Assume the house is empty, does Junyo shoot?
Is the house absolutely empty far enough away from anything to garuantee that fire can't possibly spread? And I'm close enough to verify all this, but in no immediate danger from the fire myself? Is no one going to put the fire out? It's next to impossible for me to imagine a scenario for utterly safe arson. And even if I could, I would the the over/under on dead guy, and proving that he was trying to commit arson, inevitable wrongful death lawsuit, versus damage/destroyed structure, insurance check isn't in favor of the latter.
Really? I have guns and I am not a threat to you now or in the future.
But criminal A who is carrying a gun safe and therefore is or soon will be armed, and capable of arming his friends, is in all likelihood a bigger threat than criminal B, who may or may not be armed, and carrying a toaster.
I think the IMMORAL argument has another dimension. It suggests:
THERE IS AN ACCEPTABLE LEVEL OF MAYHEM AND ASSAULT, UNIT LAWBREAKERS ARE CAUGHT.
Are we seeing these arguments from people who have direct experience of vicitimization? I doubt it.
Ethical constructs are easy, when its someone else's property; but the same people inhabiting these forums, cannot distinguish, if they are threatened, if someone intends to KILL them, or merely STEAL their handgun. If a lawbreaker pulls a gun on them, suddenly the rocket surgeon has it all figured out: {Bad-Guy-Wants-to-Kill-Me}
How do you know he DID NOT only want to rob you of your handgun, which is your PROPERTY?
So if your ETHICS are consistent, hand over your gun. Oh, and smile and be polite, because you have no right to offend anyone.
If a lawbreaker used a gun, maybe he merely wants to sexually assault you. Do your ETHICS dictate that is a minor violation of law, such that you cannot justify the useage of lethal force?
Think about it.
So many strawmen, so little time. Yes, I've been the victim of thief and vandalism, and yes, it sucks. And I don't think that anyone has suggested that you don't defend yourself. I believe that we have a right, if not a duty, to protect life. When one life is in the balance over another, I'll defend my own, my family's, the defenseless, or the person that I believe to be in the right without question or hesitation. But it violates the basic respect for life to end a life over
nothing more than property. Now, again, before the argument turns to whether that means you have to coddle criminals if/when they victimize you, that's not what I'm saying. If you genuinely have a fear for your life, then by all means, defend it. But from the initial account, it's not clear at all whether this gentleman A) was in a life threatening situation, or b) had to be involved in the situation in the first place. And most of the sentiments expressed here seem an awful lot like people not interested in preventing the immediate crime or acting in self defense so much as people interested in dispensing street/frontier justice and/or "send a message" and as long as the law covers it it's fine. Well legality doesn't make or destroy morality. You can mock ethics all you want, but at the end of the day, that's what separates the good guys from the bad guys, is the stuff you won't due, regardless of the circumstance, and whether or not you can get a way with it. Further, we're not the only people on these forums; being mad as heck over crime is great and all, but when we start applauding death, and/or questionable shootings we give our enemies the way reinforce the stereotype of us as blood thirsty and trigger happy looking for an excuse to kill.
There
is an acceptable level of "mayhem and assault". Being in a free society means that people are free to screw up, and there is an attendent amount of disorder and crime that accompanies that. If absolute security were the ultimate goal of society, then a benevolent dictatorship, with a myriad of draconian punishments, would be the ideal government. They're far more effective at providing security than a free society. One of the cornerstones of justice is the idea of the benefit of the doubt; i.e. "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer". What about the potential "mayhem" that we accept for advocating the widespread ownership of guns? Most everyone here accepts that the cost of the Columbines and Virginia Tech's are a tragic but acceptable price for freedom and the ability to maintain it. I don't think it's unreasonable to then say that a certain amount of thief is acceptable versus state sanctioned summary executions.