Every time an intruder enters an occupied home, it is an extremely dangerous situation. Thus every time a home owner (or legal guest) uses a firearm in their home to repel an intruder, it is a legitimate defensive gun use.
Of course MikeB will disagree. In his world the homeowner isn't justified until the intruder has beaten the homeowner to within an inch of their life. What he fails to acknowledge is that it is usually too late then. His other position is that the homeowner should leave the home and let the intruder do whatever they want. Of course he fails to acknowledge how extremely dangerous that is. First of all, it is nearly impossible for a family to clear out of a home without making themselves extremely vulnerable to the intruder. Second, even if there is a single home owner that might be able to sneak out, they have no way of knowing if additional intruders are waiting inside or even outside of whatever door the homeowner chooses for their exit.
And the frosting on the cake: exiting the home and letting the intruder help themselves to whatever they want is huge violation of the homeowner's property. That property belongs to the homeowner and the criminal has no claim whatsoever to it.
It's more than a property violation. It's an assault to a person's dignity as a human. It is patently absurd to suggest crime is only (or even) about property. That's what questions like "is your TV really worth a human life?" assume. The answer is, "Of course not. But the safety, dignity and personhood of each member of my family certainly is." It is the violation of the victim's person and liberty that necessitates an armed response. Please note, if he's running out the door with my computer and no longer constitutes a threat it's not okay to shoot him.
But, the guy who's running out of the house with your computer and no longer poses a threat is still making "an assault to a person's dignity as a human. It is patently absurd to suggest crime is only (or even) about property."
Don't you have to shoot him to maintain your dignity and that of your family?
The crime is done. It is now the role of the state to prosecute. The difference is vital. My job is to protect and prevent. Shall I respond like Nick suggests in another place and engage in a vendetta against the offender and his family? Of course not.
As for your "relatively harmless bad guy", if he enters my house uninvited what shall I do? How shall I determine the degree of threat he poses? Shall I ask him if he wishes to enter into a social contract in which I will allow him to take some of my belongings in exchange for which he will promise to not harm me or my family? Shall I take a "wait and see" approach and leave him unchallenged as long as he makes no overt move to cause harm?
Let me be clear. If I hear him outside and he runs off when I turn on the porch or patio lights, I'm more than happy with the result. If I chamber a round as he comes through the door and that produces the same result, again, I'm happy. If, circumstances permitting, I fire a warning shot into my ceiling and he runs away, that's fine with me. I'm still happy. But, if all else fails, and circumstances will determine what "all else" will entail, and I have to shoot him to protect myself and my family from a threat, I am content (though far from happy) with that.
RM, we're in perfect agreement. The only thing I object to is when one of your fellows claims that any and every person who enters your house without permission should be shot dead.
Every time an intruder enters an occupied home, it is an extremely dangerous situation. Thus every time a home owner (or legal guest) uses a firearm in their home to repel an intruder, it is a legitimate defensive gun use.
ReplyDeleteOf course MikeB will disagree. In his world the homeowner isn't justified until the intruder has beaten the homeowner to within an inch of their life. What he fails to acknowledge is that it is usually too late then. His other position is that the homeowner should leave the home and let the intruder do whatever they want. Of course he fails to acknowledge how extremely dangerous that is. First of all, it is nearly impossible for a family to clear out of a home without making themselves extremely vulnerable to the intruder. Second, even if there is a single home owner that might be able to sneak out, they have no way of knowing if additional intruders are waiting inside or even outside of whatever door the homeowner chooses for their exit.
And the frosting on the cake: exiting the home and letting the intruder help themselves to whatever they want is huge violation of the homeowner's property. That property belongs to the homeowner and the criminal has no claim whatsoever to it.
It's more than a property violation. It's an assault to a person's dignity as a human. It is patently absurd to suggest crime is only (or even) about property. That's what questions like "is your TV really worth a human life?" assume. The answer is, "Of course not. But the safety, dignity and personhood of each member of my family certainly is." It is the violation of the victim's person and liberty that necessitates an armed response. Please note, if he's running out the door with my computer and no longer constitutes a threat it's not okay to shoot him.
DeleteBut, the guy who's running out of the house with your computer and no longer poses a threat is still making "an assault to a person's dignity as a human. It is patently absurd to suggest crime is only (or even) about property."
DeleteDon't you have to shoot him to maintain your dignity and that of your family?
Mikeb, why do you show more sympathy for the criminal than for the homeowner?
DeleteI do have more sympathy for the relatively harmless bad guy who runs up against one of you guys.
DeleteThe crime is done. It is now the role of the state to prosecute. The difference is vital. My job is to protect and prevent. Shall I respond like Nick suggests in another place and engage in a vendetta against the offender and his family? Of course not.
DeleteAs for your "relatively harmless bad guy", if he enters my house uninvited what shall I do? How shall I determine the degree of threat he poses? Shall I ask him if he wishes to enter into a social contract in which I will allow him to take some of my belongings in exchange for which he will promise to not harm me or my family? Shall I take a "wait and see" approach and leave him unchallenged as long as he makes no overt move to cause harm?
Let me be clear. If I hear him outside and he runs off when I turn on the porch or patio lights, I'm more than happy with the result. If I chamber a round as he comes through the door and that produces the same result, again, I'm happy. If, circumstances permitting, I fire a warning shot into my ceiling and he runs away, that's fine with me. I'm still happy. But, if all else fails, and circumstances will determine what "all else" will entail, and I have to shoot him to protect myself and my family from a threat, I am content (though far from happy) with that.
Wow! Thanks for the shocking honesty Mike B!
DeleteNow, Kindly go fuck yourself.
RM, we're in perfect agreement. The only thing I object to is when one of your fellows claims that any and every person who enters your house without permission should be shot dead.
Delete"Perfect agreement"? Well, stranger things have happened. For instance, I once saw this Russian bear playing a trumpet...
ReplyDelete