4 ms·

The idea is that you have 'remote violence' you can assert without getting in harm's way. That is of course not how reality works, but because someone might thi

The idea is that you have 'remote violence' you can assert without getting in harm's way. That is of course not how reality works, but because someone might think that they now possess this capability using it might seem more attractive. There is of course the idea that if you don't have it, you are 'helpless' as you might put it. That is just a precursor to an arms race. You can always retreat, delegate to a specialist (if there are any, i.e. a capable policing system) etc. The issue with 'I might get violenced upon!' is that even if that happens, you having your own source of violence only means that the next incident requires more violence from the attacker's side, and more returning violence from the 'defender'. This is an endless loop that just ends in MAD (as posted below). The only thing it can do is escalate. Someone who already made to choice to attack/invade/break-the-rules is not going to be 'deterred' by someone owning a source of violence. They will just bring their own. A while ago I read an article about a family man with a hidden 'gun room' in his house, which was 'for protection'. Turns out you can't actually carry 20 assault rifles in your two hands at once. Perhaps one might think this is for redundancy. But if you are in a situation where you need redundant firearms, those are unlikely to be the deciding factor, and investing in a car so you can simply drive away might have been the better choice. But it seems people would rather try to get some illegal RPG 'for protection' instead.

salawat 5y ago
An RPG is not illegal with the right tax stamp! It's a destructive device, so the tax is by the round. However it is legal. Now whether you agree with the legitimacy around said regulatory framework, and the severe magnification of sentences for what amounts to glorified tax evasion, and it being a poll tax (a tax which renders a Constitutionally guaranteed right conditional), and in light of the 2nd Amendment, that is a completely different story. Again. As mentioned elsewhere in the thread, I try to avoid this now, because the regulations are as fickle as the night is long, and I despise having to stay tuned to figure out if some swath or another of the population is in threat of getting turned into felons overnight because someone in the Executive branch got into a tizzy. Nobody else seems to lose sleep over that sort of thing, but I do.
ghufran_syed 5y ago
"44 shot this weekend" in chicago https://abc7chicago.com/chicago-shootings-gun-violence-police-weekend/10922870/ https://abc7chicago.com/chicago-shootings-gun-violence-polic... I guess they should have applied the "You can always retreat, delegate to a specialist...etc" You may argue about whether chicago police department is "capable" - they certainly have very strict gun laws which don't seems to be preventing this gun violence. But if they are not capable, "retreating" doesn't seem to be helping these people. Or are they doing it wrong?
- pjc50 5y ago
  Chicago has strict gun laws. Illinois doesn't. The trouble with a raw list of stats is that there's no context; why are all these shootings happening? They don't all or even mostly seem to be armed robbery.
  - jdkee 5y ago
    This is incorrect. Unlike the vast majority of US states, Illinois requires any possessor of firearms or ammunition to have a state issued license. Illinois bans the possession of Class III firearms. Certain jurisdictions in Illinois, such as Cook County, ban modern sporting rifles.
spacephysics 5y ago
But by the home owner not having a firearm, or self defense weapon, doesn’t prevent the violent encounter. A criminal who plans to intrude will still intrude. One case you have a chance to defend yourself or family, the other you’re left to “retreat” (which I think, perhaps controversially, if it’s your property you shouldn’t be obligated to retreat it if someone is criminally trying to enter). That also assumes you can retreat. In a vacuum sure the arms race would escalate, but this assumes infinite resources. If I get a pistol, then the lower “bar of entry” becomes a pistol for the intruder. If I get a heavier weapon, such as a shotgun, the intruder is gonna have a harder time (even if slightly) buying or finding the more costly (resource wise) weapon. what I think is more likely to happen, is unless you have an organized gang, solo criminals will just go for easier crimes. They won’t risk entering a neighborhood that is armed. Because then the cost to enter the house, and come out safe/successful, drastically increases once the home owner has capable self defenses.

salawat 5y ago

An RPG is not illegal with the right tax stamp! It's a destructive device, so the tax is by the round. However it is legal. Now whether you agree with the legitimacy around said regulatory framework, and the severe magnification of sentences for what amounts to glorified tax evasion, and it being a poll tax (a tax which renders a Constitutionally guaranteed right conditional), and in light of the 2nd Amendment, that is a completely different story. Again. As mentioned elsewhere in the thread, I try to avoid this now, because the regulations are as fickle as the night is long, and I despise having to stay tuned to figure out if some swath or another of the population is in threat of getting turned into felons overnight because someone in the Executive branch got into a tizzy. Nobody else seems to lose sleep over that sort of thing, but I do.

ghufran_syed 5y ago

"44 shot this weekend" in chicago https://abc7chicago.com/chicago-shootings-gun-violence-police-weekend/10922870/ https://abc7chicago.com/chicago-shootings-gun-violence-polic... I guess they should have applied the "You can always retreat, delegate to a specialist...etc" You may argue about whether chicago police department is "capable" - they certainly have very strict gun laws which don't seems to be preventing this gun violence. But if they are not capable, "retreating" doesn't seem to be helping these people. Or are they doing it wrong?

pjc50 5y ago
Chicago has strict gun laws. Illinois doesn't. The trouble with a raw list of stats is that there's no context; why are all these shootings happening? They don't all or even mostly seem to be armed robbery.
- jdkee 5y ago
  This is incorrect. Unlike the vast majority of US states, Illinois requires any possessor of firearms or ammunition to have a state issued license. Illinois bans the possession of Class III firearms. Certain jurisdictions in Illinois, such as Cook County, ban modern sporting rifles.

spacephysics 5y ago

But by the home owner not having a firearm, or self defense weapon, doesn’t prevent the violent encounter. A criminal who plans to intrude will still intrude. One case you have a chance to defend yourself or family, the other you’re left to “retreat” (which I think, perhaps controversially, if it’s your property you shouldn’t be obligated to retreat it if someone is criminally trying to enter). That also assumes you can retreat. In a vacuum sure the arms race would escalate, but this assumes infinite resources. If I get a pistol, then the lower “bar of entry” becomes a pistol for the intruder. If I get a heavier weapon, such as a shotgun, the intruder is gonna have a harder time (even if slightly) buying or finding the more costly (resource wise) weapon. what I think is more likely to happen, is unless you have an organized gang, solo criminals will just go for easier crimes. They won’t risk entering a neighborhood that is armed. Because then the cost to enter the house, and come out safe/successful, drastically increases once the home owner has capable self defenses.