No, no its not. At what point do you cross the line when it comes to defending property? Does someone taking your power drill and screwdriver set deserve to die? Do you deserve the aftermath of shooting someone over taking your beloved car stereo?
Seriously, yes... it is shortsighted. When we apply more concern over the safety of one who is commiting an injurous act (stealing your property IS an injurous act) than we do to the person that decides how he/she deals with it, I see that as short-sighted.
If you do a search here, this subject comes up regularly. It gets debated for 8 or 9 pages and dies out until the next one comes up. It gets weary.
The bottom line is this.
If defending property IS allowed in your state and you choose to do so, it is between you and your conscience. What we don't need is more people attempting to apply THEIR ethos to others who live within the law.
Whether I think someone deserves to get shot over stealing from me is a personal matter as long as I am within the law. I'll argue that there is more personal responsibility to be applied to the person who CHOSE to accept whatever consequences that may come in order to STEAL my little screwdriver and drill. Remember, these situations BEGIN with an unlawful and harmful act, and if you do defend property where you are allowed to, they don't END with one.
I suspect that we will disagree on the basic premise of this topic, and I am OK with that. What I am not OK with is people attempting to overlay thier moral position on others who act within the law and make a personal choice based upon thier own moral position within the law.
This is The High Road, not The High Horse.
-- John