Promise you wont get upset?
An ounce of prevention is better than 7 lb of trigger pressure.
Okay. Now direct your attention to the goalposts under discussion: the ounce of prevention has failed. Now what?
Seriously, when you engage in discussions about the best options available to an unwed pregnant teenager, do you just keep chiming in with “abstinence works 100% of the time” or something? She’s already knocked up, now what? “Abstinence works!” Yeah, that’s true, but in this case abstinence wasn’t employed and someone is pregnant. What’s the best way to handle it? “Don’t have sex! Works every time!” That’s what having this home defense argument with you is like.
Here’s the scenario. Your outer defenses, no matter how good they may or may not have been HAVE ALREADY BEEN BREACHED. That’s the discussion at hand. Not "how does someone prevent this from happening again (provided they survive the experience for there to BE an “again”)?
There’s far too many variables for the kind of pat answer you would like, but I’m sure some of them would justify your advocation of extreme force.
This in no way excuses your possible negligence in allowing the situation to occur. You can wail about “criminals shouldn’t be criminals” but they are a hazard we all have to live with, and minimising contact is the way to go on that score. You have to leave your house eventually, but at least there you have some control over the environment and you CAN lessen your likelihood of contact.
There’s not that many variables. Give it a shot.
Maybe you’ll even describe the scenarios when I actually do advocate extreme force. Odds are, they’re exactly the same ones where you would.
The kick is outside the goalposts - no score.
If you would like to discuss the subject of home defense via barricades, alarms, locks, dogs, bars on window, moats, etc - feel free to start a thread about it. In this thread that stuff is by definition completely irrelevent.
Stop. Just…stop. AGAIN it’s the victim’s fault for not having good enough defenses in place. Fucking stop that shit. AGAIN you cannot seem to fathom that the situation being discussed is not a “how can I best plan to avoid a home invasion from happening,” it’s “a home invasion is occurring; do I have the right to use a gun to protect myself and my home?”
Either you’re deliberately trying to annoy, or you have absolutely no reading comprehension whatsoever. For a while now, I have believed it to be the former.
I’m calling you all sorts of bad names in my thoughts right now. So there.
Actually, it’s more akin to the idea of preventing a randy teenage boy from getting at your not yet pregnant daughter. You want to wave your gun around after he has already sown his oats.
Admit it, you want to shoot me, don’t you? 
Sorry, the goalposts have already been planted, the girl is preggers. The horses have already run off, so enough with the telling us all we have to do is close the barn doors already.
Don’t have a gun.
Holy cow. Blaming the victim again.
And since there is no way to absolutely prevent a break in, I have decided that I will additionally control my environment with a firearm.
Ivan, I don’t think you’ve answered a single question that anyone has asked you in this thread or that other monster.
Nor do I, as it happens. However I recognize that the gun-owners have the right side in this discussion.
Not even close. My analogy is spot-on. Preventive measures have failed; now what? Only either a complete moron or someone intent on trol–I mean, trying to annoy people would persist on returning to your line of argument.
I didn’t think the legal right was much of an issue; I thought we were discussing the moral rights of you as a homeowner?
This is nothing to do with the prison-kitty now - pretend that it is instead a wolf doing what wolves do.
Only this wolf doesn’t want your sheep, or the rabbits in your yard. It wants the contents of your fridge. Now, if you go and leave an easy way in for said hungry animal, do you really have the moral right to administer the most extreme punishment available? Have you taken the utmost precautions to avoid this encounter, or is it a mess of your own making?
( I thought we were overdue some animal analogies!)
The kick is outside the goalposts - no score. Extra penalty for strawmanning the opposition in pretending they left the door open.
For the sake of the argument, this is your house the crook is in. With all your vaunted defenses - breached. Now, answer the damned question.
Moderator’s Warning: Cuckoorex, accusations of trolling and personal insults are both forbidden in this forum. Knock it off.
AGAIN with your fucking “you left an easy way for the poor hungry wolf puppy to get in, and now because YOU LET HIM IN AND IT’S ALL YOUR FAULT but now don’t want him in your fridge, THE ONLY THING YOU WANT TO DO IS KILL KILL KILL.”
Try just answering the relevant questions in the thread. People are using analogies to explain things to you because it seems you can’t possibly get it when stated plainly. They’re hoping analogies help. They obviously don’t.
I don’t have ANY moral responsibility for someone breaking into my home. None whatsoever. “Oh, but what if you have the window shades open so they can see your fancy TV and you leave the door wide open?” Nope, still doesn’t give the prison kitten any moral high ground to come uninvited into my home. Sorry. Prison kitten is the one violating moral responsibility, not me.
I start worrying for a moment. But, luckily I have my super laser-sighted gun with a full clip of 15 under my pillow, and the adrenaline has kicked in…go on, who am I up against?( I think I’m going to sit tight and let them come to me, rather than risk moving about and alerting the raider though.)
IANA Professional Burglar (or even an Amateur Burglar) but I really don’t think the average private dwelling place is at all difficult to break into. Very few people live in bank vaults or abandoned nuclear missile silos.
To claim that everyone is being “negligent” sort of does violence to the language, seeing as how “negligence” tends to be legally defined as failing to do the sorts of things reasonably prudent people do, and hundreds of millions of normal, presumably reasonable and prudent people live in houses or apartments with windows, street-level doors that lead directly into the interior of the home, etc. “Not living in a fortress” cannot be considered “negligence” by any reasonable standard.
Here you go, Ivan. Have fun.