4 ms·

>>Conversely, if the average person, during an attempted carjacking, opened fire on the attacker, it would be a major deterrent. It would also be a major incen

• garmaine 8y ago
  Not possibly use it, assuredly use it. They wouldn't hesitate. Why risk themselves by giving the victim a chance to respond, if they're prepared to use deadly force in the first place?
• cgag 8y ago
  Well, bring it on I guess. I can't imagine wanting to live in a world where it's illegal to defend yourself from thieves. I would think the incentive is that they don't want to die for a car or they don't want to commit a crime someone will actually investigate (a murder).
  • wahern 8y ago
    Technically you already do. Most jurisdictions around the world impose a duty to retreat, often quite strictly. The United States is an exception, largely an artifact of our frontier history and Wild West lore. There's a reason why the United States is such a violent country, and one of the most violent where law & order haven't broken down. I'm not saying I disagree with your sentiment that one should be given some liberties in meeting aggression with aggression. It's how I feel, too. (And I'm not shy around guns, FWIW.) But that feeling was nurtured by our violent culture. In most other countries people don't feel a compunction to buy a gun or otherwise arm themselves after being burglarized or carjacked. A predisposition to resort to violence isn't universal, not among developed nations, not even for defense. That took me awhile to wrap my head around, but IME (Ecuador, Mexico, Malaysia) it's true, even in countries with significantly more violent crime than we have.
    • magduf 8y ago
      >There's a reason why the United States is such a violent country, and one of the most violent where law & order haven't broken down. The big problem I see is the easy availability of guns, which has turned into an arms race of sorts. So victims (such as for carjacking, the subject here) have very good reason to fear that attackers are armed with deadly weapons, and so many people want to carry guns themselves to defend against this, and so the criminals carry guns too. In other developed nations, there's generally no easy access to guns, so a victim doesn't have such a large reason to fear for their life. The worst thing they have to worry about is usually being stabbed with a knife, which is generally much more survivable. So these countries generally have much less deadly crime, though they have more petty street crime (pickpocketing or purse-grabbing for instance). Countries where they have more violent crime like Mexico, El Salvador, etc. are ones where law and order really have broken down, and these aren't "developed nations" either; poverty and crime are both rampant there.
      • wahern 8y ago
        With regards to guns, I agree. We're a violent society that suffers violent crime and a violent response to crime. And I don't know how to untangle things other than to first appreciate the complexity of the situation. I just think it's important to understand that ours is a rather unique culture. Arming oneself is a reasonable response given our cultural values, and I support Americans' right to own firearms for self-dense (albeit with more regulation than commonly required). I hesitate to say it's reasonable in light of our violent crime. Middle-class Americans suffer very little violent crime. The ones who suffer the most, such as in inner-city ghettos, are communities that most vociferously support gun control and the most skeptical of self-defense arguments. But in any event most other cultures take a polar opposite view--that even aggression in self-defense is to be disincentivized--and I appreciate that it's also reasonable.
      • craftinator 8y ago
        The problem with gun control in a country that already has a high number of weapons per capita, as well as a constitutional right to carry them, is that people will refuse. No one likes to be helpless, and the manufacturing technology is pervasive. But what if we made all guns illegal, and the US citizens actually complied? End result: only criminals will have guns. That is a problem the police cannot possibly cope with. As a carjacker, I would feel way more comfortable in this situation.
  • patmcc 8y ago
    >>I can't imagine wanting to live in a world where it's illegal to defend yourself from thieves. It's not illegal to defend yourself, but it might be illegal to defend your property, yes. I think it's an complicated moral question whether or not it's fine to shoot someone stealing your TV, but there are lots of practical reasons I think it's probably best to have it generally not be legal.
• int_19h 8y ago
  The major disincentive to this is that if they do and get caught, the penalties are far more significant. In fact, many laws specifically demand harsh penalties for merely carrying a gun while committing a crime, not even for using it.
• craftinator 8y ago
  In all likelihood, the carjacker is already armed. No one tries to mug someone without an advantage. But assuming they are not, it forces the carjacker, who is a human being, to wonder if his/her line of work is worth having some crazy asshole open fire over some stupid car. Most people would say no, and the ones who decide it is worth it, they won't last long if half of the jobs they pull end up with bullets coming their way.
• craftinator 8y ago
  They already carry guns, or at least some form of weapon. No one mugs someone without knowing they have overwhelming force. Knowing that the person you're about to rob is likely to have a gun, and is likely to use it against you, makes you consider safer forms of employment. It's not like they only have to steal one car... It has to be regular or it's unsustainable, and if you are regularly getting shot at while trying to carjack... You won't be carjacking for long!