I have to say, for the most part I find the views in this thread genuinely frightening.
If someone is attacking my family, of course I will defend them. Immediately attacking them…not maybe going to attack them. What most of you here seem to miss is the difference between breaking and entry and rape/murder/choose your horror.
I’m sorry but the sanctity of your castle IS NOT worth the cost of a human life; even if you do barely regard that life as human (which is apparent).
The point that by confronting the intruder you could escalate the situation and further endanger your family is being wilfully ignored.
Anyway, that’s me done in this thread. I think by the time I arrived a lot of you were already a tad wound up. Seems I missed the rational debate.
If only I had a castle… I value the sanctity of my one bedroom apartment. I have worked for everything in my apartment to the point that at age 26 I am without 20% of the use of my right arm. My books are my most valued possession in my apartment, they are the gateway to a better education so I can use my head to make a living, since my body is broken. I’m not telling you to shoot someone in your house, you obviously don’t have anything that you value, but if I am not going to stand by and give someone the opportunity to destroy my life when I can protect it. I am selfish, if my life costs the life of another I’ll gladly pay.
Horse thieves were killed if caught, not because it stopped horse theft as a crime, but because it stopped that particular criminal.
Look, your whole argument is based on the “Lions and tigers and killer clowns, oh my!” idea that every burglar/petty thief/prison kitty out there, wants to kill your family and you are just protecting them to the best of your ability. It’s all a mighty big “IF”* that if you were honest, you know could be avoided.( The fact that these events still occur, albeit less frequently, means your guns are not deterring the either stupidly desperate or just plain murderous! Exactly the people you SHOULD be fearing. Any stats on how these crimes were committed, anyone? Such extreme crimes are surely recorded and studied, aren’t they?) Or at least avoided to the best of your financial ability. But, it’s obviousl I’ll never make some of you recognise the validity of my claim, because you are so committed to the idea of solving problems with your guns.
“IF” the bad guy has already breached your best defences. And most of you have not even stated whether you have the bare minimum of defences. And that doesn’t include having doors left unlocked, windows left unopen, and curtains drawn presenting an Aladdin’s Palace for the potential [del]sneak thief[/del]family raper.
Well the law is circumventing its own process by allowing its citizens to be judge, jury and executioner, when they haven’t taken adequate security measures.
Now come on, as an ex-cop, tell the readers what their minimum security requirements should be.
Also, dig into whatever databases you might have access to, and remind us how likely an event this is going to be in the average adequately-protected home-owners life? Then we can see if your fears bear any relation to reality. Is it as likely as your house getting hit by lightning, for example, and would you stand on your roof during storms with a big shotgun, ready to shoot those danged lightning bolts down, or do you buy a lightning conductor?
So you are suggesting what… That I should invite them in and give them the walking tour, followed by tea, before I give them the key to the safe so I’m not a bother?
You also ask how do we know the person breaking into our domicile is there to rape/murder someone. Well how do you know they aren’t? They are already there committing a crime. Like I said earlier, I have a vested self interest in my life. If someone has broken into my house to commit a crime, I operate on the assumption that they are not there for any benevolent purpose.
We’ve come no way from anywhere. The Wild West was 120 years ago. The Bible was 2000 years ago. The Code of Hammurabi was even older. All of them recognized that there would always be lazy thieving scumbags. All of them provided for punishment therefor.
You’ve already betrayed your juvenilely-Marxist tendencies with your “property is theft” statement upthread. So I’ll take the opportunity to remind you, pace Marx and his fantasies: “human nature has no history.” There’s no reason my response to timeless human thieving venality should be any different than the highly practical response of the guys on the frontier. The thieves and their scummy mentality are no different. Why should my response be?
I’m suggesting that the reliance on deadly force as a solution against theft alone, by some posters, is possibly symptomatic of a worrying trend in world affairs. And that trend might seem to be being set by your country.
We don’t. Which is why I say keep them out in the first place and avoid making a wrong decision.
Ah, a good old traditionalist. Because the old ways are always the best.
Have you ever noticed how inventive thieves can be? Is it your belief that the criminal mind-set should be eradicated from the human gene pool, or would you rather see it harnessed? It’s not a trick question.
What trend? Here in the U.S. we punish the criminals and guess what, Crime rates in the U.S. are down (check the census bureau) and our firefighters don’t have to have police protection to do their job. http://www.abex.org.uk/?p=26
I certainly don’t leave the damn door open with a sign saying valuables inside.
My door is dead-bolted, my windows are braced, and I don’t make a conspicuous display of wealth. No amount of security will keep someone out that really wants in all it does is deter the lazy criminal or the ones that don’t perceive enough gain. My apartment has never been broken into but if someone wants to they have to make an effort to get inside, and if they do that while I’m around… Well they made the wrong choice, not I.
