“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.”

  • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 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.

    • shalafi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      I’m listening, and we can talk, but…

      you should have to prove it first however

      Whether you or I find gun ownership a Constitutional right, the courts agree it is, and have done so historically. (Unless the owner is black, but that’s another story.)

      The “prove” part is a hard “no”. I don’t have to “prove” any of my Constitutional rights. New York had that notion and the court, rightfully IMHO, shot it down. In Alabama you had to have the county sheriff sign off on your “need” to conceal carry. Any guesses as to how that was applied?

      guns affect more than the person who has one

      I think we’re close here…? What do you mean exactly? In any case, how would we remedy the situation? I’m on the constant lookout for gun laws that will pass the courts and have effect.

      (And thank you for taking the time to write that up. So rare in these discussions.)

      • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 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.