19 Jan
Let’s go to the statistics once again
Lately I’ve noticed a couple of response from antis and those who think that firearms shouldn’t be carried in public.
A couple commented that most of the defensive gun uses seemed to be home invasion scenarios.
They are right.
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics
In 2008 members of U.S. households experienced about 16.3 million property crimes.
The census indicates there are approximately 112,383,000 households (2008)
About 11.4 million — 11,440,589 households experience a theft of property.
Compare that to the 4.9 Million victims of violent crime; 3.3 million were simple assaults
{A case of darned if we do and darned if we don’t here — if gun owners drew their firearms for simple assaults (even though those can result in death) we are blood thirsty, if gun owners don’t use their firearms to enough to get the media’s attention– firearms aren’t effective for defending yourself).
Even if we consider all violent crime against all property crime — a person is 8.7 times more likely to experience a property crime then a violent crime.
Of course, the nature of a crime isn’t determined until after the criminal has left the scene and the police take the report. So an interupted theif gets to decide if it becomes a violent crime or not — unless the home owner is prepared to defend himself/herself.
How many of you trust a thieg to only take the property and not hurt you or your loved ones?
Now for some other reasons to carry everywhere you go, not just at home (and if this isn’t convincing you to carry at home — I don’t know what will).
- Between 2004 and 2008 about 1 in 3 violent crimes occurred in or near the victim’s own home.
1 in 3 violent crimes — in or around the home. 1,470,000 violent crimes
Anyone know how many of those crimes occur as a person is coming home from a day or evening out? Neither do I. Really don’t think that a violent offender is going to wait for me to run into the house and get a firearm.
- Almost two thirds of all property crimes took place in or near the home of the household members.
15,137,990 million households experienced a property crime — 13.46% of the number of households. One could say that the odds lean toward being a crime victim sooner or later. (15,137,990 households experience crime divided by 112,383,000 total number of households)
- During this time period almost 1 in 5 violent crimes took place in open areas such as yards, playgrounds, fields, on the street or in other similar locations.
Geesh, every where you go, it seems like you could run into crime. 1/3 of violent crimes happen at/near home, 2/3 of property crime happen at/near home and 20% of violent crime happen out in the open areas in between.
Folks, yes there are a lot of home invasions — doesn’t that make you nervous ? That thieves are getting comfortable kicking in doors, smashing windows when the people are home….its almost as if they aren’t afraid to be identified or go back to jail.
(Green text indicated edited to correct wording or math errors).
Posted by Sabra on 19.01.10 at 4:30 AM
So an interupted theif gets to decide if it becomes a violent crime or not
That’s pretty much exactly where my mind went with this thing. How many of those property crimes weren’t violent crimes simply because there was no one home? Not a chance I am willing to take, thanks anyway–even if the chances are slim. I like myself and my daughters in the condition we are now.
Posted by R. Stanton Scott on 19.01.10 at 4:30 AM
I suppose the world is, indeed, a dangerous place. But could I ask you to please make this a bit more clear?
The “16.3 million” number, for example, refers to the total number of property crimes, not to the number of home invasions, or even of households which experienced a property crime.
This quote:
“A couple commented that most of the defensive gun uses seemed to be home invasion scenarios.
They are right.
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics
In 2008 members of U.S. households experienced about 16.3 million property crimes.”
along with your subsequent discussion implies that this was the number of home invasions in 2008.
But of the 16.3 million “property crimes” listed in the data almost 800,000 were vehicle thefts, and another 12.3 million were listed simply as “theft”–not burglaries or home invasions, but everything from pocket picking to knocking over a bank.
Only a little fewer than 3.2 million of the property crimes referred to in this data were “household burglaries.”
A couple of other points:
“1 in 3 violent crimes occurred in or near the victim’s own home” because victims know the attacker over half the time–most violent crimes are domestic assaults, date rapes, or other violence between people who know each other, not strangers breaking in to rape Grandma.
Also, these numbers do not say that “16,300,000 million households experienced a property crime.” They say that 16.3 million property crimes occurred. This includes the guy who had his car broken into five times before he moved. So your 13.86% chance of becoming a victim is incorrect.
These numbers seem scary because you use words like “crime” and “million.” But they are, in fact, virtually meaningless. They certainly don’t support arguments against restricting the public carrying of firearms without further analysis.
Posted by the pistolero on 19.01.10 at 4:30 AM
These numbers seem scary because you use words like “crime” and “million.” But they are, in fact, virtually meaningless.
Meaningless if you’re not one of the victimized, maybe. What if the guy whose car was broken into came upon it as it was happening? You might think you’d be fine going into that situation unarmed, but as for me I’d rather not take that chance. Especially with my cerebral palsy.
Posted by mike w. on 19.01.10 at 4:30 AM
These numbers seem scary because you use words like “crime” and “million.” But they are, in fact, virtually meaningless.
A wildly moronic statement with absolutely no basis in fact or reality.
R. Stanton Scott, are you trying to imitate MikeB or something?
Posted by Bob S. on 19.01.10 at 4:30 AM
Stan,
Corrected the errors you pointed out. Thanks for the catch. I don’t like having them pointed out only because I don’t like making them in the first place — but you’ll find me willing to correct my mistakes.
I believe the percentage is correct, I probably should have expressed it as a probability but I’m just not that up to speed on the statistical side.
Just because 1 guy may have been robbed 5 times doesn’t mean there wasn’t a still a 13% chance a household would be broken into, right?
What does that break down to, about a 1 in 7 chance of a household being robbed (like I said I’m not good with probabilities)
They certainly don’t support arguments against restricting the public carrying of firearms without further analysis.
16.3 million property crimes doesn’t support arguments against restrictions?
4.9 million violent crimes doesn’t?
What world are you living on then? Honestly Stan, how many homes have to be broken into, how many people have to face the terror of finding their home violated and the criminal still possibly there before it supports an argument against restrictions?
And you play fast and loose with the numbers also
because victims know the attacker over half the time–most violent crimes are domestic assaults, date rapes, or other violence between people who know each other, not strangers breaking in to rape Grandma.
Sorry but when someone is violently assaulting a person – it really doesn’t matter if they are neighbors – business acquaintances or friends of a friend or best friends. It is still violent assault.
You speak of “breaking in to rape Grandma” isn’t that alone enough? It happens
http://southeasttexaspistolero.blogspot.com/2010/01/apparently-some-residents-didnt-get.html
It also happens that people are beaten for trying to defend their homes, people are murdered for being home at the wrong time.
Isn’t just one life saved enough of a reason to argue against restrictions?
Posted by R. Stanton Scott on 19.01.10 at 4:30 AM
Only 3.2 million were household burglaries. And 15.1 million or 16.3 million discrete cases of a “crime” do not create 15.1 or 16.3 affected households. Some of the affected individuals were twice victimized, and some of the affected individuals shared households. So the number of affected households is likely much smaller than either of these numbers.
Also, you accuse me of playing “fast and loose with the numbers also,” but your response does not correct the data I cite:
“Sorry but when someone is violently assaulting a person – it really doesn’t matter if they are neighbors – business acquaintances or friends of a friend or best friends. It is still violent assault.”
In any event, my real point is that numbers like these, without further nuance, don’t really mean a thing. I could, for example, respond to your 13.46% number by saying that there are 16.3 million property crimes and 308 million Americans. So your chance of being affected by a property crime is 5.29%–well under half the percentage you cite.
This of course has no real meaning with respect to proving my point,
And by the way, a percentage and a probability are pretty much the same thing.
Posted by Thomas on 19.01.10 at 4:30 AM
My chance of being victimized by a property crime are about nil, as most everybody around here is armed, causing criminals to go to the urban areas. We don’t mind contributing to the Easy Rider shotgun murder by rednecks with guns / Deliverance beliefs and feelings urbanites often have about us, either. Keeps things peaceful and door locks and locking your car are optional. If something does come up where you need a LEO, in my experience living in these green hills for a large portion of my life, unless a deputy is accidentally remotely near me, the response time will be 30 minutes to 80 minutes, worst case, if they are tied up on some other crime. Easier to have a gun handy than a LEO handy plus they weigh a lot less and can fit in yur pocket.
Lived within 12 miles of my current property for ~15 years now and there’s been a couple firearms suicides, no fatal firearms accidents, and one murder WITH A KNIFE NOT A FIREARM. Minor amount of burglaries and vandalism mostly on people that live on major through routes of my non-urban AO. Some drug related, but you get that everywhere and it’s mostly drug addled on drug addled crime so we don’t really care as long as they don’t cause collateral damage.
I’d say my chances of being victimized are related to the proportion of people that are armed and carry. Easier pickings to be had elsewhere. And random nutcases will show up in any demographic, whether it’s firearms friendly or not. The preponderance of firearms in my AO discourages criminal behaviors and criminal behaviors often become fatal. Fellow not far from me shot a prowler on his property in the back not terribly long ago and was exonerated by the courts and beat the civil suit. I’m not seeing how us being armed and having a reputation for killing criminals (though little deserved in the actualities of history) is hurting us one bit.
Posted by Bob S. on 19.01.10 at 4:30 AM
Stan,
Quick note before bed, I’ll respond in full later
Sorry but 308 million people don’t live alone. They live in households. If my home is broken into it affects more then just one person. It affects me, my wife, my daughter, my son.
Your 5% number does not take that into consideration does it?
if someone is in my home….are not all 4 of us in jeopardy? if 1 of us comes home separately from the others — entirely too common an event — don’t we stand more of a chance of interrupting a crime?
And to reduce things to only household burglaries is also not relevant. Does it matter if they are stealing my lawn mower from my shed or my crappy computer from my desk? Guess which one costs more, eh?
Either way, the criminal is on my property – jeopardizing the safety of myself and my family.
Posted by R. Stanton Scott on 19.01.10 at 4:30 AM
Bob,
Exactly: neither statistic means very much because both are constructed–misleadingly–to make a specific point.
Thomas helps make this point himself: the broad general statistics you and I cite take no account of regional or local–even neighborhood level variance in the probability of encountering a criminal. Whether 13% or 5%, it varies between Thomas’s area, yours, mine, or inner-city Chicago. So it says very little about whether carrying a firearm makes sense.
Now, Thomas implies a causal relationship between near universal arming of the local population and the low crime rate. I would respond that other things (e.g., population density and homogeneity) matter just as much if not more, though this really just means that we should avoid trying to implement identical firearm policies everywhere. Local conditions matter.
Posted by mike w. on 19.01.10 at 4:30 AM
Tell a woman who is brutally raped in a “nice neighborhood” that statistics are meaningless and she doesn’t need to worry about violent crime.
Now, Thomas implies a causal relationship between near universal arming of the local population and the low crime rate
And is there a causal relationship between the near universal disarmament of a local population and low crime rate? I.E., does gun control work? Surely since you support gun control you have some hard evidence that it actually lowers crime and increases public safety right?
Ultimately you are making an argument as to whether people should exercise their rights based on the social utility of doing so. That means very little, since such arguments do not change the nature or importance of the free exercise of ANY of my rights.
You imply that carrying a firearm only makes sense if you live in a statistically high crime areaWhat makes you come to that conclusion?
Posted by Thomas on 19.01.10 at 4:30 AM
I’ve stopped to help broken down motorists in my AO who were cellphone-less and sitting there with their vehicle not knowing what to do who said they “were scared to walk up anybody’s driveway out here.”
I see a high probability that my “If you can read this sign, you are within range” signs on the perimeter of my property hve some influence on whether people might come here unannounced and I work out of my home so I’m most always here. I’d say that empirical evidence points to a direct causal relationship between the preponderance of firearms and the probability a property owner can shoot a trespasser and be exonerated in court and the lack of trespassing behavior observed.
Posted by R. Stanton Scott on 19.01.10 at 4:30 AM
My position is that “rights” in the sense I think you mean do not exist. You have no justice claim, even to survival, that is automatically morally superior to the justice claims of others by simple virtue of your existence. If you haven’t already, see this thread for more insight into my thoughts on this.
Further, no “right,” whether in your sense or mine, is ever exercised without regard for social utility. All justice claims depend on how they affect others. I presume you would not agree that a starving man has a right to your food based on his inviolable survival right.
A causal relationship no doubt exists between ubiquitous firearms–or at least ubiquitous signs threatening to shoot trespassers–would make others reluctant to approach a dwelling, whether with good or ill intentions. But I for one prefer not to live in the paranoid society you describe.
Posted by Weer'd Beard on 19.01.10 at 4:30 AM
Well he doesn’t seem very big on thinking, and the discussion doesn’t appear to go very far, but at least he’s polite and doesn’t troll.
Trading up!
Posted by Thomas on 19.01.10 at 4:30 AM
Maybe you need to re-examine your paradigm of paranoia, being as I lived on the Near West Side of Chicago with all the locks and alarms on everything and I don’t have to lock my doors or lock up my cars here? My lifestyle feels completely un-paranoid to me. People worrying about alarms and locks are the paranoid ones. Deterrence works and allows me to not have to think about crime. You probably think police are useful, too, when in fact theya re just after the fact janitors 90% of the time if not more often.
The fact people like you find us paranoid made my acres out here affordable and keep them quiet. I encourage you to tell all your friends not to move here as well. Keep the taxes down and keep from ending up like Austin that got to many Yankees and Californians and now has bicycle helmet laws and you can’t advertise an AD-15 or AK in the paper.
Posted by mike w. on 19.01.10 at 4:30 AM
Well he doesn’t seem very big on thinking, and the discussion doesn’t appear to go very far
Yeah no kidding Weer’d. I ask straightforward, basic questions and it appears that Mr. Stanton is unable to even attempt to answer them.
Posted by Weer'd Beard on 19.01.10 at 4:30 AM
Seems like the majority of his arguments come from “The Big Book of Making Shit Up”, I recycled my copy…took up too much space in the library! ; ]
Posted by R. Stanton Scott on 19.01.10 at 4:30 AM
Well, now, WB, that’s not very nice.
“Not big on thinking?” Many would say that I’m way overthinking the entire subject.
In any event: Since I’m polite and don’t troll, why do you feel a need to insult me?
Oh, well…”sticks and stones will break my bones….”
Posted by mike w. on 19.01.10 at 4:30 AM
Cut him some slack Weer’d. He’s attempting to argue a logically & factually indefensible position.
Posted by Weer'd Beard on 19.01.10 at 4:30 AM
I insulted you?
Posted by mike w. on 19.01.10 at 4:30 AM
Haha, someone who lists people he doesn’t agree with under the heading of “whack jobs” on his blog is complaining because Weer’d pokes fun at him? Funny.
That said, why not just destroy Mr. Scott’s arguments? It’s really not hard guys, especially when he’s obtuse enough to cling to this notion of “collective rights” when NONE of the rights enshrined in the BOR are collective.
Posted by mike w. on 19.01.10 at 4:30 AM
I’m going to ask Mr. Stanton a very simple question to see if he can see the glaring logical inconsistency in his position.
If there’s no implicit right to keep & bear arms for individual self-defense what good is a right to keep arms in defense of the State?
I also suggest he do some reading on my blog. He can start here if he likes. He should then read the 1792 Militia Acts.
http://anothergunblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/few-quotes-in-light-of-heller.html
http://anothergunblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/if-i-hear-this-one-more-time-im-going.html
Posted by mike w. on 19.01.10 at 4:30 AM
I’d also like to see if he can answer a couple of other simple questions. (perhaps he missed these earlier?)
Is there a causal relationship between the near universal disarmament of a local population and low crime rate? I.E., does gun control work? Surely since you support gun control you have some hard evidence that it actually lowers crime and increases public safety right?
Even if we assumed that Mr. Scott had provided such proof why would that impact my rights? My rights are not predicated upon social utility arguments. He has freedom of speech, even though what he says does not make society as a whole demonstratably safer or provide any tangible benefit to society whatsoever. Should he have to prove that his right to free speech represents a net benefit to society, or does he retain that right regardless.
Also, I love his continually dismissal of rights as social constructs that don’t really mean anything, as if this means they can be infringed upon at will. We have mechanisms for changing the Constitution as social realities and constructs change. If he and his ilk don’t like that I have a right to keep & bear arms they can amend the Constitution. Until then they need to STFU and deal with it.
And of course I’ll reiterate my standard response to “repeal the 2nd amendment” I’m sure He’ll hate it given his strange concept of “rights”
“Repealing the 2nd Amendment doesn’t make it go away anymore than repealing the rest of the Bill of Rights would allow the government to kick in my door and rob, beat, imprison and torture me with impunity. The 2nd Amendment is inherent and inalienable just like the rest of the Bill of Rights. Words on ink & parchment don’t “grant” me the right to keep & bear arms, they merely codify a pre-existing right. My rights, all of them, exist independent of the Constitution.”
Posted by R. Stanton Scott on 19.01.10 at 4:30 AM
None of these quotes are unfamiliar to me, Mike. And I have read the Militia Acts, more than once.
I’d keep waiting for a coherent dismantling of my “logically and factually indefensible position,” but since I’m now convinced that you don’t really have any idea what my position is it may be time to give up this particular hope.
A right to keep arms in defense of the state is good because…it makes it possible to defend the state. This is true without regard to whether individuals have a right to individual self defense. Duh.
I guess it is a bit rich to characterize some people as whack jobs and then bristle at someone’s characterization of me. Oh, well. A little more self-awareness never hurt anyone.
Posted by mike w. on 19.01.10 at 4:30 AM
You and laci both have obviously not read Miller, since it is not supportive of your “collective rights” position.
You are now exhibiting basic anti-gunner behavior. Ignore simple questions posed to you because attempting to answer them would be fatally damaging to your position.
Posted by mike w. on 19.01.10 at 4:30 AM
Further, no “right,” whether in your sense or mine, is ever exercised without regard for social utility. All justice claims depend on how they affect others
Perhaps this is true in your world, but in the real world we have certain Constitutional rights codified by law and those rights are not dependent on social utility. If I MISUSE my rights in a manner that harms others I can be punished, but my ability to exercise that right is not dependent on any social utility argument.
Perhaps you wish that rights were NOT codified in a BOR so that you and others could trample the rights of whomever you please. Luckily for us your ideal world is not the world we currently live in. I don’t have to justify the exercise of my rights to you based on whether they further some broad societal goal. I can tell you to go pound sand and live your own life.
Posted by Weer'd Beard on 19.01.10 at 4:30 AM
“That said, why not just destroy Mr. Scott’s arguments? It’s really not hard guys, especially when he’s obtuse enough to cling to this notion of “collective rights” when NONE of the rights enshrined in the BOR are collective.”
Because you’ll note that you formed a perfectly crafted and referenced argument, and he walked RIGHT by it and made a smarmy comment.
Maybe I’m a like a liberal. Liberals see that YOUR money spends MUCH better than their own….I found that your time wastes way better than mine : ]
Posted by Thomas on 19.01.10 at 4:30 AM
No answer to my “who really is paranoid?” question aye?
I went to town today, as a RIGHT WING GUNSMITHY WHACK JOB, today was my monthly social gathering with other members of the John Birch Society off of Ben White at the Chinese Restaurant. I left my property locked up but not at all worried about it, not even closing the gate, and went to town and locked my car in the parking lot because I was among disarmed high crime Austinites and the predators that feed on them and I like my car stereo to stay in my dashboard. Then I came home and was greeted by my friendly to me dog and came in the house and have the windows open listening to somebody far off plinking with a .22 and a kid on a CR80 or some such riding in circles far away.
I feel tremendously paranoid, as you can tell. In a bit, the UPS man is going to be here with some materials I ordered and he will come in the open gate and we’ll probably BS about fishing for a few moments before he leaves this evil den of firearms owner paranoia, as he usually gets here a bit before 6pm. He’s even a colored fellow and we’re nice to him anyway and don’t think any less of him nor think he’d be inclined to criminal tendencies because of his melanin content like people do in places like BOSTON and CHICAGO where I’ve seen people cross streets to avoid walking near colored American Citizens, because they think they might be criminal…
Paranoid, all the time. I’m gonna have to remember that one. My only strong distrust is of collectivists and their government agents. Not my neighbors. I’m cool with neighbors and they’re cool with me.
Posted by Linoge on 19.01.10 at 4:30 AM
The inherent right to exist that all humans possess is not, in any way, equivalent to the non-existant right to demand something of someone else without duly-agreed upon compensation. Claiming and/or implying that those two concepts are effectively equivalent (as you have done in this very thread) is logically and factually indefensible.
And that is only the beginning… and about the only time I am going to waste on you.
I am going to have to disagree with you slightly, Weer’d – he may come off as being more polite and more cultured than MikeB, but he is just as useless.
Also, Bob S., I am not sure how much control you have over the plugin, but it would be great if your Captcha system somehow preserved comments when one forgot to input its image…
Posted by mike w. on 19.01.10 at 4:30 AM
I’ve thoroughly trounced him over at his place, so I’m pretty much done I’d say.
Posted by mike w. on 19.01.10 at 4:30 AM
Linoge – If you forget to put in the captcha you can just hit your browsers back button. Your comment will still be there, then put in the code and it’ll post just fine. I’ve done it a few times.
Posted by Linoge on 19.01.10 at 4:30 AM
Not in IE8 it is not…
Posted by the pistolero on 19.01.10 at 4:30 AM
You have no justice claim, even to survival, that is automatically morally superior to the justice claims of others by simple virtue of your existence.
So what if somebody else’s justice claim lies in putting a bullet in my head because they see me as useless due to my physical affliction?
A right to keep arms in defense of the state is good because…it makes it possible to defend the state
And defending the state is always good? I am continually amazed at those who put forth the argument that the “militia” in the Second Amendment is any kind of state-sanctioned body, because they’re in effect arguing that the Founding Fathers, having just fought off a tyrannical government of a state, went on to enshrine the right of the government of the new state to arm itself, notwithstanding the fact that the Founders regarded government as a necessary evil. I have always seen that argument as requiring the ability to make some superhuman logical and ethical contortions. Perhaps that’s another thing that only David Brooks’ “educated class” is able to do.
And once again — why do low-level property crimes not merit the ability to respond with lethal force? What if said burglar has already committed a far, far more heinous crime?
Posted by Sabra on 19.01.10 at 4:30 AM
Tell a woman who is brutally raped in a “nice neighborhood” that statistics are meaningless and she doesn’t need to worry about violent crime.
Perhaps she’s supposed to take comfort in the fact that she’s part of a very narrow segment of the population?
As far as the issue of social utility of rights goes–while I will agree that it’s the wrong standard to insist upon–carrying a weapon to defend oneself from rape completely meets that standard. Research has shown that a person carrying a weapon not only increases her own safety, but that of other women as well, simply because a criminal has no way of knowing which potential victim might be armed. It is well-known that women are much less likely to carry, and in a very practical sense that makes us even richer targets (we’re already generally smaller than men, with less upper-body strength, and conditioned by society to not fight back). Social utility is most certainly not served by maintaining the status quo on this issue.
Posted by Thomas on 19.01.10 at 4:30 AM
Dunno Sabra, when I was younger and more active in the dating world and from high school on, most every girl I dated had a .380 or better in her purse or glove box, usually given to her by her daddy. I remember when we were 17 and my friend V. got her first apartment. Her dad got her a Mossberg 12 as a housewarming gift and she had a det. special in her purse. Later on when she was waitressing at the Shoney’s by the airport it came in handy to be armed when a busboy started stalking her. Put some teeth in the restraining order with no shots fired.
…Back before cell phones were at all common and weighed as much as a phone book, iffin’ you recall those days. Cops tended to look the other way much more to ladies carrying illegal-like, provided they weren’t engaged in criminal behavior, than men carrying a lock back knife in San Antonio in those days.
Posted by mike w. on 19.01.10 at 4:30 AM
Mr. Stanton-Scott tried to tell me with a straight face that firearms ownership is currently trending downwards! (he then amended his statement to “handgun ownership”) No kidding. That is such a shockingly moronic statement that I can’t help but wonder what reality he lives in.
Obviously he’s been living in a cave the past 2-3 years.
Posted by Weer'd Beard on 19.01.10 at 4:30 AM
I saw that, Mike W. Also he cited some article with no link (I didn’t look it up for obvious reasons) as if somehow a publication can itself warp reality.
Also Sabra in recent years Women have been FLOCKING to conceal carry courses, they’re running at a great deficit from the old-school ideal that “Guns are for Men” (Sadly pushed both my the Male Chauvinist culture, but also by the Feminist movement) but I think that the dynamic of the sexes is changing quite rapidly due to the cultural shifts that Mr. Stanton-Scott would choose to ignore.
Posted by More Second Amendment Blogging « Foggy Bottom Line on 19.01.10 at 4:30 AM
[...] experience discussing the issue over the last week or so (e.g. here, here, and here, with these four gentlemen participating, as well as on FBL), has given me insight into [...]
Posted by mike w. on 19.01.10 at 4:30 AM
You have no justice claim, even to survival, that is automatically morally superior to the justice claims of others by simple virtue of your existence.
So if another person decides that I have no right to exist because I have cerebral palsy and those with CP should be exterminated from the population my justice claim to survival / self-defense isn’t “morally superior” to the intentions of this other person?
the HELL it isn’t. in Hitler’s Germany I would have been killed on the spot for my physical disability. I had no justice claim, no right to exist because a tyrannical nutjob believed “society” would be better off without people like me. The fact that the societal construct made it so I had no justice claim to LIVE does not negate my right to life and my right to defend it by force.
The fact that some nutcase came to power and said “everyone named “stanton-scott” must be sacrificed for the good of society” does not automatically give any member of society authority to take your life, nor does it negate your innate right to defend yourself from being murdered.