Well, I think we may disagree on a fundamental issue, BigBen2k. I believe that there are some crimes that (at least temporarily) remove the ability for a person to expect guaranteed safety. If someone breaks into my home, he or she should not expect to be safe. If they surrender to authorities or to a civilian arrest, fine, but that is unusual. If they respected authority, they wouldn't be breaking into my house. Burglars also have a bad tendency to repeat their crime (even after prison time). So, stopping a burglar once is depriving other homes of their presence. So, yes, I do believe that it is a least evil of the alternatives.
It takes a lot of forethought to break into someone elses house. I don't mind rewarding it.
As for having the ability to shoot a human, I have (thankfully!) never been required to do so. I suspect that I'd be like decodediesel in that I'd probably shoot, it'd be over quickly, and I'd be hard to calm down for several hours. Animals are much easier to kill.
Also, remember that it is difficult to tell if someone is armed. Demeanor is much more important than the visibility of armament. The primary task of the home owner is threat assessment, not proving a threat. Just as I assess the thread from a 220VAC electric line, I assess the potential threat from an intruder. I turn off the breaker on the electric line because I might be hurt, not because I know that I will be hurt.
Please remember that I am NOT eager to kill anyone, but I am unrepentant about my right to defend my family and property. Frankly, I'd rather see the criminal stopped and corrected such that his/her behavior is no longer antisocial. But, wishes are not always granted.
|