Originally Posted by Ventucky Red
Originally Posted by Mark Schneider
Originally Posted by Ventucky Red
[quote=waterbug_wpb]

Iand with a larger number of psychopaths and sociopaths running around... I have no qualms with those that do..







Are you saying the perpetrators of crimes against persons don't exhibit these predictors in their behavior...

If so can you cite that?

The discussion here is people protecting themselves in their home form those that violate those boundaries...



No that is not my point or the question.
This debate is about the reasons for making a choice to weaponize the home. The purpose of the argument is justifying the action as reasonable, getting a pass on the judgment, or persuading others of the reasonableness.

Lots of fuzzy thinking here... usually we use the term reason in the context of cause and effect... reasons are facts that support the mechanism. when really.... what you have is the expression of a value ( I value guns) ... which doesn't need a reason.

Someone, claimed that there were "Larger NUMBERS of nuts" So this introduces a debate about the level of risk AND more importantly.. the idea that the "risk" is actually increasing....

Critical thinking would cause you to consider that the level of deviants is constant or even declining and just being reported more because it sells eyeballs on tv news. Or... a pretty blondes was the victem and we sympathize. Alternatively are you, the observer, just filtering the noise 'of the news and "it seems like" the risk of a home invasion is increasing. (another pretty blonde was a victim)
Can someone point to some measurements that yield valid data .... the frequency and number of nutter home invasions is increasing???

A single event in the country a year could be enough of reason for you to take an action. Hell... No actions are needed to express a value.... You can make it up. "I value guns" Full stop..

However, the intent was to persuade others to ratify some one's decision as being based on much more then a single reason. It was stated as a FACT that the level of deviance had INCREASED and because circumstances had changed... there were MANY bad events and the decision made to weaponize was VERY reasonable. I don't see the data for this.... and so I argue that changing behavior would be Un reasonable.

Somebody else raised the issue of the downside. Ie death caused by emotional exchanges within the family, suicide, accidents etc. This is the other side of the "reasonable argument". They are inviting a person who does opt for an un real reason to own a weapon to also consider the downside risk and share their assessment of the downside risks as they balance against the upside risks ...

Of course, you never have to look at the risk reward balance either. its a free country... you can weaponize your home for NO reason. not a problem. (Now weaponizing the public space... hmm).

A persuasive case to weaponize your home would be founded in facts about the actual risk in your world, actual facts about the change in risk and consideration for the facts of the down side risk that comes with it.

What is actually going on is the attempt to make the case simply by agreement.. EVERYONE has a gun... so its "reasonable" to have a gun in the home. this is simply not a cause and effect relationship. The term reasonable shouldn't be used. This is just agreement based on a shared value. So... facts like the decline in numbers of homes with guns undermines the pro home owner gun argument "by agreement". Fewer people then the past have guns in the homes... ergo... Less agreement on gun values and less of a faux "reason"

No worries... the second amendment gives you the right as a matter of the constitution.... so... even if the number of gun families continues to decline... no changes to you for so long as we have no constitutional amendments passed.
(now ..... if the popularity of gun ownership declined enough... a constitutional amendment would take away your right.... so driving up fear to reverse the everybody has one agreement argument is what it is... a strategy... not a reason.)

I have family members who weaponize for no reason beyond false perception of risks/reward. (they mistate the facts) I only visit the ones with gun safes and good track records of maintaining their firearm skills (helps that they are ex military). I had one family member with a flying scott... Yeah... maybe we should solve that problem once and for all


Last edited by Mark Schneider; 03/02/17 06:52 PM.

crac.sailregattas.com