Okay, I’ll concede you have the right to defend yourself from crack-tooting killer clowns by any means neccessary, if you’ll admit that oiling your guns and stocking up on ammo isn’t the most pro-active or creative method of lessening crime.
And, despite being a somewhat excellent method of stopping robberies in the home it is not exactly 100% foolproof, and not quite totally preventative.
Do we have a deal?
Just say “Yes” and I’ll shut up! 
I don’t really not want to shoot him.
I just don’t want to shoot him, a little bit. It’s not a huge problem for me to shoot him. If he makes moves towards me, whether the door is behind me or not, he’s getting shot. Before he’s within 2.5 arms length.
Not all crime, no.
But the crime of my family being murdered or injured by a potentially armed home intruder? It’s a pro-active way of preventing that crime, actually.
I’d stock up on ammo and oil my guns anyway, even if I lived in a crime-free area*, because I enjoy shooting. The defensive bit is just an added benefit.
[SIZE=“1”]*lol, those don’t exist, silly![/SIZE]
What? Of course it’s not! Has anybody in this thread really argued that they favor skimping on door locks and security systems so they’ll have a better chance of gunning down an intruder? The point is that regardless of what preventative measures are or are not in place, invading the security of somebody else’s home is a serious threat that makes one liable to get shot (quite justifiably) by the homeowner.
As far as what preventative measures the homeowner should take, well, that’s up to them. The presence of criminals does not confer to the homeowner the duty to live as though his home is a prison, nor does a lack of security in any way excuse the criminal taking advantage of it.
It’s the same with the bullets vs. compassion point you brought up earlier: it’s a false dichotomy. I don’t think anybody here thinks that working to repair social ills is not a good way to address issues of crime and violence, or that simply shooting more criminals is a good substitute. The fact of the matter is that once a person has broken into your home (or otherwise threatened you), those social concerns cease to be important compared to the immediate crisis of self-defense.
Good Gawd! I thought this discussion was over!
This is silly. Like cuckorex, I rent. I can’t install any security system, and even if I could its unfair to assume a homeowner/renter has to bear the extra cost because little Tommy Thugburger can’t keep from breaking into my house.
I give to charities. I work with young people at times for community service…(as a rep of the military.) I do what I can to be a good person and neighbor. But you know what? Breaking into my house for money for this phantom mother with an illness is BS. Its not like I’m rich. I work my ass off for everything I’ve got. Now I have to explain to my insurance company that I shot my own tires out? I have to possibly have bigger payments because Tommy couldn’t keep his hands off of my things? I’m don’t give a rats ass why Tommy Thugburger went into crime I want him to not break into my house, and if he does, he has to accept the fact that I might kill him.
So once again, WHEN DOES THE CRIMINAL BEAR RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CRIME?
I don’t expect an answer other than “I should have installed force fields and made my house invisible” answers from the pro-don’t hurt the thief you selfish meanie" crowd.
Let’s see, so far I’ve said that I don’t own a gun, that if I did own a gun for the purpose of home defense I would load it with less lethal ammo, that I wouldn’t shoot someone who was in a garage stealing my car as long as there was no immediate potential for the thief to move into my house, and that social programs to reduce crime are wonderful. It’s been well established that the circumstances being discussed assume that someone has actually succeeded in breaking into a home at night, not that they are in the garage or that they are running down the street or on their way to bring medicine to dear old Mom, and that virtually everyone has declared that they hope they never, ever have to shoot at somoene. So now, and I fully accept that this may earn me a time-out, but I have to assume you’re tro…trol…trying to string this conversation along for your own amusement. So no, no deal. I also fully expect that you will never, ever leave this thread until you have the last word. Go for it.
Actually i’m firmly convinced that Ivan is trol…I mean, stringing it out for amusement. Even if he is serious, his views are way out there, and require a degree of insanity I am not capable of. I can’t even take his posts seriously.
So when does the criminal bear any responsibility?
Yes indeed ,if someone breaks into your house you should kill them to protect your family. Then of course his family may resent you killing their brother,son, etc. So you should hunt down and kill his family to protect yours. Then what about his friends. Better kill them too. But then, you are just protecting your family.
Cuckoorex and Jolly Roger, go play in the BBQ Pit if you can’t control yourselves.
For the most part, I almost wishwe had not gotten rid of our goats because I could now bed them for a year with all the straw men that have been demolished by both sides of this “debate.”
A clear case in point being the last silliness by gonzomax which I urge him to refrain from repeating.
[ /Modding ]
And if they break into my house, they’ll be shot too.
What you’re talking about is murder, what we’re talking about is defending ourselves.
You just want to tr… try my patience, don’t you?
Sorry. But he DID accuse me of being a bloodthirsty murderer first, ya know?
… so he’s not a peaceful prison kitten at all. He’s a rabid prison kitten, and we should shoot him. Are you sure that’s the argument you’re making?
I have seen (and engaged in) a fair degree of caution here – for instance, I have made very clear that I find Ivan’s positions ridiculous, sociopathic, pathological, but have not characterized him, per se, as such.
I really am not sure where either Cuckoorex or Jolly Roger or for that matter Ivan has transgressed against the GD Rules, anymore than I have (IMHO).
Without starting a separate debate – what is it you think those guys did wrong in GD?
I’m pretty sure it’s because we intimated that we thought ivan was trolling, which has a no tolerance policy in GD, although accusing someone of any number of other things (bloodthirsty homocidal gun nut, sociopathic ex-con, etc.) is apparently OK. I mean, there are a lot of people in this thread guilty of making accusations about other posters, myself included. I’m not quite sure why the T word gets so much attention in comparison, but that’s a matter for discussion in another forum.
Jaysus. I thought there was a safe harbor for what you guys did (telegraphing to trolls by saying “tro. . . tr . . . troposheric . . . I mean, ‘trying to prove the unprovable.’” I thought that was all fair game.
To me, it read more like a caution, not even a warning.
Just to watch yourselves, so you don’t accidentally step over the line.
Correct.
The “troll” name-calling caught my attention, but the fact that there was far more heat than light and it was all getting personal brought my response–which was not an official Warning or I’d have noted that.
OTOH, I suspect that this topic is simply beyond the capacity of the SDMB to engage without many posters getting emotionally entangled and I doubt that it will remain open much longer.
(Calling people mother-stabbers and father-rapers generally brings about a rolling of the eyes or a trip to the BBQ Pit limited to the caller and the called. Calling a poster a troll immediately prompts a bench clearing brawl with dozens of other posters dropping the thread topic to engage in a donnybrook over whether the charge is accurate. Therefore, calling a poster a troll, (an act disruptive to the board,), is treated with less leeway than other name-calling events, (which tend to be limited to the immediate participants). All name-calling is still prohibited in the Forum.
[ /Modding ]
You…you…you moderator!
Well, you can get anything you want at Alice’s Restaurant…
Its an attitude like that that allows this to happen. Yeah, the monetary value of the property is irrelevant, its the violation of home, the taking of something I worked for, the act of stealing itself, etc that I’m killing for. If I catch someone in my house that is not supposed to be there, it doesn’t matter if they stole a stick of gum I’m going to do my level best to kill them. I do not respect someone’s rights when they trample over mine.