“If somebody breaks into my house, they’re getting shot,” she said, laughing. “I probably should not have said that. My staff will deal with that later.”

    • TechLich@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      7 months ago

      I feel like this a cultural thing because that sounds wild to me.

      The penalty for burglary where I am is not death, nor am I a judge or executioner.

      We’ve been broken into a lot and it’s usually just some poor asshole who wants to steal things to buy meth. It’s horrible and scary and feels like a massive violation but shooting someone in that scenario just feels like straight up murder.

      • FrostyTheDoo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        When someone breaks into your home you don’t have much of an opportunity to figure out why. Many times the reason is not to steal things and buy meth. Sometimes it’s to hurt, rape, or kidnap someone. Why take that chance?

        You might be picturing someone slowly walking up and executing a pleading, weaponless burglar in cold blood. In reality these things happen with mere seconds to make a decision about the safety of you and your family. Again, Why take the chance?

        If you’re breaking into a house, getting shot is a calculated risk you have chosen to take. If it happens, it’s only your fault. You had the choice to not put yourself or anyone else in harm’s way, and you chose the other option.

        • friend_of_satan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          When someone breaks into your home you don’t have much of an opportunity to figure out why.

          My thoughts exactly. “In Cold Blood” by Truman Capote is a true story about burglars who came to steal and ended up murdering a whole family. Awful thing to experience. Great book though.

          • WoodScientist@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            7 months ago

            The bigger problem is that people who buy guns for home defense are acting emotionally, not logically. The cold hard statistical truth is that if you own a firearm, it is most likely to be used by yourself or one of your family members to commit suicide, or to be the cause of a fatal accident, than it is to be used in self defense.

            People have this deeply flawed belief about suicide that if someone wants to do it, they’ll find a way. But that isn’t how suicide actually works. Most actual suicides are spur-of-the moment things. And giving someone access, in their, home, to a quick and usually painless method of ending their own life serves to massively increase the risk of suicide. Everyone has bad days. Everyone who lives long enough and isn’t a psychopath will experience deep sorrow. In a drunken sorrow on the night after a bad breakup or the death of a close relative? It doesn’t take much for people to be vulnerable to the call of the void.

            Yes, break-ins are scary. But the truth is, most thieves try NOT to break in when someone is home. And home invasions for rape, murder, or kidnapping are even rarer. There are a lot of scary things in this world, but you shouldn’t let that fear control your behavior. Rabies is a damn terrible thing, but it would be incredibly irrational to avoid going on a hike just due the risk of encountering a rabid wild animal.

            In the US at least, if you own a gun, it is far, far likelier that that weapon will be used to end your life or life of one of your family members than it will end be used in self defense.

            This is why I do not own a firearm. Yes, home invasions are terrifying. But if you own a weapon for the sake of home defense, you are letting your emotions and fear control your life. The simple statistical fact is that, on the net, buying a gun lowers your average expected lifespan.

              • Rekorse@sh.itjust.worksBanned
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                7 months ago

                Y’all are getting caught up on the word fear. The distinction is if someone takes actions that reduce their safety when they intend to increase it.

                They are right on average, but outliers do exist. Its not a guarantee of what will happen, but you do have to have some sort of logic to risk assessment.

                In my situation, its true a gun in my house increases risk, so I don’t have one. I’m sure some people have easily demonstrated needs for that type of protection, you should have to prove it first however.

                Sort of like vaccines, guns affect more than the person who has one, so its important to consider the risk to your community as well.

                  • Rekorse@sh.itjust.worksBanned
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    7 months ago

                    **So your argument is guns are a right and you don’t need to prove you deserve it. I just disagree morally. We should change that. Sure, you are legally correct, but you can be legally correct and morally defunct at the same time.

                    The 2nd amendment can and should be changed. Its an amendment in the first place, which sort of seems to imply changes are at the very least possible.

                    I don’t think its possible to change guns in america without amending the constitution first.

              • Rekorse@sh.itjust.worksBanned
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                Well the catch is everything can be broken down to some emotional response. Most would argue wanting to be alive to be somewhat objective.

                • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  That’s still the motivation for both sides. I’m not so much commenting on which one is right or wrong as pointing out that the logic won’t be effective at changing minds because the exact same argument can justify either side.

                  There was more to the argument above but then it was weakened by “don’t be ruled by fear, fear this other outcome instead”. IMO, it would have been better worded as, “if you fear x, consider whether you should fear y more instead” (or something like that, I’m not the most eloquent).

                  The first version is not only contradictory but also full of contempt. There’s an implied “what you’re doing is stupid, but what I’m doing isn’t”, which is fine for people who already agree that the other option is stupid, but can put those who don’t already agree on the defensive.

                  • Rekorse@sh.itjust.worksBanned
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    7 months ago

                    You are saying it makes no difference because the logic is the same for both sides, and km saying thats the point.

                    The real problem is that people do not evaluate guns appropriately, or themselves.

                    One half is regulation: “Do I think I’m a good gun owner? Of course!”, kind of stuff is wrong, but also a very common comment. Its also the requirement for buying a gun. Like a company that creates its own certification, and then certifies itself as safe.

                    The other half is a lack of understanding of what owning a gun might mean for the owner, and for this in the house with them, and those in their community. There are situations a gun makes someone safer, but the rest of their family of higher risk, or vice versa. There are also situations where a gun is necessary.

                    But we don’t honestly talk about this in America. Guns are always good here. Have a problem involving guns? Guns would have solved it for sure. Dont have a gun in your home? What, do you just want your family to get raped and murdered?

                    The lack of nuance is dizzying sometimes.

    • TommySoda@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      7 months ago

      These downvotes seem a little excessive. You’re making some good points about guns and how people should handle them.

      • Rekorse@sh.itjust.worksBanned
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        Being robbed doesnt give someone the right to kill someone. This is about personal morals, not tit for tat or get off my lawn bullshit. People have absurdly irrational fears that murderers are wandering the streets at night and picking random houses.

        Stealing is a cash business, theres no benefit to stealing from occupied homes, and absolutely not for attacking or killing an occupant. Criminals know this, they are just as afraid of people in the house as the other way around, thats why they carry weapons.

        The goal is that guns are harder to get, which makes them too expensive for random criminals to carry. Then homeowners can pull their old baseball bat out for home protection like we used to.

        Also, if you have people breaking in trying to murder you, you have made some awful enemies then.

    • InverseParallax@lemmy.worldBanned
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      7 months ago

      I’m close on this.

      I’m a responsible gun owner, but there are a LOT of crazy ammosexuals out there who aren’t safe to let carry.

      If someone tries to enter your house though, that’s a red line.