“While well meaning, there are also other ways to prevent auto theft motivated home invasions"
Not listed: living in a region known for shooting home invaders.
Not listed: living in a region known for shooting home invaders.
I understand that for the average HN reader the known presence of guns in an area is probably going to move the probability of robbing a stranger from 0.001% to 0.0005% or something, but I'm not convinced the thought process of actual criminals works the same way.
/s, if anyone misses the sarcasm.
I think the only thing you’ve said that’s correct is the increase in homicide, but don’t forget a homeowner killing a home invader is technically considered homicide, and the RAND study pointed that out. There’s no evidence of any statistically significant increase of criminal activity.
I for one wouldn’t want to live in a place where my first thought if someone breaks in is to avoid them and hope everyone else in my house can find an exit, home break ins are super rare but why would I take the chance.
They are arguing the opposite, that there isn't a statistically significant decrease, that the increase in homicides is the primary difference.
Why wouldn't this be the case?
Easy to throw claims around. Let me try.
"There are thousands of studies out there that show armed homeowners prevented one million crimes in 2023"
Modulo stray bullets, shooting does in fact seem to address this
The good news is that reality does not care whether or not you lack imagination. One can only marvel then, at the sequence of events that lead to the "unthinkable".
In the industry we love using the 5 whys to get to the bottom of an issue. I just wish folks would apply the same to their daily life.
1) Why did this man steal your car? > Because he's poor. 2) Why is this man poor? > Because his previous job paid too little. 3) Why did his previous job pay so little? > Because he can only accept terms of a contract, try to find a better contract, or face homelessness 4) Why does he have to make that terrible choice? > Because there is a power disparity between the employer and the employee 5) Why is there a power disparity between the employer and the employee? > Because employees, despite being the real wealth creators, do not have any oversight and democratic control over their workplace.
A society that rewards theft will breed thieves. The alpha thief being the capitalist. Thats why "the west is falling"; it's only sowing the seeds of its destruction.
That's a very simplistic line of reasoning. People who aren't as well off as you aren't automatons without agency, driven by their base desires. This is proven by the people without cushy IT jobs you meet every day who don't choose to rob you every chance they get.
Naturally, desperate ppl act in desperate ways.
In Republics where there is a valid class compromise, or where there is class domination by the working class, you don't see all those violent issues.
Bullet as bandage is a poor metaphor!
And a bullet usually slows/halts an attacker, which is all a defender requires.
deprecative sez >" murder for something so insignificant is beyond reprehensible."<
I think you misspeak: murder is always illegal but killing a person may be legal. You may be killed for property crimes in some states.
Whenever you have a home invasion article, inevitably the “Internet Rambos” come out of the woodwork with their “simple” solution to a complex problem.
They are criminals. They are not trying to feed their families in a way commiserate with a peaceful society. They’re probably not trying to feed their families but even if they are it doesn’t matter if they are doing so by brutalising their neighbours.
In many ways, one could make the argument, a world where everyone is on an equal footing to do violence is preferable to one in which it is restricted to only a few.
On your way you’ll notice a lot of people headed in the opposite direction. Turns out anarchy sucks way more than our capitalist democracy.