Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: Please post reasons why it is OK to kill people in defense of property. [View all]Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)113. Of course I can.
You can't honestly shift the moral responsibility of your position onto others.
If someone takes the personal responsibility for their life by risking it to steal, then all of the responsibility, moral or otherwise, rests with that individual.
Just because something is legal doesn't make it right, moral, or advisable. Do I really need to list all the things that have been legal but wrong?
It is quite right and moral to kill people for property. In many states this has been codified in law, and I'm glad for the people who live in such places.
Trying to stop someone from stealing your stuff changes the nature of the confrontation. It then becomes a matter of who is most willing to fight for the stuff, a criteria that is established by cultural and economic factors. The same factors that determine the nature of the law.
I agree. I'm willing to fight for my stuff, using a gun.
If you need the stuff so badly because you will die without it and you are willing to fight to the death for it, and the other guy feels the same way, somebody will likely die.
Yes, it is true that people defending their property risk death. Doing the right thing, especially at personal risk, is the very essence of being a hero.
A willingness to fight to the death for virtually anything one owns regardless of its survival value reveals a sort of materialism that is generally frowned upon in any enlightened society.
Simple solution: Don't try to steal the stuff of materialistic people. If you decide to try your luck, you takes your chances.
A willingness to kill someone for merely attempting to steal your stuff shows greater respect for one's own ego than another human life.
I have zero respect for the life of someone who wants to steal from me.
I just listed three offenses against you in the above paragraph. An offense against your chances of survival. An offense against your property. And an offense against your pride. Only the first is worth taking a life over.
Fortunately, in more and more places this is changing in the eyes of the law.
If someone takes the personal responsibility for their life by risking it to steal, then all of the responsibility, moral or otherwise, rests with that individual.
Just because something is legal doesn't make it right, moral, or advisable. Do I really need to list all the things that have been legal but wrong?
It is quite right and moral to kill people for property. In many states this has been codified in law, and I'm glad for the people who live in such places.
Trying to stop someone from stealing your stuff changes the nature of the confrontation. It then becomes a matter of who is most willing to fight for the stuff, a criteria that is established by cultural and economic factors. The same factors that determine the nature of the law.
I agree. I'm willing to fight for my stuff, using a gun.
If you need the stuff so badly because you will die without it and you are willing to fight to the death for it, and the other guy feels the same way, somebody will likely die.
Yes, it is true that people defending their property risk death. Doing the right thing, especially at personal risk, is the very essence of being a hero.
A willingness to fight to the death for virtually anything one owns regardless of its survival value reveals a sort of materialism that is generally frowned upon in any enlightened society.
Simple solution: Don't try to steal the stuff of materialistic people. If you decide to try your luck, you takes your chances.
A willingness to kill someone for merely attempting to steal your stuff shows greater respect for one's own ego than another human life.
I have zero respect for the life of someone who wants to steal from me.
I just listed three offenses against you in the above paragraph. An offense against your chances of survival. An offense against your property. And an offense against your pride. Only the first is worth taking a life over.
Fortunately, in more and more places this is changing in the eyes of the law.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
165 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Please post reasons why it is OK to kill people in defense of property. [View all]
digonswine
Dec 2011
OP
You could sell a few of your guns instead of shooting an unarmed man rummaging through carport.
Hoyt
Dec 2011
#22
One-eyed, the world is not out to get you. Put your guns down for a week and enjoy life.
Hoyt
Dec 2011
#120
Actually, I'm suggesting it sounds like Newt saying 5 year olds can clean bathrooms.
Hoyt
Dec 2011
#132
The decision whether to shoot, or even the ability shoot another person is very situational
ProgressiveProfessor
Dec 2011
#15
If someone is on my property without my permission and/or has come into my house uninvited
Tuesday Afternoon
Dec 2011
#9
If you have $100K worth of tools, I think I'd buy some insurance -- and not an S&W.
Hoyt
Dec 2011
#23
He also seems to assume that insurance will always fully replace ones' losses.
PavePusher
Dec 2011
#25
Oh, so it's OK to shoot unarmed person as soon as you calculate potential insurance coverage?
Hoyt
Dec 2011
#100
I have a friend with well over 100k in tools....he has plenty of S&W's, alarm and video monitoring.
ileus
Dec 2011
#89
Now that's the kind of gun owner I grew up with -- and helped me realize we gotta problem.
Hoyt
Dec 2011
#102
In Ohio, if an home or occupied vehicle is broken into then justified self defense is presumed.
OneTenthofOnePercent
Dec 2011
#34
I would say that some form of agression is required on the part of the robber.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
Dec 2011
#44
My opinion is that it is not OK to shoot people in defense of property...Period. n/t
Bonhomme Richard
Dec 2011
#31
There is at least one state, TX, that makes provisions for using lethal force to stop prop. crimes
aikoaiko
Dec 2011
#32
Premise appears generally flawed in that the victim will have zero idea...
LanternWaste
Dec 2011
#46
I have no duty to wait until I am attacked before taking action to defend my health and property.
PavePusher
Dec 2011
#59
I have been giving a lot of thought to this thread since I posted last
Tuesday Afternoon
Dec 2011
#87
My police department is 3 minutes down the road... so I'd guess 5-10 mins.
OneTenthofOnePercent
Dec 2011
#88
When I called about my last two vehicle break-ins in my driveway, the police never came.
PavePusher
Dec 2011
#91
Apparently there is a policy that they have to show up for stolen firearms. (Tucson, AZ)
PavePusher
Dec 2011
#96
If the property is replaceable, regardless of cost, then killing for it is rarely justified.
Starboard Tack
Dec 2011
#68
No, at that point he is no longer a danger to you. If you shoot then YOU are in the wrong.
oneshooter
Dec 2011
#98
My home is a physical manifestation of the portion of my life that I have spent working
slackmaster
Dec 2011
#81
Only way that would work is if the criminal was nice enough to leave a warning note.
Clames
Jul 2012
#148