RE: Are you responsible?
February 19, 2019 at 9:49 am
(This post was last modified: February 19, 2019 at 10:24 am by The Grand Nudger.)
I won't. I've been the armed home invader a few dozen times. I'm far too familiar with guns in houses to think that firing a weapon in here would ever be a good idea. This place is crawling with kids and made out of drywall. If you were asking me, rather than just telling me, I'd suggest that you got lucky on multiple occasions. Lucky in that you didn't end up in a completely unnecessary and ill advised firefight where you and a bunch of other unfortunate fuckers ended up shot and/or dead-ed - as is so often the case when some dipshit grabs his pistol to "defend" his home against the person jiggling their keys in the lock.
Unless, ofc, people have been coming into your home with the express and burning intent to kill you, personally....in which case, that's not a home invasion, it's attempted murder. I can see why a person might want to have a gun around if people were constantly trying to murder them. Stop pissing people off, lol.
I guess it's a gun thread again? We can repeat the same thought experiment from before with home invaders. Home invaders may be responsible for their actions, and their actions may be negatively valued..but does that mean that I would have a compelling motivation to shoot at them? No. Even if they did deserve to die (and that;d be a stretch) I remain committed to under-compensation, and am unwilling to be the fourth man as their executioner - and then there are all the practical issues with popping off rounds in my house. It's a complete non starter, for me, whatever it may be for you.
I could take my pick with any of my firearms, and people would be unlikely to act against me if, through that act, I made myself responsible for the death of the intruder and/or my children or some guy strolling past.....I just won't. Our non comparative measures of desert and how that informs our actions are applied negatively and positively. I'd be the idiot who killed his own kids, or got them killed..but I probably wouldn't be in jail on account of it.
*unless, ofc, the "home invader" was a cop..then I'd definitely have a date with sparky in my future, assuming that the cop didn't flat out kill me and skate, lol.
-and since I'm on the subject of non comparative desert and guns or gun control.
It's a non comparative appraisal at both ends of the gun control spectrum.
Anti-control advocates, and as I'm using the term a person who is satisfied with our current regulations is anti-control insomuch as they argue against more or stricter regs...worry that such a change would be or could be a negative overcompensation. They may see and accept that both the current state of affairs and many gun owners are responsible for the negatively valued gun problem. OTOH, they worry that some prohibitive or punitive action would amount to negative overcompensation being applied to specific gun owners that don't even fit the attributive profile of the control measures.
Pro control advocates, and try not to read too much in, again, an anti ban person who argues for more or better or stricter regulations is pro control as I;m using it - fears that our inaction or incompetence has lead to a positive under compensation. It may be the case that some people deserve to get shot, but our actions pursuant to that are a separate issue entirely. Whatever bad shit other people may do is their own baggage, but we are failing to effect a situation in which even the "bad people" are shielded from the worst failings of others, or their own.
Unless, ofc, people have been coming into your home with the express and burning intent to kill you, personally....in which case, that's not a home invasion, it's attempted murder. I can see why a person might want to have a gun around if people were constantly trying to murder them. Stop pissing people off, lol.
I guess it's a gun thread again? We can repeat the same thought experiment from before with home invaders. Home invaders may be responsible for their actions, and their actions may be negatively valued..but does that mean that I would have a compelling motivation to shoot at them? No. Even if they did deserve to die (and that;d be a stretch) I remain committed to under-compensation, and am unwilling to be the fourth man as their executioner - and then there are all the practical issues with popping off rounds in my house. It's a complete non starter, for me, whatever it may be for you.
I could take my pick with any of my firearms, and people would be unlikely to act against me if, through that act, I made myself responsible for the death of the intruder and/or my children or some guy strolling past.....I just won't. Our non comparative measures of desert and how that informs our actions are applied negatively and positively. I'd be the idiot who killed his own kids, or got them killed..but I probably wouldn't be in jail on account of it.
*unless, ofc, the "home invader" was a cop..then I'd definitely have a date with sparky in my future, assuming that the cop didn't flat out kill me and skate, lol.
-and since I'm on the subject of non comparative desert and guns or gun control.
It's a non comparative appraisal at both ends of the gun control spectrum.
Anti-control advocates, and as I'm using the term a person who is satisfied with our current regulations is anti-control insomuch as they argue against more or stricter regs...worry that such a change would be or could be a negative overcompensation. They may see and accept that both the current state of affairs and many gun owners are responsible for the negatively valued gun problem. OTOH, they worry that some prohibitive or punitive action would amount to negative overcompensation being applied to specific gun owners that don't even fit the attributive profile of the control measures.
Pro control advocates, and try not to read too much in, again, an anti ban person who argues for more or better or stricter regulations is pro control as I;m using it - fears that our inaction or incompetence has lead to a positive under compensation. It may be the case that some people deserve to get shot, but our actions pursuant to that are a separate issue entirely. Whatever bad shit other people may do is their own baggage, but we are failing to effect a situation in which even the "bad people" are shielded from the worst failings of others, or their own.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
