No, you mean bill sea kitten 678.
Not quite
I am a SEAL kitten. Doubly cute, cuddly, with thick snow white fur and baby blue eyes. 
And yet, you may have misinterpreted it. In the hypothetical example, we know that the criminal is a thief who would not have harmed anyone, since you have defined that to be the case. We know that the chain of events which led to his being shot were caused by him being a thief and he could have avoided being shot by not stealing. So, it is reasonable to say “if he doesn’t want to be shot he shouldn’t be stealing”.
However, he deserves the shot by reason of him being in someone else’s house in the middle of the night uninvited. The resident would not know the intruder’s intentions and is entitled to assume the worst. (You might reasonably disagree with this, but that’s a different question). If the intruder immediately proves that he means no violence then he doesn’t get shot. If he doesn’t (perhaps can’t) prove his harmlessness then he gets shot. Too bad. (Actually, he might get shot anyway, since accidents happen in these situations. Too bad again). So, it is reasonable to say he deserves to be shot.
In this hypothetical example, we have a thief, who deserves to get shot, who gets shot as a consequence of being a thief, but who is not shot as a punishment for being a thief. He is shot for putting himself in a situation where someone has a very good reason to shoot him.
You forgot example (c), which is the intruder appears identical to example (a) but is actually an empathy-free psycopath who will kill you and your family brutally if he gets the chance. So, it sucks to be an example (a) criminal if your victims are armed, since they kill you even though you didn’t “deserve” it.
Society has higher priorities than protecting example (a) criminals from being mistaken for example (c) criminals. Sorry. Feel free to raise it with your MP. (Though since you have an MP you can carry on thieving safe in the knowledge that your victims won’t have firearms.)
“Originally Posted by Kalhoun
My whole point in this thread is that shooting people isn’t always the right answer, regardless of who’s in the wrong. Clearly the intruder who intentionally comes in to steal cannot be anything but wrong. But this notion of shooting someone when you don’t really know what the situation is, or shooting someone for stealing stuff as opposed to harming people, isn’t a proportionate response to the crime.”
The point that many people are making, is that shooting people who have invaded your home in the middle of the night is a proportionate response to the risks you face when you don’t really know what the situation is, and are tired and confused too. I don’t think you can assert that they are demonstrably wrong, without much more persuasive arguments.
The posts where you point out that the intruders may well be heavily armed gang members who might well kill you and your family after raping them if you try to defend yourself don’t persuade me. (Sorry if on this second point I am mistaking you for someone else, I’m too tired to find the original quote on this.)
For me, the main drawback to shooting intruders in the night is the risk that it is a family member who couldn’t sleep…
Neither example works. The only point you are making is that it should be perfectly acceptable to kill someone if they are taking your replaceable( if at considerable inconvenience.) property. Your livelihood is at stake, not your life.
Here’s the cold, hard reality; if you have inadequately secured valuable objects , there is probably a fairly low statistical chance that someone is going to try and steal them.
I’m not sure citing stats will really help here because some will probably contest they don’t show the big picture. The general impression though, is that burglary is in decline, more than likely due to a combination of better security encouraging burglars to seek easier pickings.
Without a breakdown of the different types of burglaries recorded, I can only guesstimate that the vast majority of these do not involve violence to the home owners, or family. Either way, the somewhat flimsy evidence suggests that the likelihood of it happening is decreasing each year. Remember this isn’t because there are less thieves. Criminals are very adaptable, you see.
I’m not even going to delve into the effectiveness of firearms in the recorded incidences of home invasions, whether violent( kicking your door in) or surreptitious( using an unsecured access point). The fact that you are allowed guns for protection and there are still so many burglaries indicates the deterrent value is worth diddly, even to the apparently petty burglar.
So, one last time; the best way to avoid your nightmare scenario, is not to have a shotgun by the bed, but to make sure your security system can stop all but the most psychopathic burglar. Then you are going to need your gun.
Why does this not work? Do you feel it is not acceptable to kill people if they are taking your car? Yes, I said my livelihood is at stake. That’s why I chose this example.
You’re not in my home, you are on my property, and you’re stealing something that threatens my way of life. Why is it morally wrong to kill you? Why do you say this doesn’t work?
Edit: How can a security system stop anyone? The best they can do is slow down and make alarms.
The bit about the custom made Barrett was humorous exaggeration. A Barrett is nearly six feet long and weighs close to 30 pounds. I do have a stainless steel bathroom gun but it is a plain vanilla S&W model 66 .357.
I hope you are never in a position to find out.
Truthfully, is your life totally dependent on having your car and computer available at all moments? They are not quite a family member, are they?
Again, because it is not a matter of life and death. If the thief also has a gun drawn and you can get the drop on him, fair play to you. But if a person has his back to you while attempting to start your car, shooting him is totally unneccessary. If he has entered your home and has your PC in his arms ready to carry out the door, you SHOULD NOT shoot him. If he then drops the PC and goes to pull out a gun or other weapon, blast away.
As I have said repeatedly( I’m sure it’s getting boring now!), the point of having good security is to make the potential burglar think, ‘This is too much like hard work, I’ll try next door’, and if everyone on the street has the same set up, they’ll move to another street, then another neighbourhood, until they finally think, ‘Hmmm…I wonder what the money is like in shoplifting?’
Believe me, as an ex-burglar I know that the prices you get for knocked-off products are hardly worth putting your gloves on for…unless you make it piss easy for burglars to get them.
You know, speaking of comprehension, feel free to point out where I ever said I can read an intruder’s intention.
We’re back to the tells again, aren’t we? Where’s mswas when we need him?
Looks like it’s just you, me and a couple of others who think it is better to avoid having to use your ‘spidey-senses’ in the first place!
I doubt they will find the safe, but if they did, there’s no ammo to go with the guns.
I’m amazed that so many people feel that having a gun is an automatic component of life. It’s just not true. Millions of people don’t have guns. They go through their entire lives without giving it a thought. Ever. I never said that I wouldn’t defend myself if someone tried to hurt me. What I said was I would not choose violence EVER to defend my stuff, and I would do everything in my power to avoid violence if the threat was to myself or my family. Guns don’t play a part in my defense scenario.
You’ve spent the whole thread telling us how we shouldn’t shoot burglars because we don’t know whether they want to hurt us. You’ve also insisted that you would never shoot a burglar. Therefore we are left with two choices:
- You would rather let a burglar hurt you than shoot him.
or - You can somehow mystically sense the innate harmlessness of burglars and therefore know in advance that they don’t need shot.
Bully for you.
Now, if you would just drop the attitude that, since you choose to be that way, it is the best_nay, only_choice and that all the rest of us should be like you.
See, I don’t give a wet fart whether you own guns or not. I don’t care whether you shoot a burglar or offer him a blowjob and breakfast. I don’t care whether you would handle the situation like I would or not. But you pop up in most every GD gun-related thread with the same tired litany of sneering insults about gun owners in general and about me personally because we don’t think like you.
No, it’s not ok for me. I wouldn’t even consider killing someone who’s stealing my car. There’s no threat to my personal safety. I’d be on the phone with the police.
So you have no trouble with someone else i.e. the police officer risking his safety over your car? The crux of the matter, then, isn’t that the car isn’t worth the risk of harm to another person. It’s that the car isn’t worth the risk of harm to you. …And what happens if Mr. Car Thief resists arrest and ends up getting shot by Officer Friendly? Is that O.K. too because Princess Sea Kitten didn’t personally pull the trigger?
This is a recurring theme among pacifists. They don’t really have a problem with violence as long as someone else is doing it for them.
Police rarely shoot anyone over car theft in my neighborhood. But no, I would not be pleased if a guy was shot by ANYONE for stealing a car. I wouldn’t expect a cop to draw on a car thief. That’s just wrong, in my opinion.
S/he’s doing her/his job, and fully aware of the risks.
So, you’d prefer more people getting involved with violent solutions? I’m sure that would help.
That’s right. It’s the wild, wild west.