politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Yes, if you come in my home forcefully, I'll do my best to kill you. That is a line one does not cross, especially not with my wife and children in the house. Bullshit outside is a call to 911, see what happens.
Sure, maybe it's some drunk or kid at the wrong home. That's why you take a breath and identify the target and situation. If you're too fucking panicky to do that, give up your weapons, you do not deserve them.
Gun laws are mostly counter-productive and racist, but I'd go for a simple "use of force" test before one's initial purchase. If you watch GunTubers, you'll get sane takes, often straight legal advice from lawyers. If you talk to individuals, Jesus, what these people think is lawful and moral... And if you can't be arsed to do your fucking homework before bringing death into the equation, you are not fit to own or handle a weapon.
And don't fuck with me on this unless you've suffered a home invasion. Ever had hoods break in and rob you at knife point on Christmas Eve? Ever had a bear wander in your home on Christmas Eve? (Wow, now that I say that out loud... weird. Maybe I should not stay home on the 24th. OK, the wolf hybrid cruised in one summer night, but I knew him. Still got me to draw. 🙄)
These downvotes seem a little excessive. You're making some good points about guns and how people should handle them.
Being robbed doesnt give someone the right to kill someone. This is about personal morals, not tit for tat or get off my lawn bullshit. People have absurdly irrational fears that murderers are wandering the streets at night and picking random houses.
Stealing is a cash business, theres no benefit to stealing from occupied homes, and absolutely not for attacking or killing an occupant. Criminals know this, they are just as afraid of people in the house as the other way around, thats why they carry weapons.
The goal is that guns are harder to get, which makes them too expensive for random criminals to carry. Then homeowners can pull their old baseball bat out for home protection like we used to.
Also, if you have people breaking in trying to murder you, you have made some awful enemies then.
I'm close on this.
I'm a responsible gun owner, but there are a LOT of crazy ammosexuals out there who aren't safe to let carry.
If someone tries to enter your house though, that's a red line.
I literally trust noone who has ever said "I'm a responsible gun owner".
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.
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.
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.
Yeah I'm not too sure theres much can be done verbally until people stop being their own judge for gun safety. Every argument is defeated soundly by declaring they follow all the right rules, whether they do or not, and I can't say anything about it because they are the exception. Everyone's the exception it seems.
Where do you live that bears and gangs are both on the table, Anchorage?