@Durandal: I was merely trying to say that a perp would think twice before trying to break in when there are barking dogs. The perp has no idea what kind of dogs they are or where they are in the house and most likely wouldn't want to find out. I have never shot a person but believe me if it came down to it, I would have no problem defending myself.
Off Topix: Embrace the Unexpected in Every Discussion
Off Topix is a well established general discussion forum that originally opened to the public way back in 2009! We provide a laid back atmosphere and our members are down to earth. We have a ton of content and fresh stuff is constantly being added. We cover all sorts of topics, so there's bound to be something inside to pique your interest. We welcome anyone and everyone to register & become a member of our awesome community.
They have a gun!
- Thread starter Nebulous
- Start date
Jazzy said:
Well yeah, but I was saying, if they have a gun, they aren't really going to fear a dog they can silence with the pull of a trigger, or two. Someone determined to get into your house, and with a gun, even more so - is just going to go for it; simple opportunity cost leverage. In the end it comes down to who gets off the better shot - but already from a tactical standpoint, you've been boxed and the assault has more space than the defensive position. A defensive armament position evens the score, but it doesn't particularly provide an inherent 'advantage' in such a situation, as some cite.
Jazzy said:
You can't (at least in my view that there is always a chance for an action to occur, even if it must occur parallel to an inaction), but you can eliminate as much of the possibility as humanly possible. If the person has a criminal motive to invade your house outside of your consent and to engage in potentially fatal hostilities, then the causal functions of why this is happening must be investigated. Is the person looking for a robbery? Rape? Just plain ol' murder (likely a serial killer in this case)? Once that is verified one must think about what lead to that, and so on (it's kind of like putting a flow-chart together, and I presume you don't want me to actually go about diagramming all the possible reasons and motivations someone could have for invading your home - and seeing has I don't know you - I couldn't do so completely).
If it's someone that has social proximity to you, there's likely an easy explanation. If it's a random crime from someone without social proximity to you, they likely (if they are in a rational state of mind) - have weighed opportunity cost. If they don't rob/kill/invade you, they either face a negative consequence, or lack a quantity of positive consequence. It they do so, they have judged they face less of a negative consequence (something they feel is within their capacity to manage), or they will gain a satisfactory of quantity of positive consequence. Thus they do it. If they're irrational, well then they're just batskeet crazy. If they were rational, one would have to look at why they found the opportunity cost of invading your home to be leading to a better set of outcomes than not. We know what those types of people likely are - broke as hell and need money for some reason, typically illicit; or they are lacking social stimulus to the point where they want interaction and the cost of interacting with you in an illegal way to them is rationalised as less of a cost than 'normal' interaction (this is usually due to some dysfunction that needs addressing), or if they are completely off the wall nuts, then intervention has either failed them, or they haven't had access to invervention.
So you'd identified some potential precursors that are THEIR problems that lead to YOUR problem. Addressing their problems (the manner of which doing so is beyond the scope of this particular conversation) before it becomes your problem is the key to eliminating the possibility of this happening.
beowulf said:
?
'Everyone' certainly doesn't qualify within the scope of my reply. Maybe you should try reading it again. Not everyone has a problem related to what Jazzy and I were discussing, and there are interventions and solutions that already in existence, they merely need to be implemented or implemented properly.
If implemented properly, there's no practical 'mean time'.
...but wash over what was actually mentioned in my reply - conservative thinking too much.
and i think you misread what i wrote
there are too many bad people out there...............just how would you solve thier various problems?........are you going to rid the world of the poor?............cure all drug addicts looking for easy money for there next high?.....imprison all 'potential' sex offenders or psychopaths?........and until thier problems are solved the danger of being attacked/robbed/raped/etc will still be present....and therefore until thier problems are solved and the bad people go away there will still be a need for privately owned firearms for self defence
btw......i am british and am not allowed to own firearms any more but i fully support the american right to keep and bear arms
there are too many bad people out there...............just how would you solve thier various problems?........are you going to rid the world of the poor?............cure all drug addicts looking for easy money for there next high?.....imprison all 'potential' sex offenders or psychopaths?........and until thier problems are solved the danger of being attacked/robbed/raped/etc will still be present....and therefore until thier problems are solved and the bad people go away there will still be a need for privately owned firearms for self defence
btw......i am british and am not allowed to own firearms any more but i fully support the american right to keep and bear arms
beowulf said:
No, actually given your 'clarification', I understood full well. I knew this was coming. That's such a closed mindset: There's just too many bad people out there. Logical fallacy. No, there really aren't. It seems that way with the misrepresentation that the media gives, and underfunded agencies (ministries on your side of the puddle) and social services. Unfortunately, these agencies and services that are underfunded, then obviously underperform, leading people to think government is just wasting money and doing a lacklustre job. While there are inefficiencies in just about everything Humanity does, that doesn't mean it is a given, nor always the case.
'Potentials' aren't a problem, because 'potential' includes just about everyone (though early screening would be able to easily root out a Psychopath where early intervention could be assessed, when done properly). Yes, curing addiction really isn't actually far-fetched; I do advocate treatment for criminally-inclined addicts. Most of them are pretty easily profiled by previous and present behaviour. If a system is established and reinforced where there is intervention before a problem of a large magnitude arises, then you avoid the violent home invasions. It takes money, time, and effort, but it's not outside of the abilities of Human society. Drug addicts that have committed minor offences or have been hit for possesion are involved in the criminal justice system already, but instead of fixing the problem, it is just shoved aside. Incarceration doesn't necessarily cure someone's addiction on its own - compulsory rehabilitation in a low-intensity incarceration environment can.
If those people aren't on the streets AND are getting treated, that seems to remove and eliminate the problem, no?
As for the poor, that's even easier, because they likely haven't committed a crime, and all that is needed is vocational rehabilitation and social support. Make the vocational rehabilitation compulsory, and make sure they have what they need, so they can work for what they want, instead of resorting to crime for either. Simple as that. Again, it requires time, money, and effort, but it is certainly a goal quite obtainable, and easily so, I might add. It merely requires the willpower of society to make it so. It is an investment in Humanity, it requires a large investment to see a significant margin in the short-term, and is ultimately an long-term asset to collect ROI on, but it is a positive, and rather secure investment to make. If you can't count on investing in Humanity, you might as well just call it quits on your own behalf.
Yeah, it's not quite a secret you're British, by the way. Flags and all...
Jazzy said:
A social security system, cheap but good education, treatment for drug addicts, etc. We don't have an intervention program for psychopaths though.
Jazzy said:
I agree that the ideas Durandal posted are never going to happen in the US. At least in our life time.
Jazzy said:
Where's the money going to come from? Taxes, higher taxes. Unfortunately:
Cranos said:
I agree with that, even if a miracle happened and people were willing to go along with the idea - we're in such a hole (and this is not just the U.S. even, there's a lot of work to do around the WORLD) that it would take a couple of generations to right the ship. That's IF you could get Regressionists on board with the plan, but unfortunately the power is in their hands right now and there's a pandemic of Taxophobia in the U.S.
I would be careful not to say Never, though - there's a lot of Nevers that have been refuted over the course of history.
Durandal said:
True, pretty much half of our income goes to taxes, health care, etc.
Durandal said:
I didn't say it'll never happen, I just don't believe it'll happen in the next 100 years. History tells us that societies either evolve or crumble, who knows what will be there in 300 years.
Similar threads
