4 ms·

Do I understand this correctly: Crime is out of control and your solution is adding guns?

by rwmj 3y ago

alphanullmeric 3y ago
Because people should have the right to defend themselves and their things. Stealing and assault are not the basic human rights you want them to be.
- rwmj 3y ago
  > Stealing and assault are not the basic human rights you want them to be I think you may be replying to someone else, because I said no such thing.
  - alphanullmeric 3y ago
    Do you believe I should be able to stop someone from robbing my house when police don’t do their job?
    - avmich 3y ago
      Likely, but for which price?
    - rwmj 3y ago
      I think it would be infinitely preferable if the police did their job. In Europe this works well, I can't see why it couldn't work in the US too.
      - nicolashahn 3y ago
        In the US, it's not the police's job. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
      - collaborative 3y ago
        It may work well in certain European countries, but in certain others (i.e. Spain) the police will actually take the side of the criminal that's stolen your house and all your property within it as long as they can claim to have "resided" longer than 24 hours (a pizza delivery receipt is fine). You then have to sue, wait for up to 3 years to get a court order to "evict" the new occupiers, and be ok with losing everything you once owned. This is the result of going soft on criminals. Now there are organized crime syndicates that steal houses wholesale and "resell" the new keys for 1000 euros
        thunky 3y ago
        Let's try not to do it like Spain then.
pdonis 3y ago
Allowing law-abiding citizens to have guns to defend themselves against crimes that the government refuses to prevent, yes. If the governments would do their basic job, the vast majority of law-abiding citizens would not need guns for self-defense. But our current governments are sadly unwilling to do their basic job.
- nicolashahn 3y ago
  Reminder: The police have no obligation to protect you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
  - pdonis 3y ago
    > The police have no obligation to protect you If the government not only is not willing to do its duty to enforce the laws against crime, but even has the gall to claim that that's not the government's job, then all the more reason why law-abiding citizens will be motivated to exercise their right to keep and bear arms.
- throw0101c 3y ago
  > Allowing law-abiding citizens to have guns to defend themselves against crimes that the government refuses to prevent, yes. Except that stand-your-ground laws and easy concealed-carry look to make things worse: * https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy.html https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy.html
  - pdonis 3y ago
    You need to read the fine print. Although the graphic you linked to claims that these things "may increase" violent crime, when you click through to the "supporting evidence", it turns out the evidence for that is "limited". Also, the pages talk about "homicide", but that term, at least as it's usually used in such general studies, includes justified self-defense homicides. So if total homicides do in fact go up as a result of these laws, that could be because criminals who would have gotten away with their crimes before the laws were passed were instead killed by their intended victims in self defense. That's not a problem, it's exactly what the laws are for.
nicolashahn 3y ago
Should we take them away from the cops as well, so only criminals can have them? Or should we allow law abiding citizens to defend themselves, so you have an option other than becoming a victim?
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > Should we take them away from the cops as well, No. We should eliminate the cops (who have actively contributed to the current problem as a political protest to lobby for more control) and rebuild SF law enforcement as a non-monolithic function distributed in domain-specific units throughout local government (that component of the solution is not specific to SF, but SF is more accutely problematic than most places.) Probably less of the total manpower directed to enforcing the law should be armed with firearms, an armed paramilitary force is not a universal solution, but there still should be armed enforcement.
  - nicolashahn 3y ago
    Entirely rebuilding the PD just isn't realistic, and I don't see evidence that it'd even help. Regardless of what happens with the police, again, law abiding citizens should have the option to defend themselves, especially since the police have no obligation to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
- avmich 3y ago
  Shouldn't the police do that?
  - nicolashahn 3y ago
    They should! But they don't, because they have no obligation to protect you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
    - avmich 3y ago
CameronNemo 3y ago
Worked for Haiti, right??

Do I understand this correctly: Crime is out of control and your solution is adding guns?

by rwmj 3y ago

Do I understand this correctly: Crime is out of control and your solution is adding guns?

Because people should have the right to defend themselves and their things. Stealing and assault are not the basic human rights you want them to be.

rwmj 3y ago
> Stealing and assault are not the basic human rights you want them to be I think you may be replying to someone else, because I said no such thing.
- alphanullmeric 3y ago
  Do you believe I should be able to stop someone from robbing my house when police don’t do their job?
  - avmich 3y ago
    Likely, but for which price?
  - rwmj 3y ago
    I think it would be infinitely preferable if the police did their job. In Europe this works well, I can't see why it couldn't work in the US too.
    - nicolashahn 3y ago
      In the US, it's not the police's job. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
    - collaborative 3y ago
      It may work well in certain European countries, but in certain others (i.e. Spain) the police will actually take the side of the criminal that's stolen your house and all your property within it as long as they can claim to have "resided" longer than 24 hours (a pizza delivery receipt is fine). You then have to sue, wait for up to 3 years to get a court order to "evict" the new occupiers, and be ok with losing everything you once owned. This is the result of going soft on criminals. Now there are organized crime syndicates that steal houses wholesale and "resell" the new keys for 1000 euros
      - thunky 3y ago
        Let's try not to do it like Spain then.

pdonis 3y ago

Allowing law-abiding citizens to have guns to defend themselves against crimes that the government refuses to prevent, yes. If the governments would do their basic job, the vast majority of law-abiding citizens would not need guns for self-defense. But our current governments are sadly unwilling to do their basic job.

nicolashahn 3y ago
Reminder: The police have no obligation to protect you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
- pdonis 3y ago
  > The police have no obligation to protect you If the government not only is not willing to do its duty to enforce the laws against crime, but even has the gall to claim that that's not the government's job, then all the more reason why law-abiding citizens will be motivated to exercise their right to keep and bear arms.
throw0101c 3y ago
> Allowing law-abiding citizens to have guns to defend themselves against crimes that the government refuses to prevent, yes. Except that stand-your-ground laws and easy concealed-carry look to make things worse: * https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy.html https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy.html
- pdonis 3y ago
  You need to read the fine print. Although the graphic you linked to claims that these things "may increase" violent crime, when you click through to the "supporting evidence", it turns out the evidence for that is "limited". Also, the pages talk about "homicide", but that term, at least as it's usually used in such general studies, includes justified self-defense homicides. So if total homicides do in fact go up as a result of these laws, that could be because criminals who would have gotten away with their crimes before the laws were passed were instead killed by their intended victims in self defense. That's not a problem, it's exactly what the laws are for.

nicolashahn 3y ago

Should we take them away from the cops as well, so only criminals can have them? Or should we allow law abiding citizens to defend themselves, so you have an option other than becoming a victim?

dragonwriter 3y ago
> Should we take them away from the cops as well, No. We should eliminate the cops (who have actively contributed to the current problem as a political protest to lobby for more control) and rebuild SF law enforcement as a non-monolithic function distributed in domain-specific units throughout local government (that component of the solution is not specific to SF, but SF is more accutely problematic than most places.) Probably less of the total manpower directed to enforcing the law should be armed with firearms, an armed paramilitary force is not a universal solution, but there still should be armed enforcement.
- nicolashahn 3y ago
  Entirely rebuilding the PD just isn't realistic, and I don't see evidence that it'd even help. Regardless of what happens with the police, again, law abiding citizens should have the option to defend themselves, especially since the police have no obligation to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
avmich 3y ago
Shouldn't the police do that?
- nicolashahn 3y ago
  They should! But they don't, because they have no obligation to protect you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
  - avmich 3y ago

CameronNemo 3y ago

Worked for Haiti, right??