Quote:
Originally posted by bigben2k
Is that true? Is it the least of all possible evils?
I don't have a gun, and I do insist that my kids don't play with toy guns either. That being said, I have entertained the idea of getting one for some time.
2 things:
1-One must be prepared to shoot at another human being. It's hard to tell if one could, until faced with the situation. It's hard to do, for anyone.
2-I would not shoot down an unarmed person. That would be an unnecessary use of force. I may threaten to shoot, while calling the authorities, but if he decided to run off, then I'd let him. Either way, I doubt I'd ever see him/her again.
Of course sometimes it's not possible to tell if an intruder is armed, but the importance of "property" does not come to be as being above the life of others, no matter what they do. The "shoot first, sort them out later" mantra doesn't fly with me.
|
This , I believe, illustrates the difference between Americans and Canadians rather clearly. We may jokingly refer to Canada as "the 51st state", but there exists a wide cultural gulf between our two societies. Canadians, as well as most Euro-centric cultures, have so beaten down the concept of private property rights (as well as individual rights in general) that people are expected to "give it up" rather than defend themselves.
As to point 2 above, I hope you are never in a position to parse out the necessary vs. unnecessary use of force in a split-second, as Bill has done. As I see it, if someone breaks into an occupied dwelling, he's not there to help you clean the basement. He's gambling, and sometimes you lose. Bill won, and though he can be a real PITA, I think most of us are OK with that. (Maybe he won't piss on my next design now
)
Bob