Gun Control

[skeptik]

Your first line of defense with a gun is threatening to use it, not using it.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Fair enough.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Your first line of defense with a gun is threatening to use it, not using it.

But what else can you do in a situation where your life could be in immediate danger, and you have no way of safely assessing the danger? Do you really think that shooting first and asking questions later should never be an option for something?

Also, why on earth should someone stupid enough to break into someone's house knowing that their life could be in danger be given any slack in this situation? That would be like pressing criminal charges on the owners of a railway because some drunk idiot wandered onto the tracks and got killed by a train. If you're dumb enough to put yourself in that danger, you can't expect to be exempt from the consequences.

 

[skeptik]

But what else can you do in a situation where your life could be in immediate danger, and you have no way of safely assessing the danger? Do you really think that shooting first and asking questions later should never be an option for something?

Did I say that?

Also, why on earth should someone stupid enough to break into someone's house knowing that their life could be in danger be given any slack in this situation?

If my "slack" you mean "not be lethally shot", and you still mean to ask this question, then I don't think I can answer it satisfactorily. Merely breaking into somebody's house does not forfeit your right to live. If you shoot to kill and do kill somebody who breaks into your house but shows no indication of actually harming you, then you should be charged, because that's not self-defense.

That would be like pressing criminal charges on the owners of a railway because some drunk idiot wandered onto the tracks and got killed by a train. If you're dumb enough to put yourself in that danger, you can't expect to be exempt from the consequences.

The only time it's justifiable to kill another human being is if your own life is in imminent danger or if killing that person would prevent an undeniably and significantly greater amount of harm, such as assassinating a dictator if it's impossible to actually secure him in a more humane manner. The fact of the matter is that not every breaking and entering case is a case of life threatening imminent danger.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Did I say that?

I thought you implied it in your previous post, but if not, whatever.

If my "slack" you mean "not be lethally shot", and you still mean to ask this question, then I don't think I can answer it satisfactorily. Merely breaking into somebody's house does not forfeit your right to live. If you shoot to kill and do kill somebody who breaks into your house but shows no indication of actually harming you, then you should be charged, because that's not self-defense.

The only time it's justifiable to kill another human being is if your own life is in imminent danger or if killing that person would prevent an undeniably and significantly greater amount of harm, such as assassinating a dictator if it's impossible to actually secure him in a more humane manner. The fact of the matter is that not every breaking and entering case is a case of life threatening imminent danger.

This line of argument seems to hover on the verge of raw utilitarianism. I don't think the value of preventing harm to the criminal outweighs the right for an individual to protect his home from intruders who have no legitimate reason to be there. I'm willing to accept the minute increase in the death rate that would result from people having that right.

 

[Never78]

It seems reasonable for a criminal to expect his life to be in danger if he breaks into someone's home.

This is exactly how I look at it. I admit that it would suck if I killed someone who really didn't have an understanding of what he was getting into, but that is not my problem. If someone breaks into a house, they must understand that they can and will be shot. This will not only stop them from breaking into houses, but will save their lives as well, perhaps more than one way.

Again though I admit that not everyone would arm themselves so there would always be a level of doubt, therefore the effectiveness of this philosophy is limited; however if laws allowed for unrestrained protection of the home (within reason of course), at least some of the brighter criminals would think twice. Of course you can never stop stupid people from killing themselves.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I think a person could still be held responsible for a wrongful killing if there were evidence that they got the drop on a criminal, saw that he was unarmed, and killed him anyway. But other than that, yeah, I think people need the option to shoot first and ask questions later.

 

[Dak]

If you shoot to kill and do kill somebody who breaks into your house but shows no indication of actually harming you, then you should be charged, because that's not self-defense.

In like, 99% of break ins, how often are you going to know the person breaking in doesn't have a gun/intend to use it if theres an altercation? The fact that they are BREAKING INTO YOUR HOUSE means that at the very least from a financial standpoint they intend to do you harm, so how hard would it be consciencously for them to take it to the next level if "oh shit the owner is home" ? Personally I would assume anyone bold enough to break into a residence would definitely have a gun to protect their own ass from retribution, thereby giving me the right to put lead center-mass without calling a timeout to pat him down first and have him fill out a lethal intent questionaire.

 

[skeptik]

Actually, most pretty thieves would probably make a run for it if they realized that there was somebody home when they thought otherwise, and pointing a gun in their face would most likely be just as effective as shooting them.

 

[Never78]

Well if that opportunity arises, then I agree with you. Some people would just freak out and shoot in some circumstances, and I cannot blame them for that either, but if you can keep a clear head, certainly run him off or call the police.

I would not shoot some kid that broke in to steal a case of beer if it was obvious that such was the case. I am sure he would not return after having a 12 gauge to his face. On the other hand if I think this guy means to kill me, well he is dying first.

 

[Einherjar86]

Your first line of defense with a gun is threatening to use it, not using it.

I believe you're right; you should threaten first. And most criminals will probably flee at the sight of a gun. However, if in a situation where you are presented with more than one stranger (I'll continue to use this term), it's perfectly logical to assume there may be more. In fact, even if you only see one stranger, why couldn't there be a second somewhere in your house? I see no problem in threatening, but as soon as that step is complete you should be allowed and prepared to fire. As Vihris said, if a stranger is in your house, he or she should be expecting to be shot. And for this reason, I also cannot bring myself to blame someone for simply shooting. You have no idea how many strangers are in your house or how malevolent their intentions.