I mean, come on, really? That’s your take away?
I think you’ve made it clear there is no point in discussing this with you any longer. Continue as you are.
Last time I remember reading about a similar situation it turned out the homeowner lured the “burglars” and executed them when they presented no threat, and he ended up charged. I think the facts of this case may turn out to be more complex than have been presented so far.
I’ll try to express it, but usually someone jumps down my throat when I try, so pardon me if I’m a bit leery of doing so.
My stance, to put it simply, is that the freedom of the right of self defense is worth the cost. I have a similar stance on say, free speech. The price of letting people like Trump lie and Nazi’s march in Wisconsin is worth the price of real freedom of speech.
The right to defend yourself should not be restricted to incredibly fit martial artists, but to everyone. If a linebacker from the Jets broke into my house with a baseball bat… well I’m fucked. He’s faster than me, stronger than me and anything I do to him will be like throwing Nerf balls at an elephant. Except I have a .45 pistol and a M1 Garand. Both those will even the odds very quickly. Hell, those put the odds in my favor. Worst case scenario we’re at parity (if he has a gun), which is still a hell of a lot better than “I’m completely fucked so I hope he doesn’t feel like killing or crippling me today.”
I recognize the statistics, but, for lack of better terminology, I accept those as the price we pay. Am I in favor of better gun safety and training? Absolutely. Do I think flagrantly negligent firearms handling should be penalized? Again, yeah I think so in most cases. Accidents can and will happen, but when basic safety is ignored, I have no problem with those people’s rights being lost or at least suspended for a time.
It’s a case where I understand the opposing position. But I just disagree with it. I take a fairly dim view of restricting or abolishing rights, and let’s not forget it is a right, just like freedom of speech or religion. If people want to change that they need to amend the Constitution, but a huge chunk of the populace doesn’t want that to happen (and we can’t amend anything anyway, but that’s a whole other discussion). If people want to approach it intelligently, that’s one thing, but generally it becomes a lot of lies and misinformation. “Assault weapons” is just a made up term in the political sense. It literally means “guns that look scary or cool.” They aren’t “automatic weapons” or anything of the sort, yet people say it like it’s fact over and over again. But I’m digressing into the problems of the politics and conversation.
I’m happy to try to explain my position more clearly, but I think at some level we’re going to hit the wall of what I consider an acceptable cost for having a freedom and what you consider an acceptable cost are fundamentally different things. I’m not sure talking can really get around that point when it’s all said and done, but I’m willing to present my viewpoint on it at least.
Thank you for sharing this. As you can probably guess I draw that line differently than you do, but I appreciate you articulating your stance here.
I lean heavily toward governing toward the greatest societal good as best we can know it based on observable data, and am a little more willing to have rights restricted if there’s a good enough case to be made that e.g. restricting and/or heavily regulating firearms ownership leads to better outcomes for more people.
A reasonable political argument, to me, is “where do we draw that line?” Not “stop arguing with your facts and your data, I’m having emotions over here! (or, worse, ‘someone else is probably having emotions over there!’)”
Japan has the most sensible self defense laws. You’re only able to defend yourself with the lethal force you’re threatened with.
So this means thieves usually carry knives or (rarely) swords because a homeowner using a gun against them would be charged with murder. Conversely home owners are assured that home invaders have an incentive not to carry guns lest they be themselves subject to lethal force.
Great post, Shiva. While I do draw the line differently than you do, I very much agree with your breakdown of the policy debate. I also acknowledge that moving the legal line to where I would personally like to draw it would require an amendment.
Nice. How’s the thumb? :)
@ShivaX I understand your point, I think, as like you I can at least understand the opposing viewpoint. Like I said, I’m not looking to eliminate guns completely, however I am in favor of some limitations. And while I won’t get into the ‘assault weapon’ debate, because I do understand the nuances of why that was poorly structured and worded.
At the end, I do think you are correct.
That this is likely the outcome. Not because we haven’t thought through positions, but because I see the abberant shooting rates, gun deaths, and so on that are unique to America among developed nations, and see there is a lot of room for improvement. I live right next to Chicago, I see daily reminders of problems with guns in America. And I do think there are certainly liberties that are threatened with excessive liberty with guns. Which is not to say we couldn’t agree on some things. I wager if we were to get into the nuts and bolts about different things we could do to curb gun violence, there would be areas of agreement. Certainly I would probably be more tolerant of gun ownership restrictions than you, but that doesn’t mean there is no possible room for discussion or common ground.
But while I may disagree with you on certain things, perhaps strongly, I can understand and respect your view.
Good since I haven’t really had a chance to take it to the range. I’m sure that will change painfully once I do.
FWIW, I do think the Democrats shit the bed on gun control so thoroughly over the last 20 years that it’s a dead issue for another decade at least.
Without a doubt. I’m the one screaming at people I know to not fall for the trap. I have a friend that voted for Joni Ernst simply because of her “pro-gun stance” or some bullshit. The other guy wasn’t going to do anything to grab his guns, but at the end of the day he voted for someone who he disagrees with on basically everything because “ZOMG MY GUNZ!!”
This can’t be real.
Well, it sure isn’t sensible.
“Shit he has a sword… well, I only have a gun, I guess I have to die today.”
The bad guy’s power level might affect things.
I’m no expert here and don’t read Japanese. I suspect it’s not so cut and dry, it I think the issue is proportionality. Don’t bring a tank to a knife fight basically. The idea is that if you catch someone cat burglering you and you have a gun, they having a knife does not retroactively give you the right to shoot them. I pretty sure police aren’t measuring the lengths of their katanas to make sure everyone is playing fair. If someone charged you screaming and flashing a sword I’m sure you’d be in the right to defend yourself with a gun. It’s just that simply carrying a bladed weapon has a different threat response expected vs someone carrying a gun.
That’s silly. A dude with a knife is not some minor threat, if they close the distance, which in most households they already have by fact of being in the house with you, they can easily kill a person with a firearm.
It sounds like the “it was only a knife!” myth made into national policy.
It seems like game theory would benefit the intruders. Homeowners now have little incentive to own a gun since they have to comply with the rule ornament law, and knives are equal levels of force so intruders are still at risk of being attacked by a knife. Might as well carry a gun.
I guess if they only go after the weak, who can’t use a force equalizer, then it’s the best of both worlds: low risk of being attacked by a stronger knife-wielder and negligible risk of being shot.
The real question isn’t what happens when the show up in a giant mecha and start raping people at autocannon-point with robotic tentacles.
Well, considering the American solution, which is Guns for Every Situation, leads to 400 homicides a year in Japan vs 10,000 in the US, I’m willing to take our chances.
Somewhere, a mall is missing its ninja.
And that’s not giving up? What do you think is going to happen in ten years that will make it better? White supremacy and Nazis groups are emboldened, they have open representation in our government, the police and the militia are basically on the same sides as the other two… what is going to happen to improve the it’s not our message but our presentation of the message stance from now to then?