H2SO4 wrote:And my point is if you have malicious intent at all (from trying to take my TV to trying to take my life) and act on it, and I catch you in the act, I will have malicious intent towards you and will act on it.
But just because I have a malicious intent doesn't give you the right to kill me.
H2SO4 wrote:Nothing tells someone to stop what they're doing quite like making them stare down the barrel of a .45. If that person then tries to drop and run, the only thing you have is pulling the trigger. Not everyone is Usain Bolt. Chasing down isn't always a viable option. You'll have to shoot to make sure this guy gets taken. Might it just wound the person? Yes. Might it kill them? Yes. No one is a good enough shot to always be able to make one outcome happen over another. Therefore, if the burglar dies, oh well.
Ummm, if they've dropped anything they've stolen, and are running away, then they're no longer stealing your goods. Ok, so they might be liable for damages, but you're not going to get reparations out of them if they're dead. So you still don't have the right to kill them.
The risk of killing someone is far too much to justify using a gun as a method of making sure someone is brought to justice for the small crimes of trespass and property damage. You're going way too overboard, and if you did something like that, I have no problem saying that you should be put away for 10 years or so for manslaughter at the very least.
H2SO4 wrote:If someone broke into your house, they obviously have malicious intent. If you catch them, that malicious intent can then be directed at harming *you*, not just your property. There's no way to tell the difference in a split second. I'd rather risk killing an unarmed burglar than being the dead homeowner. Maybe that's just me though.
Firstly, there's usually a bit more time then a split second. WHEN it is only a split second decision, then you're well within your rights to pull the trigger. But these cases are few and far between, and rely upon either you getting into a stupid situation in the first place, or the criminal attempting to do something stupid with a gun trained on him. The first case means that the action of pulling the trigger isn't the wrong action, but possibly the actions leading up to it were wrong, in the second case though, then you're within your rights.
But if you have a gun trained on an unwary criminal in the dark, switching on the lights or yelling 'stop or I'll shoot' aren't going to cause most criminals to attempt to draw and fire at you, and more importantly, it's the split second when they DO that you can pull the trigger (and that's plenty of time). 'He might have had a gun, and he might have been able to dodge my bullets and shoot me as soon as he knew about my presence' doesn't cut it.
And just a point; if a burglar is good enough to jump away, turn in midair, pull out a gun and shoot you before you can pull a gun on him, then he's usually got good enough spatial awareness that you won't be able to surprise him. So you're effectively creating another version of the 'torture a terrorist to find a bomb location', in that you're crediting the burglar with bad enough luck/skills that you're able to surprise him, but good enough luck/skills that he's able to do something with a gun trained on him (and possibly various items in his hands) that results in your death, AND, it has to be in a situation where he can effectively dodge your bullets, AND he has to be stupid enough to even try something like that, AND he has to have a want to kill you as opposed to simply escaping. Just way too unrealistic.
H2SO4 wrote:Sorry, this is getting off-topic.
Well, regardless of whether 'you' believe that not allowing gay marriage isn't discriminatory, it's still a fairly dominant view. So the point goes back to the fact that people showing the slippery slope of your initial statement of 'if someone violates my rights I can violate theirs' is a perfectly legitimate argument.