Quote:
Originally posted by bigben2k
From the (typical) Canadian view, I have to believe that an intruder is after possesions, not hurting/killing my family. Maybe it's naive of me, but I can't help to think that there would have to be a motive.
But it does happen.
In that light, if I found an intruder, and if I knew that he meant to hurt/kill us, and if I had a gun, I wouldn't hesitate to shoot, wether the intruder was armed or not.
|
This illustrates the dichotomy fostered for lo, these many years in the more socialistic-leaning countries of Europe (and by extension, Canada). Let me expand...
If a person is out to remove your posessions from you, he does not recognize your rights. Any of them. Whether he has the 'nads to hurt/kill you is beside the point. If he removes your TV, that's OK? How about if he removes your car, clothes, bank account, burns down your house (while you're not in it, for the sake of argument), and leaves your family destitute and forced to live on the street, that should be OK, right? After all, they're only posessions! He isn't PHYSICALLY hurting your family, is he?
The fundamental right of man is to live. To accomplish this, he REQUIRES the right to posess items necessary to life (food, shelter, computers, etc.) If someone is of the mind to deprive you of something that is yours, why would he stop at your TV, if there were no tangible consequences (jail isn't a consequence for those who don't think they'll be caught).
I am not advocating capital punishment for simple larceny, but a line has to be drawn somewhere. Bill's intruder took a gamble and lost. Darwinism in action.
/soapbox mode
Bob