5 ms·

>Why must an intruder, who may be there just to steal something and not harm others, immediately have to pay for their actions with their life? I don't know wh

>Why must an intruder, who may be there just to steal something and not harm others, immediately have to pay for their actions with their life? I don't know who you are, why you are in my home, and what your intentions may be. I'm not going to wait and find out if you would attempt to kill me as a result of discovering you are burglarizing my home. >Do gun owners truly believe that they can band together and stop the entirety of the United States military anymore? Nobody is under any illusions that the US military could roll through with tanks and cluster bombs and annihilate any opposition, but I doubt the government is particularly keen on ruling over a pile of ruined infrastructure. If that's the case, they instead have to deal with a large population of armed guerillas, which the Mid-East conflicts have proven the US is rather poor at dealing with. To say nothing of the fact that a large portion of the US military would defect upon being told to fire upon the people they've signed up to defend. The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to deter the government from using overt force.

SahAssar 9y ago
To jump from > I don't know who you are, why you are in my home, and what your intentions may be. to shooting someone would in most countries be considered a illogical and reckless act. I'm having a hard time thinking of any scenario where taking someones life is a justified, logical and logically judicial act. Especially in the case you said.
- pathseeker 9y ago
  >I'm having a hard time thinking of any scenario where taking someones life is a justified, logical and logically judicial act. Especially in the case you said. Someone breaks into your house with a knife with the intent to cut your throat and steal anything that can be sold quickly. People have been murdered by burglars many times so you can't bury your head in the sand and pretend that's not an outcome. In your ideal world, do you prefer that the victims allow the burglar to eliminate them as a witness?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - SahAssar 9y ago
    > Someone breaks into your house with a knife with the intent to cut your throat and steal anything that can be sold quickly. That is assuming a lot of thinking from a scenario that started as: > I don't know who you are, why you are in my home, and what your intentions may be. Even assuming what you said, the right to take a life is not a right a citizen should ever have, in any situation.
    - reitanqild 9y ago
      > ... the right to take a life is not a right a citizen should ever have, in any situation. The right to kill in self defense exists in many countries but I belive in most countries it will result in an investigation and you'll probably have to go to court to convince a judge that you had 1. Reason to fear for your or someone elses life 2. considered (and if possible: tried) other reasonable options. I think it would be extremely cruel to punish someone for defending themselves or someone else. Also keep in mind that stopping an attacker without the option of hurting them seriously is way harder than if you are allowed to use any means.
- SmirkingRevenge 9y ago
  Committing a home invasion, whether to steal, to harm, or something else, is a dangerous, immoral, illogical and reckless act. Lethal force is a justified response, period.
  - SahAssar 9y ago
    Proportional response is a thing, and the state having a monopoly on deadly force is a good thing IMO. Using deadly force to counter a purely material crime is madness.
    - SmirkingRevenge 9y ago
      Deadly force IS a proportional response to a home invasion - in both the moral and legal sense. Its not the victim's obligation to quiz the home invader on their intentions before they act to protect themselves, their family and/or their property. A person knowingly and foreseeably puts their own life up for forfeit by invading another's home... and for what - a material crime, as you say? (But I hope we all acknowledge that the stakes are often far more serious and irrevocable than having your ipad stolen while you sleep). The big open secret here is, no government today or in the past has had a monopoly on deadly force (nor will they ever). They only have a monopoly on punishing deadly force via the judicial system. Deadly force can be legally prohibited and morally justified. It can be legally justified and morally abhorrent.

SahAssar 9y ago

To jump from > I don't know who you are, why you are in my home, and what your intentions may be. to shooting someone would in most countries be considered a illogical and reckless act. I'm having a hard time thinking of any scenario where taking someones life is a justified, logical and logically judicial act. Especially in the case you said.

pathseeker 9y ago
>I'm having a hard time thinking of any scenario where taking someones life is a justified, logical and logically judicial act. Especially in the case you said. Someone breaks into your house with a knife with the intent to cut your throat and steal anything that can be sold quickly. People have been murdered by burglars many times so you can't bury your head in the sand and pretend that's not an outcome. In your ideal world, do you prefer that the victims allow the burglar to eliminate them as a witness?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- SahAssar 9y ago
  > Someone breaks into your house with a knife with the intent to cut your throat and steal anything that can be sold quickly. That is assuming a lot of thinking from a scenario that started as: > I don't know who you are, why you are in my home, and what your intentions may be. Even assuming what you said, the right to take a life is not a right a citizen should ever have, in any situation.
  - reitanqild 9y ago
    > ... the right to take a life is not a right a citizen should ever have, in any situation. The right to kill in self defense exists in many countries but I belive in most countries it will result in an investigation and you'll probably have to go to court to convince a judge that you had 1. Reason to fear for your or someone elses life 2. considered (and if possible: tried) other reasonable options. I think it would be extremely cruel to punish someone for defending themselves or someone else. Also keep in mind that stopping an attacker without the option of hurting them seriously is way harder than if you are allowed to use any means.
SmirkingRevenge 9y ago
Committing a home invasion, whether to steal, to harm, or something else, is a dangerous, immoral, illogical and reckless act. Lethal force is a justified response, period.
- SahAssar 9y ago
  Proportional response is a thing, and the state having a monopoly on deadly force is a good thing IMO. Using deadly force to counter a purely material crime is madness.
  - SmirkingRevenge 9y ago
    Deadly force IS a proportional response to a home invasion - in both the moral and legal sense. Its not the victim's obligation to quiz the home invader on their intentions before they act to protect themselves, their family and/or their property. A person knowingly and foreseeably puts their own life up for forfeit by invading another's home... and for what - a material crime, as you say? (But I hope we all acknowledge that the stakes are often far more serious and irrevocable than having your ipad stolen while you sleep). The big open secret here is, no government today or in the past has had a monopoly on deadly force (nor will they ever). They only have a monopoly on punishing deadly force via the judicial system. Deadly force can be legally prohibited and morally justified. It can be legally justified and morally abhorrent.