|
|
 Originally Posted by ImSavy
The majority of people who burgle houses don't want to cause the occupants any harm whatsoever. They are there for the money, the law has a large distinction between burglary and home invasions.
"Majority" is not strong enough for me to decide not to mitigate my risk of death by shooting a person. If only 10% of home burglaries resulted in injury of the occupant then he'd still be justified because no just citizen deserves to roll a ten sided die for his life.
Also, a lot of this is in the eye of the beholder. In a society where we've decided its ok and lawful to own guns (and we have, sorry Europe), we have to be ok with the use of guns and make distinctions for the appropriate measures of self defense. Someone breaking into your home while you are in it poses a threat to your life, statistically speaking, even if the majority poses no threat. While this uncertainty exists, you are justified in defending yourself. As soon as the threat is gone i.e. he took your shit and is on his way, you have no right to mete out retribution as that is the job of the authorities.
|
Reply With Quote