Ayn Rand on Gun Control

[Brant Gaede]

I'd rather conceal carry. Why let the bad guys know you're packin?

So they won't bad guy on you. If you want to take 'em down by surprise--go for it, but anyone can lose in any gunfight. Still, I'd like to conceal carry and shoot 'em down, only you can't conceal carry a .357 in Arizona; it's too big and too hot most of the year for the necessary clothes.

--Brant

The best combination is open and concealed carry both as many policemen do. Your main larger gun being open carry, your backup gun being concealed carry. In that case it still keeps the bad guys wondering. When the bad guys know every potential victim could end their lives they find other things to do or get their lives ended.

Dennis May

This gives me an idea: I'm left-handed but only have a right-hand holster--Most people seeing that would assume all my action would come off my right hand so I'll just go for the concealed weapon with a time advantage--

The more women who carry guns the more implicit protection to those who don't for the bad guys will wonder more about what's in that belly pack--

--Brant

[Selene]

[caroljane]

Adam

carry on...carry nation...cash and carry...carry a gun!

Yes, here we are in the future, where Florida and other states have a "Stand Your Ground" law, promoted by the gun lobby to encourage sales of handguns.

The law did not protect Trayvon Martin's rights much. The silly boy should have got hisself a gun.

Carol:

We do not know any facts yet. This is not the first, or last time that a Latino has shot a black person, and, it will not be the last time either.

Therefore, let's not rush to judgment. Leave the stupid actions to the attention whores like Al "not too" Sharpton.

Finally, that is a specious argument about any link between "stand your ground" laws and gun sales. Unless of course, you have some statistics, but you do not, because they do not exist.

Adam

carry on...carry nation...cash and carry...carry a gun!

I was not making an argument. I was making an observation, that the gun lobby (the NRA in fact) pushed the SYG law in Florida, (as reported by Reuters and other sources, if you accept that Reuters is credible). I did make the assumption that a group representing the makers and owners of a product would encourage laws that promote the sale and use of said product.

As to statistics, if there are any to show that where private gun ownership is highest, gun death and injury are lowest, I would be happy to see them.

[Dennis Hardin]

This means that yes, to some minimal extent, individuals who want to provide for their own private self-defense in defiance of the government's monopoly on the legitimate use of force will be denied the "right" to do so--because allowing them to do so would undermine the effectiveness of objective law and lead to the destruction of freedom for everyone.

This sounds like the words of the Luddite Peikoff with no understanding of basic self defense. I would not be part of any government taking away my right of self defense and would feel the need to fight such central planners creating such an unstable arrangement of masters versus the masses. The American arrangement with the people carrying arms to keep a government and internal and external enemies in check is the real world stable arrangement. Everything else leads to tyranny.

Dennis May

I was making an argument against anarcho-capitalism. I have no problem with citizens providing for their own self-defense when necessary, such as in emergency situations. I certainly have no problem with private gun ownership.

[Selene]

As to statistics, if there are any to show that where private gun ownership is highest, gun death and injury are lowest, I would be happy to see them.

Carol:

John Lott.. http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/

Lott's letter to the Baltimore Sun in response to a March 11th, 2012, entitled "Gun laws' sketchy effect," by Tricia Bishop:

Tricia Bishop misrepresented my research as well as the debate over concealed-carry laws ("Gun laws' sketchy effect," March 11). She makes it appear that I am only "one economist" who claims to find that right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime.

By now, a vast body of research supports my results. Among peer-reviewed national studies by criminologists and economists, 18 find that right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime, 10 claim no effect, and just one claims one type of crime temporarily increases slightly. The possibility that permit holders might lead to more crime is easily evaluated by looking at how incredibly law-abiding they are, with them losing their permits for any firearms-related violations (usually trivial ones) at hundredths or thousandths of 1 percentage point.

Forty-one states currently have right-to-carry laws where permits are based on objective criteria, such as passing a criminal background check. These laws have worked well — so well that no state has chosen to repeal the law or even held legislative hearings to reconsider it.

[caroljane]

As to statistics, if there are any to show that where private gun ownership is highest, gun death and injury are lowest, I would be happy to see them.

Carol:

John Lott.. http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/

Lott's letter to the Baltimore Sun in response to a March 11th, 2012, entitled "Gun laws' sketchy effect," by Tricia Bishop:

Tricia Bishop misrepresented my research as well as the debate over concealed-carry laws ("Gun laws' sketchy effect," March 11). She makes it appear that I am only "one economist" who claims to find that right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime.

By now, a vast body of research supports my results. Among peer-reviewed national studies by criminologists and economists, 18 find that right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime, 10 claim no effect, and just one claims one type of crime temporarily increases slightly. The possibility that permit holders might lead to more crime is easily evaluated by looking at how incredibly law-abiding they are, with them losing their permits for any firearms-related violations (usually trivial ones) at hundredths or thousandths of 1 percentage point.

Forty-one states currently have right-to-carry laws where permits are based on objective criteria, such as passing a criminal background check. These laws have worked well — so well that no state has chosen to repeal the law or even held legislative hearings to reconsider it.

As to statistics, if there are any to show that where private gun ownership is highest, gun death and injury are lowest, I would be happy to see them.

Carol:

John Lott..

http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/

Lott's letter to the Baltimore Sun in response to a March 11th, 2012, entitled "Gun laws' sketchy effect," by Tricia Bishop:

Tricia Bishop misrepresented my research as well as the debate over concealed-carry laws ("Gun laws' sketchy effect," March 11). She makes it appear that I am only "one economist" who claims to find that right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime.

By now, a vast body of research supports my results. Among peer-reviewed national studies by criminologists and economists, 18 find that right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime, 10 claim no effect, and just one claims one type of crime temporarily increases slightly. The possibility that permit holders might lead to more crime is easily evaluated by looking at how incredibly law-abiding they are, with them losing their permits for any firearms-related violations (usually trivial ones) at hundredths or thousandths of 1 percentage point.

Forty-one states currently have right-to-carry laws where permits are based on objective criteria, such as passing a criminal background check. These laws have worked well — so well that no state has chosen to repeal the law or even held legislative hearings to reconsider it.

You introduced John Lott on this topic before, but his repeating himself here does not answer what I asked. I was not speaking of crime statistic reduction, but of death and injury stats due to gunshots -- whether deliberate or accidental. Just a body count. Because it seems reasonable to me that where a means of death and injury is most prevalent , such death and injury rates would be proportional. Just as where there are the most cars there are the most car accidents. That's all. If this is not so, which seems counterfactual to me, I need my bias to be disproved by being shown that overall, private gun ownership prevents people from being shot.

[Selene]

You introduced John Lott on this topic before, but his repeating himself here does not answer what I asked. I was not speaking of crime statistic reduction, but of death and injury stats due to gunshots -- whether deliberate or accidental. Just a body count. Because it seems reasonable to me that where a means of death and injury is most prevalent , such death and injury rates would be proportional. Just as where there are the most cars there are the most car accidents. That's all. If this is not so, which seems counter factual to me, I need my bias to be disproved by being shown that overall, private gun ownership prevents people from being shot.

Ok.

I will stipulate that in a county where there are no households with firearms, the incidence of wounds and deaths from gunshots will be less than a county where eighty percent (80%) of the households have firearms.

[Xray]

The more women who carry guns the more implicit protection to those who don't for the bad guys will wonder more about what's in that belly pack--

But isn't it the "bad guys" who, despite "wondering about what's in that belly pack", will still go ahead?

Bad guys are risk takers. For example, bank robbers know perfectly well that in a bank robbery, the alarm can be set off, but this knowledge does not prevent them from robbing the bank.

Can you think of anything that would deter a "bad guy" from acting like one?

[caroljane]

You introduced John Lott on this topic before, but his repeating himself here does not answer what I asked. I was not speaking of crime statistic reduction, but of death and injury stats due to gunshots -- whether deliberate or accidental. Just a body count. Because it seems reasonable to me that where a means of death and injury is most prevalent , such death and injury rates would be proportional. Just as where there are the most cars there are the most car accidents. That's all. If this is not so, which seems counter factual to me, I need my bias to be disproved by being shown that overall, private gun ownership prevents people from being shot.

Ok.

I will stipulate that in a county where there are no households with firearms, the incidence of wounds and deaths from gunshots will be less than a county where eighty percent (80%) of the households have firearms.

Thanks Adam. I know you are being wry, but thanks even so.

[Dennis Hardin]

It's true that Rand "never specified the process of consent by which individuals (Americans, in our case) have supposedly delegated certain rights (or the power to enforce certain rights) to their government." It may also be true to say that this has "never been done by any O'ist philosopher[Ghs]."

I suspect that's because it is fairly obvious that there is no way that any government would ever have the full consent of all the citizens in a given geographical area.

Dennis, ,

Your argumentation is based on an empirical fact (no government so far has ever had the full consent of all citizens), but I have the feeling that this is not the reason why Rand never went into specifying the process of consent.

Imo her argumentation was implicitly based on her ideal of a "rational" society, with minarchism as the "rational" solution, from which it follows that rational individuals would therefore naturally consent to this form of government; not to consent would be "irrational".

Imo the lack of practical advice how to get there, how to achieve the rational ideal is neglected in Objectivism because Rand thought that rational individuals just 'know' what to do, because they 'know' what is ''right''.

Rand believed that spreading a rational philosophy was the key to achieving a free society. I think you’re right in the sense that she believed that the politics of a free society would just naturally fall into place once people adopted a rational philosophy. She thought she needed to devote her energy to clarifying the basic questions of metaphysics, epistemology and ethics. She figured politics was the easy part.

I continue to believe she was right about that, which is why my only interest in the whole anarchy-minarchy debate is to find a way to get others to stop wasting valuable time on it.

And that, incidentally, is also a complete waste of time.

[George H. Smith]

It's true that Rand "never specified the process of consent by which individuals (Americans, in our case) have supposedly delegated certain rights (or the power to enforce certain rights) to their government." It may also be true to say that this has "never been done by any O'ist philosopher[Ghs]."

I suspect that's because it is fairly obvious that there is no way that any government would ever have the full consent of all the citizens in a given geographical area.

Dennis, ,

Your argumentation is based on an empirical fact (no government so far has ever had the full consent of all citizens), but I have the feeling that this is not the reason why Rand never went into specifying the process of consent.

Imo her argumentation was implicitly based on her ideal of a "rational" society, with minarchism as the "rational" solution, from which it follows that rational individuals would therefore naturally consent to this form of government; not to consent would be "irrational".

Imo the lack of practical advice how to get there, how to achieve the rational ideal is neglected in Objectivism because Rand thought that rational individuals just 'know' what to do, because they 'know' what is ''right''.

Rand believed that spreading a rational philosophy was the key to achieving a free society. I think you’re right in the sense that she believed that the politics of a free society would just naturally fall into place once people adopted a rational philosophy. She thought she needed to devote her energy to clarifying the basic questions of metaphysics, epistemology and ethics. She figured politics was the easy part.

I continue to believe she was right about that, which is why my only interest in the whole anarchy-minarchy debate is to find a way to get others to stop wasting valuable time on it.

And that, incidentally, is also a complete waste of time.

Discussing the nature of consent and how it should be understood in a political context is no more a "waste of time" than discussing topics like rights and the proper limits of government. The fact that you turn a blind eye to certain problems, preferring to evade them rather than deal with them forthrightly, does not make those problem a waste of time for others who care about the nature of a free society.

From now on, if someone asks if you agree with Rand about "government by consent," just say, "Yes, but I won't tell you what I mean by consent, because that would be a waste of time. I will tell you when people should consent to a government, and that's all you need to know."

Ghs

[dennislmay]

This means that yes, to some minimal extent, individuals who want to provide for their own private self-defense in defiance of the government's monopoly on the legitimate use of force will be denied the "right" to do so--because allowing them to do so would undermine the effectiveness of objective law and lead to the destruction of freedom for everyone.

This sounds like the words of the Luddite Peikoff with no understanding of basic self defense. I would not be part of any government taking away my right of self defense and would feel the need to fight such central planners creating such an unstable arrangement of masters versus the masses. The American arrangement with the people carrying arms to keep a government and internal and external enemies in check is the real world stable arrangement. Everything else leads to tyranny.

Dennis May

I was making an argument against anarcho-capitalism. I have no problem with citizens providing for their own self-defense when necessary, such as in emergency situations. I certainly have no problem with private gun ownership.

Good to know your view - Peikoff made it very clear that he didn't think individuals should have anything but ancient obsolete weapons for self defense. A central planners approach to the issue.

Dennis

[dennislmay]

The more women who carry guns the more implicit protection to those who don't for the bad guys will wonder more about what's in that belly pack--

But isn't it the "bad guys" who, despite "wondering about what's in that belly pack", will still go ahead?

Bad guys are risk takers. For example, bank robbers know perfectly well that in a bank robbery, the alarm can be set off, but this knowledge does not prevent them from robbing the bank.

Can you think of anything that would deter a "bad guy" from acting like one?

Death from being shot - it works every time its tried.

Dennis May

[dennislmay]

It's true that Rand "never specified the process of consent by which individuals (Americans, in our case) have supposedly delegated certain rights (or the power to enforce certain rights) to their government." It may also be true to say that this has "never been done by any O'ist philosopher[Ghs]."

I suspect that's because it is fairly obvious that there is no way that any government would ever have the full consent of all the citizens in a given geographical area.

Dennis, ,

Your argumentation is based on an empirical fact (no government so far has ever had the full consent of all citizens), but I have the feeling that this is not the reason why Rand never went into specifying the process of consent.

Imo her argumentation was implicitly based on her ideal of a "rational" society, with minarchism as the "rational" solution, from which it follows that rational individuals would therefore naturally consent to this form of government; not to consent would be "irrational".

Imo the lack of practical advice how to get there, how to achieve the rational ideal is neglected in Objectivism because Rand thought that rational individuals just 'know' what to do, because they 'know' what is ''right''.

Rand believed that spreading a rational philosophy was the key to achieving a free society. I think you’re right in the sense that she believed that the politics of a free society would just naturally fall into place once people adopted a rational philosophy. She thought she needed to devote her energy to clarifying the basic questions of metaphysics, epistemology and ethics. She figured politics was the easy part.

I continue to believe she was right about that, which is why my only interest in the whole anarchy-minarchy debate is to find a way to get others to stop wasting valuable time on it.

And that, incidentally, is also a complete waste of time.

Discussing the nature of consent and how it should be understood in a political context is no more a "waste of time" than discussing topics like rights and the proper limits of government. The fact that you turn a blind eye to certain problems, preferring to evade them rather than deal with them forthrightly, does not make those problem a waste of time for others who care about the nature of a free society.

From now on, if someone asks if you agree with Rand about "government by consent," just say, "Yes, but I won't tell you what I mean by consent, because that would be a waste of time. I will tell you when people should consent to a government, and that's all you need to know."

Ghs

And when someone like Peikoff being the official spokesman for Objectivism comes out and says he is going to engage in central planning on what is allowed for self defense - meaning fewer rights than I currently have - it makes me wonder how Objectivism expects to take a single step forward.

Denis

[Brant Gaede]

You have to start somewhere with your theoretical political construct and Rand started with an ideal formulation--and pretty much left it there/ Her actual interest in politics for something to think about was minimal compared with her other philosophical interests especially after CTUI was published/ Ironically, she did a lot of commentary that was easier for her than that/

--Brant

my period key on this computer don't work no more

[Brant Gaede]

The more women who carry guns the more implicit protection to those who don't for the bad guys will wonder more about what's in that belly pack--

But isn't it the "bad guys" who, despite "wondering about what's in that belly pack", will still go ahead?

Bad guys are risk takers. For example, bank robbers know perfectly well that in a bank robbery, the alarm can be set off, but this knowledge does not prevent them from robbing the bank.

Can you think of anything that would deter a "bad guy" from acting like one?

They are calculated risk takers, unless they're whacked out on drugs/

--Brant

cowards, too--when's the last time you've seen an armed guard in a bank?

[dennislmay]

The more women who carry guns the more implicit protection to those who don't for the bad guys will wonder more about what's in that belly pack--

But isn't it the "bad guys" who, despite "wondering about what's in that belly pack", will still go ahead?

Bad guys are risk takers. For example, bank robbers know perfectly well that in a bank robbery, the alarm can be set off, but this knowledge does not prevent them from robbing the bank.

Can you think of anything that would deter a "bad guy" from acting like one?

They are calculated risk takers, unless they're whacked out on drugs/

--Brant

cowards, too--when's the last time you've seen an armed guard in a bank?

I used to be an armed guard in a bank but that was some time ago. Most banks are too cheap to hire guards unless they have had problems already. After a while the fear goes away and they don't have them any more till after the next time they have a problem. Serious bank robbers are not stopped by guards - it is the less serious thieves that think twice after seeing armed guards.

Dennis

[Selene]

I used to be an armed guard in a bank but that was some time ago. Most banks are too cheap to hire guards unless they have had problems already. After a while the fear goes away and they don't have them any more till after the next time they have a problem. Serious bank robbers are not stopped by guards - it is the less serious thieves that think twice after seeing armed guards.

Dennis

Dennis:

Actually, the reason for eliminating the armed guards is an outgrowth of reducing the liability exposure for insurance purposes.

In point of fact, there are several cases of tellers and bank employees that have been either reprimanded or terminated for pursuing a bank robber.

The employee is instructed to do nothing aggressive. They are to give them the money and hit the silent alarms.

The corporate bean counters have spoken loudly.

Adam

[dennislmay]

I used to be an armed guard in a bank but that was some time ago. Most banks are too cheap to hire guards unless they have had problems already. After a while the fear goes away and they don't have them any more till after the next time they have a problem. Serious bank robbers are not stopped by guards - it is the less serious thieves that think twice after seeing armed guards.

Dennis

Dennis:

Actually, the reason for eliminating the armed guards is an outgrowth of reducing the liability exposure for insurance purposes.

In point of fact, there are several cases of tellers and bank employees that have been either reprimanded or terminated for pursuing a bank robber.

The employee is instructed to do nothing aggressive. They are to give them the money and hit the silent alarms.

The corporate bean counters have spoken loudly.

Adam

That makes sense and will work until the theives begin killing people then the beancounters will be over-ruled because employees will refuse to come to work. A similar thing happened in Dayton in the early 90's where drive-thru liquor stores insisted on passive employees which created rape victims - then women employees would not work nights until they brought in security. A woman friend of mine was shot at a C-store in Des Moines and nearly died because they were trained to be passive.

The bean counters are why 9-11 worked - only one plane figured out passive was only going to get them killed.

D

[Selene]

I used to be an armed guard in a bank but that was some time ago. Most banks are too cheap to hire guards unless they have had problems already. After a while the fear goes away and they don't have them any more till after the next time they have a problem. Serious bank robbers are not stopped by guards - it is the less serious thieves that think twice after seeing armed guards.

Dennis

Dennis:

Actually, the reason for eliminating the armed guards is an outgrowth of reducing the liability exposure for insurance purposes.

In point of fact, there are several cases of tellers and bank employees that have been either reprimanded or terminated for pursuing a bank robber.

The employee is instructed to do nothing aggressive. They are to give them the money and hit the silent alarms.

The corporate bean counters have spoken loudly.

Adam

That makes sense and will work until the theives begin killing people then the beancounters will be over-ruled because employees will refuse to come to work. A similar thing happened in Dayton in the early 90's where drive-thru liquor stores insisted on passive employees which created rape victims - then women employees would not work nights until they brought in security. A woman friend of mine was shot at a C-store in Des Moines and nearly died because they were trained to be passive.

The bean counters are why 9-11 worked - only one plane figured out passive was only going to get them killed.

D

Dennis:

I totally agree. And if I were an employee of the bank, I would not follow that directive. Nor would I tell my family to either.

Adam

[dennislmay]

I used to be an armed guard in a bank but that was some time ago. Most banks are too cheap to hire guards unless they have had problems already. After a while the fear goes away and they don't have them any more till after the next time they have a problem. Serious bank robbers are not stopped by guards - it is the less serious thieves that think twice after seeing armed guards.

Dennis

Dennis:

Actually, the reason for eliminating the armed guards is an outgrowth of reducing the liability exposure for insurance purposes.

In point of fact, there are several cases of tellers and bank employees that have been either reprimanded or terminated for pursuing a bank robber.

The employee is instructed to do nothing aggressive. They are to give them the money and hit the silent alarms.

The corporate bean counters have spoken loudly.

Adam

That makes sense and will work until the theives begin killing people then the beancounters will be over-ruled because employees will refuse to come to work. A similar thing happened in Dayton in the early 90's where drive-thru liquor stores insisted on passive employees which created rape victims - then women employees would not work nights until they brought in security. A woman friend of mine was shot at a C-store in Des Moines and nearly died because they were trained to be passive.

The bean counters are why 9-11 worked - only one plane figured out passive was only going to get them killed.

D

Dennis:

I totally agree. And if I were an employee of the bank, I would not follow that directive. Nor would I tell my family to either.

Adam

It is very unfortunate the many situations where people are forced to be passive and I emphasized FORCED. Central planners love victims.

Dennis

[Brant Gaede]

I used to be an armed guard in a bank but that was some time ago. Most banks are too cheap to hire guards unless they have had problems already. After a while the fear goes away and they don't have them any more till after the next time they have a problem. Serious bank robbers are not stopped by guards - it is the less serious thieves that think twice after seeing armed guards.

Dennis

Dennis:

Actually, the reason for eliminating the armed guards is an outgrowth of reducing the liability exposure for insurance purposes.

In point of fact, there are several cases of tellers and bank employees that have been either reprimanded or terminated for pursuing a bank robber.

The employee is instructed to do nothing aggressive. They are to give them the money and hit the silent alarms.

The corporate bean counters have spoken loudly.

Adam

That makes sense and will work until the theives begin killing people then the beancounters will be over-ruled because employees will refuse to come to work. A similar thing happened in Dayton in the early 90's where drive-thru liquor stores insisted on passive employees which created rape victims - then women employees would not work nights until they brought in security. A woman friend of mine was shot at a C-store in Des Moines and nearly died because they were trained to be passive.

The bean counters are why 9-11 worked - only one plane figured out passive was only going to get them killed.

D

Dennis:

I totally agree. And if I were an employee of the bank, I would not follow that directive. Nor would I tell my family to either.

Adam

Then you should not be an employee of the bank/

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Fuck passive

--Brant

just for the record

[Selene]

Then you should not be an employee of the bank/

--Brant

Correct. However, if the policy came in after I was employed for several years, I would begin looking for another position, but I would not obey the directive while I looked for that position.

[syrakusos]

Thanks! You all display a plethora of good thinking and no modicum of silliness. You denigrate "bean counters" while claiming to be advocates of capitalism. If something is unprofitable, then it is at once immoral and impractical. Yet, you insist on what? That "people" in general always resist aggression? It is not always a good idea. And therein lies what L. Neil Smith calls "Asimov's Fallacy": just because a quadrillion people across the Galaxy will do something does not mean that you should.

Among the jobs I would never take is being an armed guard in a bank or carrier. Other peoples' money is not worth dying or killing for. Even my own money is not. Money is just stuff. Banks do not need armed guards because they are insured. I went on two tours of two FRBs, Cleveland and Dallas and in both, the guide said that while they do guard the money, it really is not all that important: quote (and I quote)"the government will print all we need." That applies to banks and why they do not care if they get robbed. The money is bullshit. Peoples' lives - even the lives of the robbers - are far more valuable.

As for 9/11, I found it tragic in the deepest sense that the plane from Washington DC that hit the Pentagon was carrying a National Geographic film crew. Not very adventurous were they? On the other hand, the one that refused to comply was commandeer by Todd Beamer; and the White House was saved by a computer nerd. You cannot but write guidelines; and you must but leave the application to the commander in the field. It takes an ENTJ to make the dreams of the ISPF possible. (See Keirsey Temperament here.)

About 1000 years ago, Michael J. Hoy of Loompanics who served in Viet Nam (which I refused) invited me to watch with him a television docu-drama "The Court Martial of George Custer" based on the assumption that Custer survived Little Big Horn. The only possible and necessary answer to any such inquiry must be "Command decision!" And thus have I held to my course.

I do not know when you should be passive and when you should resist and when you should be aggressive. My opinion is irrelevant. In every case, it is a command decision because each of us is always "in the field" every day.

Ultimately, though, the military paradigm does not fit the trader's model. Loyalty, bravery, exclusivity, largess, etc., are not close enough to the needs of trade and commerce. You have to choose your virtues. It depends on your Mode of Survival. Myself, just personally, I see among nominal "Objectivists" not the commercial mode of the trader, but the guardian mode of the warrior. I think that that derives from the "Cult of Ayn Rand" but it remains a different discussion entirely.

For here and now, I only assert broadly that it is not cost effective to lose your life for someone else's property... and not even for your own...