Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
sarisataka
sarisataka's Journal
sarisataka's Journal
September 12, 2014
Now we have seen many arguments that people should not have guns outside of the home. We have also seen some state that they should not have them in the home. If a person does have a gun n the home there is always the question of "will you kill someone who is walking out with your TV", implying a gun should not be used to protect "stuff".
Now what puzzles me is, if the risk of crime outside the home is paranoia, protecting yourself is not a good reason to carry, and protecting your "stuff" in the home is not a good reason to use a gun on an intruder, why it is so acceptable to protect business property with arms?
Arguably the corporation/business is better able to handle the loss of money or material goods than an individual (their assets usually are fully insured and are greater than an individual or family's assets), but there is almost no opposition to armed security protecting money or business property. It is considered a reasonable, even necessary, response to the risk of crime. Yet if an individual makes the same choice, they are paranoid, cowardly, bigoted, gun humping, have tiny genitals...
Can someone solve this conundrum?
Can someone help me understand...
This quote against concealed carry came up in a GD thread about a teacher having a negligent discharge
have a good reason for carrying, like for example people transporting bags of money
Now we have seen many arguments that people should not have guns outside of the home. We have also seen some state that they should not have them in the home. If a person does have a gun n the home there is always the question of "will you kill someone who is walking out with your TV", implying a gun should not be used to protect "stuff".
Now what puzzles me is, if the risk of crime outside the home is paranoia, protecting yourself is not a good reason to carry, and protecting your "stuff" in the home is not a good reason to use a gun on an intruder, why it is so acceptable to protect business property with arms?
Arguably the corporation/business is better able to handle the loss of money or material goods than an individual (their assets usually are fully insured and are greater than an individual or family's assets), but there is almost no opposition to armed security protecting money or business property. It is considered a reasonable, even necessary, response to the risk of crime. Yet if an individual makes the same choice, they are paranoid, cowardly, bigoted, gun humping, have tiny genitals...
Can someone solve this conundrum?
Profile Information
Gender: MaleHometown: St Paul MN
Home country: USA
Current location: Here
Member since: Wed Mar 21, 2012, 10:41 PM
Number of posts: 18,636