Facebook is good for one thing. Lively discussions between people with diverse viewpoints.
Recently I had a go round with an acquaintance concerning a recent report on crime in Canada and which municipalities were the worst for "dangerous" crime.
My contention was that including breaking and entering as a violent or dangerous crime and then using it as part of the dataset was disingenuous at best and intentionally misleading at worst. Surprisingly, he was more than willing to equate breaking and entering with violent crimes like homicide and sexual assault.
Is there a difference between hitting your windshield with a hammer and hitting you with a hammer? Would the violent response be commensurate with this false equivalency?
I think that there is a big difference between being the "victim" of a B&E and being the victim of an assault. The argument is that a B&E inflicts psychological violence on the victim. That violence is somehow in the mind of the beholder. That it is how we feel about the loss of our trinkets that dictates the level of violence we ascribe to the act.
Getting your house broken into sucks. You feel violated. But it is nothing like the violation you feel when someone lays you out cold. Thinking it is doesn't make it so.