3 ms·
Not home security, but I'm of the opinion this should apply for businesses and public places in some case. For instance, I usually carry a gun on me. If I go in
by TallGuyShort 6y ago
Not home security, but I'm of the opinion this should apply for businesses and public places in some case. For instance, I usually carry a gun on me. If I go into the court house or a concert venue I'm prohibited from doing that. IMO they have now assumed a level of liability to provide a reasonable level of effective security and they're negligent if they don't and I'm injured or kill because of a mass shooting anyway because they didn't enforce their own policies.
Speaking of guns, it's actually also not unheard of for people to be partly responsible for crimes committed with guns that were stolen from them, even in their home. You have something dangerous, like a network that has become a de facto platform for government officials, then yeah: you have a responsibility to take reasonable preventative measures too.
- nicoburns 6y agoI find it odd that you think a gun protects you in public. Its always seemed to me like you are more likely to be shot if you're carrying a gun, because an armed criminal now has to shoot you first if they want to ensure that they are not shot themselves. If you are unarmed they can simply threaten to shoot you and need not actually shoot. I guess in the US thee are so many guns that perhaps criminals will just assume that you're armed anyway. But IMO that only makes the case for gun control stronger. Because the most effective way to change that attitude would be to dramtically decrease the number of guns in circulation.
- TallGuyShort 6y agoThe gun is well concealed and I'm an accomplished competitive shooter - no I'm not concerned about that.