedy the situation? I’m on the constant lookout for gun laws that will pass the courts and have effect.
(And thank you for taking the time to write that up. So rare in these discussions.)
**So your argument is guns are a right and you don’t need to prove you deserve it. I just disagree morally. We should change that. Sure, you are legally correct, but you can be legally correct and morally defunct at the same time.
The 2nd amendment can and should be changed. Its an amendment in the first place, which sort of seems to imply changes are at the very least possible.
I don’t think its possible to change guns in america without amending the constitution first.