|
This debate should be about self defense and/or lethal self defense, not simply a gun argument. The Gun Argument® has many sides and aspects to it that cannot be discussed simultaneously with self defense.
If someone breaks into your home, they've given up their right to freedom, and if they threaten the victim, their right to safety. I really don't like the notion in this thread that victims should be cute little mice hiding from badguys because that's less violent. That, in an extremely general (probably too general) sense is promoting burglary as long as no one gets hurt.
I agree with the law, but I really think it should be extremely detailed, attempting to cover multiple situations.
This isn't really an answer to anything, but more of a question: if a "bad guy" breaks into your house and you are behind a locked door with a weapon, do you really have the option of scanning the burglar, determining his threat, and then acting after your conclusion? No. If you must defend your house, yourself, or your family, you will most likely have one shot at it, and it's simply to attack the burglar if he is threatening. Killing burglars due to their being a burglar seems like the excuse that many people are giving but it's not that simple or that easy. Burglars are harmed because once threatened, victims generally only have one chance to change the outcome if the incident, and that does not include a case analysis of the Danger Level® of the burglar.
What I do not agree with is laws that punish victims. For example: in my law class at college, we studied multiple self defense cases. In one state (I apologize for my lack of hard info), a man broke into a woman's house with a knife. The woman saw the man coming through the window and cut his hand/arm with a knife. The man had not attacked the woman first, and the woman was actually charged with "attackery" or whatever it's called when you harm someone. Cases like these are absurd -- like I said before, when you defy the law and decide to forcefully enter someone's house with the intent of stealing or harming, you've given up your right to freedom and/or safety. I see these cases all over of armed robbery when the robbers are shot in a home and the home owner is charged with murder. When it comes down to it, if someone else is using lethal force against me, my property, or my family, they have just given you the OK to take their life. I did not break the law. I did not premeditate an illegal action. I killed to prevent my life from being taken by someone who was breaking the law and intending to harm me. I'm perplexed that anyone could think it's unethical to harm someone who was intending on harming you or had harmed you.
__________________
"A Darwinian attacks his theory, seeking to find flaws. An ID believer defends his theory, seeking to conceal flaws." -Roger Ebert
|