HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » sarisataka » Journal
Page: 1

sarisataka

Profile Information

Gender: Male
Hometown: St Paul MN
Home country: USA
Current location: Here
Member since: Wed Mar 21, 2012, 10:41 PM
Number of posts: 12,728

Journal Archives

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?
Go to Page: 1