So… even more reason to shoot the prison kitten?
That’s it! Set your inner criminal free. I’ve been looking at this totally the wrong way.
Load up, and fire away. Come over to the darkside…we ain’t got cookies, but the hours are great and the tax incentives are unbeatable. 
You contradict yourself. If thieves are all that inventive, you will be unable to keep them out, anyway.
So which is it?
Their inventiveness rarely crosses the boundary line of hard work unless there is a potentially large pay-off. I know, it’s another failing of the criminal class.
If the felon is within every citizen, then clearly, little Timmy in my kitchen is letting his inner felon out. So I shouldn’t worry about shooting him, either.
Oh man, was that a roundabout american joke?! Nice!
Actually, it’s the assumption that someone who is already breaking and entering into an occupied home, rather than an unoccupied home, more likely has something sinister in mind.
Had they chosen to break into an unoccupied home, I would not have shot, or even drawn on them. Why? Because I was not there, there was no potential risk to me.
The law isn’t allowing them to be judge, nor jury, nor executioner.
It’s allowing them the right to self defense.
That you exist.
You must be missing the part (I can only assume, intentionally), where everyone in this thread has said that deadly force is their last, unfortunate-but-I-reserve-the-right-anyway option?
Exactly.
See, if they make the wrong decision, I can’t know what’s going through their mind. I took all the steps I could to avoid them breaking into my house, I have a nice big door, I have a private abode, I have a lock that only my key works in.
There is no confusion, they know exactly what they’re doing if they break in.
And so do I.
I am reserving the right to blow their guts all over the wall.
“Cowardly”? Despite what criminals like yourself or Mr. Luciano might believe, it is not a failing to not hurt others for our own benefit.
No, everyone has NOT said that. There are definitely at least one or two who still seem to be of the opinion that anyone who B&Es their premises are a sitting duck on the grounds that if they’ve been crazy enough to break into your house then obviously they might be crazy enough to rape your daughter.
In fact, one can’t help getting the impression with certain posters that the family thing is just an excuse to pop a few bullets in someone’s ass. So macho and all that.
In fact, who could disagree with the last resort option? Unfortunately, it’s barely warranted a mention.
I do believe the poster in question said somewhere in this thread that his criminal past is behind him.
As for your point ‘it is not a failing etc’- the same could be applied in reverse, could it not?
As in: Despite what certain gun owners in this thread believe, it is not a failing to not hurt others for our own benefit.
I’ve been through this entire thread, more than once on most pages, and I can assure you that it is posted as a last resort.
Its not always referred to that way, for simplicities sake, but if you re-read the thread - from the beginning - you’ll notice that it is repeatedly implied to be used as a last resort.
Unfortunately, that last resort, by necessity, comes sooner in some situations than others (due to the layout of the home, number of family members, children in the home, etc).
One side of the argument (Ivan), has been trying to paint the other side (… us) as gun-totin’, wild west yearnin’ hicks from the boonies with shotguns and six shooters just waiting in our house for someone to break in, so we can murder them.
That’s not the case, obviously, however that hasn’t stopped ivan from, repeatedly, insinuating as much.
Have you read the entire thread, 1st?
I’m just asking Ivan what’s the problem if someone happens to be a gun-totin’ wild west yearnin’ hick from the boonies with a shotgun.
I’ve already established my stand on things. I even went so far as to posit a much less defensible incident, the car situation.
I’m not convinced from his side’s words.
The correct phrasing would be… “It’s not a failing to harm others in self defense.”
A lesson many prison kittens should learn. Fucking hell. Gun owners are not going out, Punisher-style, looking for thieves to shoot. The scenario is that, no matter what locks or home security you may or may not have, someone has broken into your home. They have decided that it’s not a failing to harm others for their own benefit. Now get out of here, unless you plan on actually reading the whole damn thread. Your bleeding heart is staining my carpet.
Let’s remind ourselves of the OP.
You haven’t mentioned how the prison kitty gained access, but I’ll assume he hasn’t stumbled in there by accident, seeing as he is holding your wife’s purse. At this moment neither the homeowner or family are under threat…is it really neccessary to shoot your gun in anger at this point? Because we all know you won’t be best pleased to have had your sanctuary violated, and your decision making process will be duly affected.
Sounds like the right to fire at will isn’t universally accepted among the US public?
They have no right to be in your home, but do you have the right to do the police’s work and make a citizens arrest once they are out of it? And if so, would the ends justify the risk?
That ball is still up in the air.
Lets remind ourselves of the fact that threads follow a threaded discussion.
Lets remind ourselves that pretty much everyone, thus far, has stated that they wouldn’t fire their weapon if it was possible to verify that they were in no danger.
Lets remind ourselves that the OP was 20 pages and almost 1,000 posts ago.
Let’s remind ourselves that ivan is never, ever going to be swayed by any argument whatsoever. You’re wasting your time.
Yes of course I have read the thread and I stand by my earlier post. You may have implied gun use as a last resort, as maybe others have, but by and large, I’m appalled by the lack of humanity demonstrated by many on here. One poster (can’t remember who and sorry, I ain’t scrolling back) said quite simply he neither knew nor cared about the reasons someone would be in his house. They were in his house and frankly deserved everything they got. He wasn’t alone either.
I can’t speak for Ivan, but as I said, I doubt anyone would object to the use of force if someone was attacking their wife or child but as a profilactive measure violence is not the way forward IMO.
Perhaps you should assume less because I did read the entire thread before entering.
If having a degree of respect for human life (all human life) equates to having a bleeding heart then so be it.
ps Please don’t issue me with orders. I don’t take them in RL and I ain’t taking them from you. 