6 ms·

>There are (conservatively) hundreds of thousands of defensive gun uses per year in the United States In all civilized countries, these are called murders. Som

>There are (conservatively) hundreds of thousands of defensive gun uses per year in the United States In all civilized countries, these are called murders. Someone entering your home does not give you the right to shoot them.

pirate787 4y ago
Incorrect. Castle doctrine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine
- aqzman 4y ago
  I believe the individual you responded to is stating that from a moral perspective it's murder, not from a legal perspective. I would agree with them as well.
- lliamander 4y ago
  That only removes the duty to retreat, in states where such a duty is imposed (which is very few). You still have to meet the other criteria for self-defense.
michaelmrose 4y ago
Why not? You are upstairs when an intruder with a statistical 30-40% chance of being armed on an unknown mission that is hopefully just robbing you with a 7% chance of causing your family harm. Police are 10-30 minutes away. Most people don't sleep in the same room as the entirety of their family so if you hunker down and hope they go away you are leaving for example your kids exposed and hoping the intruder doesn't hurt them. If you startle them they could open fire sending a stray bullet into your kids room or they could wander into your bedroom in search of more loot and end up in either a struggle or a hostage situation. Worse than all of the above they will do it again and again with few opportunities to get busted because statistically few of these crimes actually solved. Your families safety is the only thing that matters here. If playing Rambo will increase the risk to your family you shouldn't do it. If shooting the intruder will increase the safety of your family by even the smallest fraction of a percent at the cost of certainly killing a burglar you should absolutely do so. Lets say the harsh truth. The only people prowling around invading other people's homes are awful people of negative value to humanity. From a purely utilitarian perspective you shooting them today would just mean that they stop hurting actual people of worth tomorrow. For your own moral health you shouldn't hurt them if it is possible to avoid it and preserve your other goals but there is no situation in which you ought to prize any number of burglars over even 1% chance of your family members getting hurt. Your outrage isn't moral its a plea for greater harm in service of a dysfunctional moral code where your children are less important than the meth addict who is terrorizing your neighborhood.
- philderbeast 4y ago
  "an intruder with a statistical 30-40% chance of being armed" add gun control into the mix and this chance goes WAY down. "If you startle them they could open fire sending a stray bullet into your kids room" As could you by opening fire in an attempt to stop the attacker. Noting the majority of gun owners never use them, they are far more likely to cause harm them prevent it. The "protection" argument is best served by reducing the number of weapons in circulation, not by arguing your ability to use one to protect yourself.
  - michaelmrose 4y ago
    You are certainly correct but one is usually in a stronger position to control your individual situation than your societies. Logically reducing weapons in circulation makes sense but if one cannot actually do that then it may make sense to arm yourself even if on net your society is less safe for the decision you are all collectively making.
- ohgodplsno 4y ago
  You're taking random numbers pulled out of your ass for a fully hypothetically situation which you've made up. Can I make my numbers up too, or can we have a productive discussion about some actual solutions rather than "he might shoot me I saw it in FBI reports" Here's the reality of things: - 3 out of 4 burglaries happen with no-one home - 7% of that remaining 25% show "a form of violence". It doesn't mean shooting. Even a fistfight counts in there. So, 1.75% of burglaries happen with violence. This is even lower in countries which have already regulated guns. - There are approximately ZERO burglars that want a confrontation when stealing from you. It is infinitely more trouble than it is worth to be caught. Even if they know they will win a fight. A fight means noise, it means being potentially seen, caught, etc. Burglars will abandon ship the moment anyone is up. Once again, gun ownership makes the likelihood of things getting violent much higher. If you know you can easily run away, you don't come armed. If you know you can get shot, you come in armed and ready to shoot - The meth addict is deserving of treatment and help, not being shot. Do you think people fall into meth for the lulz? - Utilitarian perspective on human lives is absolute dogshit and a show of a rotten society and mindset.
lliamander 4y ago
"Defensive gun use" does not necessarily mean "killed someone". It could be merely brandishing the weapon. And while a home invasion does not necessarily give the right to shoot someone per se, it makes it quite a bit easier to satisfy the conditions for self-defense that I have laid out elsewhere in this thread.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

pirate787 4y ago

Incorrect. Castle doctrine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

aqzman 4y ago
I believe the individual you responded to is stating that from a moral perspective it's murder, not from a legal perspective. I would agree with them as well.
lliamander 4y ago
That only removes the duty to retreat, in states where such a duty is imposed (which is very few). You still have to meet the other criteria for self-defense.

michaelmrose 4y ago

Why not? You are upstairs when an intruder with a statistical 30-40% chance of being armed on an unknown mission that is hopefully just robbing you with a 7% chance of causing your family harm. Police are 10-30 minutes away. Most people don't sleep in the same room as the entirety of their family so if you hunker down and hope they go away you are leaving for example your kids exposed and hoping the intruder doesn't hurt them. If you startle them they could open fire sending a stray bullet into your kids room or they could wander into your bedroom in search of more loot and end up in either a struggle or a hostage situation. Worse than all of the above they will do it again and again with few opportunities to get busted because statistically few of these crimes actually solved. Your families safety is the only thing that matters here. If playing Rambo will increase the risk to your family you shouldn't do it. If shooting the intruder will increase the safety of your family by even the smallest fraction of a percent at the cost of certainly killing a burglar you should absolutely do so. Lets say the harsh truth. The only people prowling around invading other people's homes are awful people of negative value to humanity. From a purely utilitarian perspective you shooting them today would just mean that they stop hurting actual people of worth tomorrow. For your own moral health you shouldn't hurt them if it is possible to avoid it and preserve your other goals but there is no situation in which you ought to prize any number of burglars over even 1% chance of your family members getting hurt. Your outrage isn't moral its a plea for greater harm in service of a dysfunctional moral code where your children are less important than the meth addict who is terrorizing your neighborhood.

philderbeast 4y ago
"an intruder with a statistical 30-40% chance of being armed" add gun control into the mix and this chance goes WAY down. "If you startle them they could open fire sending a stray bullet into your kids room" As could you by opening fire in an attempt to stop the attacker. Noting the majority of gun owners never use them, they are far more likely to cause harm them prevent it. The "protection" argument is best served by reducing the number of weapons in circulation, not by arguing your ability to use one to protect yourself.
- michaelmrose 4y ago
  You are certainly correct but one is usually in a stronger position to control your individual situation than your societies. Logically reducing weapons in circulation makes sense but if one cannot actually do that then it may make sense to arm yourself even if on net your society is less safe for the decision you are all collectively making.
ohgodplsno 4y ago
You're taking random numbers pulled out of your ass for a fully hypothetically situation which you've made up. Can I make my numbers up too, or can we have a productive discussion about some actual solutions rather than "he might shoot me I saw it in FBI reports" Here's the reality of things: - 3 out of 4 burglaries happen with no-one home - 7% of that remaining 25% show "a form of violence". It doesn't mean shooting. Even a fistfight counts in there. So, 1.75% of burglaries happen with violence. This is even lower in countries which have already regulated guns. - There are approximately ZERO burglars that want a confrontation when stealing from you. It is infinitely more trouble than it is worth to be caught. Even if they know they will win a fight. A fight means noise, it means being potentially seen, caught, etc. Burglars will abandon ship the moment anyone is up. Once again, gun ownership makes the likelihood of things getting violent much higher. If you know you can easily run away, you don't come armed. If you know you can get shot, you come in armed and ready to shoot - The meth addict is deserving of treatment and help, not being shot. Do you think people fall into meth for the lulz? - Utilitarian perspective on human lives is absolute dogshit and a show of a rotten society and mindset.

lliamander 4y ago

"Defensive gun use" does not necessarily mean "killed someone". It could be merely brandishing the weapon. And while a home invasion does not necessarily give the right to shoot someone per se, it makes it quite a bit easier to satisfy the conditions for self-defense that I have laid out elsewhere in this thread.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]