# Ok, if I shouldn't \_shoot\_ the intruder, then...? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 19, 2009, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-if-i-shouldnt-_shoot_-the-intruder-then/482060 "2009-01-19T23:15:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 41
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-if-i-shouldnt-_shoot_-the-intruder-then/482060/801 "2009-01-23T22:08:02Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > Note the use of nasty names to describe thieves. They are dehumanizing them to make them less than human and not deserving of societies protections. Their lives are definitely worth less than a CD player.They should have the right to exterminate these vermin. I thought the name “prison kittens” was designed to make them all cute and cuddly and lovable. Am I missing something here ? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-if-i-shouldnt-_shoot_-the-intruder-then/482060/802 "2009-01-23T22:11:58Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > Note the use of nasty names to describe thieves. They are dehumanizing them to make them less than human and not deserving of societies protections. Their lives are definitely worth less than a CD player.They should have the right to exterminate these vermin. By being criminals they renounce the social contract. For a contract to be worth anything, both parties must adhere to it. When one party fails to abide by the terms of the contract, the other has no incentive or reason to do so. The contract is broken. BTW, since you’re showing up here in this gun thread, I trust you’ve brought with you the cites to back up your earlier claims about the numbers and uses of handguns in colonial America. ---
**Author:** ![SmellMyWort](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ea5d25/32.png) [@SmellMyWort](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmellMyWort)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-if-i-shouldnt-_shoot_-the-intruder-then/482060/803 "2009-01-23T22:16:48Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > Yes you do. Tourists are often advised not to flash their valuables about in certain places. A general advisory, which is probably standard for every travel guide out there, does not mean the victim of the crime will or should be blamed. Anyone who would make a comment like “he deserved it because he was flashing his money around” is just a big talker and would be singing a different tune if it happend to him. Yes, a smart individual knows there are risks associated with life and should do his/her best to assess and minimize those risks. But, if some punk steals your wallet there is only one person to blame. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-if-i-shouldnt-_shoot_-the-intruder-then/482060/804 "2009-01-23T22:19:54Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > BTW, since you’re showing up here in this gun thread, I trust you’ve brought with you the cites to back up your earlier claims about the numbers and uses of handguns in colonial America. You have a better chance of successfully shuffling cards with your buttcheeks than getting gonzomax to produce valid cites for his wild claims. ---
**Author:** ![ivan\_astikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/58f4c7/32.png) [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-if-i-shouldnt-_shoot_-the-intruder-then/482060/805 "2009-01-23T22:31:27Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > **ivan** , what’s your position in this argument? I get that you think people should get security systems and dogs and steel core windows and bars on their doors and barbed-wire -topped electric fences and moats populated by with alligators and sharks. You live [here](http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/478845/the_usa_is_the_worlds_most_violent.html), why wouldn’t you already have the minimum of those things, ie. an alarm? > [@begbert2](#): > > But, presuming all that _fails_, and you find yourself awakening in your bed hearing burglar in your home, and have a gun close at hand, is your position that if the gun-owner sees fit to take that gun and attempt to subdue the burglar, they are somehow wrong in doing so? > Sometimes you seem to be claiming that it is _foolish_ to do so, and defend that position with unlikely scenarios ranging to ridiculous hyperbole, but whether it’s dumb or risky do to so, do you assert that it’s _wrong_ to advance barrel-first towards the home invader and attempt to neutralize (or, if they prefer, kill) the intruder? If after taking the minimum of the security precautions above someone still tries to enter your property, you are then entitled to defend yourself by any means neccessary. Leave your window open and catch someone in there, and you should really be thanking him for exposing your bad habits. He could have been an exiled Belgian clown doing a night shift. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-if-i-shouldnt-_shoot_-the-intruder-then/482060/806 "2009-01-23T22:39:33Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > You live [here](http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/478845/the_usa_is_the_worlds_most_violent.html), why wouldn’t you already have the minimum of those things, ie. an alarm? Well, since you ask, I live in an apartment complex, and don’t believe they’d let me make that kind of modification to the place. Though I admit I’ve never asked. (And with it’s damned big pane-glass sliding back door that they won’t let me obstruct, I don’t know that it would matter much.) > [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > If after taking the minimum of the security precautions above someone still tries to enter your property, you are then entitled to defend yourself by any means neccessary. Leave your window open and catch someone in there, and you should really be thanking him for exposing your bad habits. He could have been an exiled Belgian clown doing a night shift. So, you don’t actually have a problem with people gunning down invaders, then. It eludes me why you’re arguing against the people holding that position. ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-if-i-shouldnt-_shoot_-the-intruder-then/482060/807 "2009-01-23T22:41:16Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > Are those till assistants who cost stores more than the shoplifters in losses, sub-human creatures? Just wondering about your delineation. They are less-fully-human than the person who chooses not to do violence to his fellow man and to his own soul by violating what all of Western culture has recognized as a fundamental taboo – what’s mine is mine, and what’s thine is thine. Seriously, property rights are not some tacky little mercenary footnote to fundamental human rights – they ARE a fundamental human right, and a pre-condition of a functioning society. The only people who ever denied they were are either still living in caves, or have hands stained with the blood of communist murder. This is not just because I love “things, glorious things.” It’s because defining who gets what assets in society is one of the most basic forms of social ordering. It’s because centuries of caveman existence taught us that giving the bronto leg to the shiftiest Cro-Magnon with the nimblest fingers risked starvation and privation for the guy who had the initiative to actually hunt down the bronto. Life, liberty, and property are enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. Thou shalt not steal is pretty old school. This is fundamental respect-for-human-rights stuff; I’m surprised by all the glib dismissals of “your $100 DVD player” or “a few squid from the till.” > [@](#): > > Do you think they are allowed to bid themselves, or would they get non-cop mates to do it? I hope, but actually have no hope, that this is not an attempt by you to imply that police auctions are just another fiddle by which the (presumptively corrupt) police enrich themselves on the labors of the (presumptively just-having-a-laff) criminals. No, policemen certainly may not bid on police auctions. These are universally required to be widely and publicly advertised. Even if some corrupt cop tried to get his mates to bid, the joke would be on them – due to the herd mentality that prevails at most auctions, vehicles often if not usually sell for more than they would in a private sale. (I know because I tried a few times as a kid to buy bikes at police auctions – no bargains were to be had). ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-if-i-shouldnt-_shoot_-the-intruder-then/482060/808 "2009-01-23T22:45:22Z")
As already mentioned, the US has a substantially lower rate of burglaries of occupied dwellings than does the UK. Our felons admit they worry more about meeting an armed citizen than a cop. I think this points toward any US criminal who enters an occupied dwelling being more likely to be dangerous than in the UK. If our own felons acknowledge the danger and tend to avoid occupied dwellings, then one who does break in while you are there is either really stupid, or high, or has more in mind than taking your VCR. I don’t think we have any reason to assume such an intruder is just a thrill-seeking kid or casual thief at all. ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-if-i-shouldnt-_shoot_-the-intruder-then/482060/809 "2009-01-23T22:54:31Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > As already mentioned, the US has a substantially lower rate of burglaries of occupied dwellings than does the UK. Our felons admit they worry more about meeting an armed citizen than a cop. I think this points toward any US criminal who enters an occupied dwelling being more likely to be dangerous than in the UK. If our own felons acknowledge the danger and tend to avoid occupied dwellings, then one who does break in while you are there is either really stupid, or high, or has more in mind than taking your VCR. I don’t think we have any reason to assume such an intruder is just a thrill-seeking kid or casual thief at all. Here you go: > [@page I linked before](#): > > C. Criminals avoid armed citizens > > - Kennesaw, GA. In 1982, this suburb of Atlanta passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate subsequently dropped 89% in Kennesaw, compared to the modest 10.4% drop in Georgia as a whole.16 > > - Ten years later (1991), the residential burglary rate in Kennesaw was still 72% lower than it had been in 1981, before the law was passed.17 > > - Nationwide. Statistical comparisons with other countries show that burglars in the United States are far less apt to enter an occupied home than their foreign counterparts who live in countries where fewer civilians own firearms. Consider the following rates showing how often a homeowner is present when a burglar strikes: > > - Homeowner occupancy rate in the gun control countries of Great Britain, Canada and Netherlands: 45% (average of the three countries); and, > > - Homeowner occupancy rate in the United States: 12.7%.18 > > Rapes averted when women carry or use firearms for protection > > - Orlando, FL. In 1966-67, the media highly publicized a safety course which taught Orlando women how to use guns. The result: Orlando’s rape rate dropped 88% in 1967, whereas the rape rate remained constant in the rest of Florida and the nation.19 > > - Nationwide. In 1979, the Carter Justice Department found that of more than 32,000 attempted rapes, 32% were actually committed. But when a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of the attempted rapes were actually successful.20 > > Justice Department study: > > - 3/5 of felons polled agreed that "a criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun."21 > > - 74% of felons polled agreed that "one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime."22 > > - 57% of felons polled agreed that "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police."23 ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-if-i-shouldnt-_shoot_-the-intruder-then/482060/810 "2009-01-23T23:14:02Z")
Exactly. So when I hear an invader in my house late at night, I’m pretty sure right away he isn’t a run-of-the-mill thief who’s just there to steal the first couple valuable items he sees. Our casual thieves generally avoid occupied dwellings specifically because they don’t want to get shot. Ivan claims it is different in the UK. Maybe it is. I do know what the research in our country indicates and what the criminals I’ve encountered were like. ---
**Author:** ![Todderbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Todderbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Todderbob)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-if-i-shouldnt-_shoot_-the-intruder-then/482060/811 "2009-01-23T23:25:31Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > You live [here](http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/478845/the_usa_is_the_worlds_most_violent.html), why wouldn’t you already have the minimum of those things, ie. an alarm? You just provided the most insane, absolutely preposterous backing for an idea I’ve ever seen. “_The USA has more shootings **in public places** than any other Industrialized nation, so you should get an alarm system in private._” What… the… fuck? ---
**Author:** ![ivan\_astikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/58f4c7/32.png) [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-if-i-shouldnt-_shoot_-the-intruder-then/482060/812 "2009-01-23T23:32:05Z")
> [@Todderbob](#): > > You just provided the most insane, absolutely preposterous backing for an idea I’ve ever seen. > > “_The USA has more shootings **in public places** than any other Industrialized nation, so you should get an alarm system in private._” > > What… the… fuck? I’m just pointing out that if it is that dangerous in your schools, and bearing in mind the rampant paranoia about killer clowns, protecting your homes to the max might seem like a good idea. ---
**Author:** ![Todderbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Todderbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Todderbob)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-if-i-shouldnt-_shoot_-the-intruder-then/482060/813 "2009-01-23T23:38:42Z")
edit: Nevermind, Cuckoorex said it way better than I ever could. ---
**Author:** ![Cuckoorex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ad7895/32.png) [@Cuckoorex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cuckoorex)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-if-i-shouldnt-_shoot_-the-intruder-then/482060/814 "2009-01-23T23:38:49Z")
Also, since there are so many traffic accidents, we should put seat belts on our recliners. ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-if-i-shouldnt-_shoot_-the-intruder-then/482060/815 "2009-01-23T23:42:49Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > I have an interest in living in a society where guns aren’t seen as the answer to a whole slew of problems. That’s my stake here. Gun accidents happen, arguments get out of hand that are “solved” with guns, misguided youth swiping TVs stop breathing because a homeowner “had no choice.” It’s depressing. I don’t want to live in a world where a loaded handgun under the pillow is seen as necessary, and I don’t think it is. But others disagree, and that irks me. > > I’m just trying to put risks and options in perspective, although I’m awfully ineffectual at it. In a non-military context: How many times have you been shot? How many times have you been shot at? How many times have you even been threatened with a gun? How many people that you personally know well have been shot? Shot at? Threatened with a gun? How many times have you shot somebody? Shot at somebody? Threatened somebody with a gun? Upthread, you admitted that you had no background whatsoever to give you any expertise in telling everybody else in the thread how they _should_ be defending their homes. Now you’re back with this. Tell me what background and experience you have that make your assessments something to which I should pay any attention at all. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2009, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-if-i-shouldnt-_shoot_-the-intruder-then/482060/816 "2009-01-24T00:55:46Z")
> [@Redwing](#): > > The thing that seems to be missing here is an understanding of what’s valuable to whom. > > The armed homeowners value the sanctuary of their homes, and believe that they have a right to defend themselves against those who would violate it. They don’t want to kill someone; they don’t believe that their dvd player is worth a human life, because that’s not what they’re defending when they pull the trigger. They’re defending their home, their shelter, their sanctuary. > > The other guys value life. They believe that the right to life trumps the right to property, liberty or self-determination. They believe that a feeling, thinking human is worth more than anything in the world. To them dead is dead, but anything else can be repaired or healed with time. > > The life guys keep trying to show how much more a life is worth than mere things. They keep failing, because the homeowners have the same belief. The homeowners keep trying to show how their basic rights are more valuable then those who would violate them. They keep failing, because the life guys believe that life trumps everything else. > > The life guys also seem to think the homeowners are trying to punish the crooks. They’re not; they’re simply trying to defend themselves. There is no useful question of what the crooks deserve, because no one is trying to punish them, merely to stop them. It’s improper to quote something in full, but Redwing has managed to frame both sides of the debate exquisitely. I believe defending my rights are worth my own life. I have little relative issue with the concept that defending my rights are worth other people’s lives. The principle is what is important. Why do people believe the sanctity of life is more important than the right of the individual to life, liberty, and property? Yes, I understand that people say that violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. But that is because the competent do not use it as a refuge, rather as one of many possible strategies, as necessary. I believe I have the responsibility, as a citizen, to take due care, but beyond that, I have the responsibility not to allow the behavior of criminals to alter my life. If I encounter one, I should deal with it as seems most appropriate. If it winds up that lethal force is needed, why should I be concerned? Certainly, they are fellow human beings, but the need to kill a fellow man is something long noted in society, from war to execution. I will never pay Danegeld. (I should note that I came to this position after 9/11, and I view terrorists as criminals of the largest sort.) ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2009, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-if-i-shouldnt-_shoot_-the-intruder-then/482060/817 "2009-01-24T02:05:14Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > Why do people believe the sanctity of life is more important than the right of the individual to life, liberty, and property?\ If it winds up that lethal force is needed, why should I be concerned? Certainly, they are fellow human beings, but the need to kill a fellow man is something long noted in society, from war to execution. Was it Justice Scalia who wrote that this follows if you don’t believe in any sort of God or afterlife? That if physical existence in this world is all there is, then killing someone- annihilating them- is the wrongest thing that can ever happen? That, and the notion held by the deeply spiritual, that all living things are God’s children and that to do violence is ultimately to do violence to one’s self. To truly understand and believe this requires the grace or enlightenment of near-Buddhahood, on a level virtually incompatible with continued existence in this world. The problem is when this concept is cheaply preached in a facile, watered-down version suitable for liberal pacifism. Add in the notion that crime and violence are the result of poverty and emotional scarring, and… :smack: Or if you really want to get paranoid, that the would-be philosopher kings of this world want their sheep to be nice and docile. > [@](#): > > I will never pay Danegeld. Although if you lose a wrongful death suit, you may have to pay weregeld. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2009, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-if-i-shouldnt-_shoot_-the-intruder-then/482060/818 "2009-01-24T02:15:01Z")
Sheesss… I’m not going to take the battery out of my car or put bars on my windows. This is just getting silly. Simple fact is that if I feel threatened, and I have the means to stop that threat I will. Bingo. If it also means a BANGO so be it. I’ve put my self in BIG harms way, unprotected to protect my dogs from other dogs. It was instinctive. I quite sure that I would do the same for my Wife or any other that was under threat of harm. I can’t imagine how protective a parent would be. Remember. Threat of harm. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2009, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-if-i-shouldnt-_shoot_-the-intruder-then/482060/819 "2009-01-24T14:37:06Z")
> [@Una\_Persson](#): > > You have a better chance of successfully shuffling cards with your buttcheeks than getting gonzomax to produce valid cites for his wild claims. **Una** ’s right, of course. Don’t ask me how I know. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![BrandonR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/779978/32.png) [@BrandonR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrandonR)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2009, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-if-i-shouldnt-_shoot_-the-intruder-then/482060/820 "2009-01-24T14:48:18Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > I’m just pointing out that if it is that dangerous in your schools, and bearing in mind the rampant paranoia about killer clowns, protecting your homes to the max might seem like a good idea. That’s not always feasible. Some people live in apartments and can’t reinforce their homes against criminals. Some don’t have the money to do such things, and some feel that it’s not _necessary_. Nor should it be. It is not my job to spend my money, my time, and my resources on securing my home more than what one would reasonably expect. What _is_ my duty is to defend my life if I feel threatened, and you can bet I’m going to feel threatened when someone illegally breaks into my residence in the middle of the night. My residence is **mine**. No one else, other than whom I invite in, should be there barring any extreme circumstances some anti-gun-nut wants to fantasize about. If I wake up in the middle of the night and someone is inside my residence, I’m not going to rationalize and assume the intruder is only here for a TV. Another problem I think is the difference in countries. In the US, depending on what study you look at, anywhere between 30-49% of households have a firearm. The criminals know this, and studies from prisons have shown that **criminals are more concerned about a run-in with an armed homeowner than a police officer**. They know there’s a chance the homeowner has a gun when they break into occupied homes, which is why it happens a lot less here. US criminals tend to go for unoccupied homes or cars more so than breaking into a home. When someone _does_ break into an occupied home in the US then, it’s either a ballsy (or stupid, or high) criminal or someone that has more nefarious intentions (gruesome rape/murder perhaps?). There’s a reason the [Castle Doctrine](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine) exists in many states of the US – most people feel their home is their “castle” and they have a right to defend it. Even if it means taking an intruder’s life, so be it. Perhaps the intruder should have asked him/herself if their life was worth it before breaking into someone’s house? _If_ I ever had to use deadly force on someone who was illegally in my residence, I might feel unfortunate but I would not feel sad or guilty. And that’s a big if. I’ll die a happy man if I never have to use/pull my firearm in order to defend my life. I think a lot of the apparently anti-gun people have this incorrect notion that gun owners such as myself have itchy trigger fingers and want this situation to happen. Of course that’s not true. No one ever wants to go through a traumatizing situation as waking up in the middle of the night and discovering an intruder. I’m arguing on the principle of the matter and in my eyes, it’s extraordinarily simple: **if you don’t want the possibility of being shot and killed, don’t break into other people’s places!** [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-if-i-shouldnt-_shoot_-the-intruder-then/482060.md?page=40) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-if-i-shouldnt-_shoot_-the-intruder-then/482060.md?page=42)