Are you responsible?

[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.

[possibletarian]

If someone steals your car - and runs over someone and kills them - are you civilly or criminally liable?

Should you be?

I would say No, and No

I don't think even if you left your keys in the car that you aided the thief strictly speaking, the decision to take what was not theirs was entirely their own.

I can see from an insurances perspective though that leaving keys in the car could be seen as not taking all reasonable precautions.

[Shell B]

Are you high? I've seen this tactic used in actual gun debates where both sides were debating the topic openly. It's very common. That said, so isn't the debate about whether car owners should be culpable if someone uses their car in committing a crime. People are way too fucking fond of calling everything they don't like trolling.

No, you just accused people of bait and switch even though no switch ever happened, and then went happily down memory lane and your brain glossed your worldview over the fact that no switch ever happened. People are constantly accusing others of talking about something other than they are talking about, and they are always absolutely certain that they are right, and they are routinely totally wrong, but in their rearview mirror they were right every single time, and then they say goofy things about having seen bait and switch in hundreds or thousands of discussions. And every one of those times was just a time when they accused someone of bait and switch, but no switch ever happened.

Now Brian admits that he is trolling this discussion intentionally, and he says that he intends to keep doing it, and he apparently intends to always force a thread to be a gun thread. My guess is that OLB's threads are targeted by him, since OLB is a gun enthusiast. The guy is a factual troll. And you've been in here encouraging him with your 'well maybe this is a bait and switch discussion so maybe it really is a gun thread' nonsense.  No, it's not a gun thread. It a thread that's being trolled by Brian with help from you there, moderator.

I didn't accuse anyone here of a bait and switch. In fact, I have very purposefully not done that because a switch didn't happen here, whether it's because Brian called it or not is not for me to know because I don't read fucking minds. I said, the argument is one I've seen used as a bait and switch. You know how I know that? Because the switch fucking happened during those conversations. I also went on to add that this conversation, minus any switch, is still a legitimate conversation to have, so I don't have any evidence, nor do I think, that a bait and switch is what's going on here. My only point is that Brian isn't just blowing shit out of his ass when he says it's a common tactic. It is. Where we diverge is whether that's what's going on here. As for me, I don't rightly care. I just think a bunch of people are acting like the idea that someone would use a car as an analogy for a gun is just absurd when it's clearly not absurd if it's a common argument.