People still keep insisting on deviating from Doug .38PR's original premise.
They keep adding conditions that are theats to their life and would justify using deadly force. While I don't agree with his postion and think it's insane, but Doug.38PR clearly bounded the premise and excluded conditions where nothing else was at risk beyond the theft of property. We keep muddeling the issue with these additional conditions.
He contends -
that property is important, it is ethical and right to shoot to protect it and keep it from being stolen.
He doesn't play games with the basic ethical premise he's proposed.
He does not contend that someone found in your home at night while your family sleeps is or isn't a threat that may force the use of deadly force to protect your loved ones or yourself from death or physical harm.
He does not contend that someone who is trying to run you down with your own car as they try to steal it is or isn't a threat that may force the use of deadly force to protect yourself from death or physical harm.
He does not contend that someone that is stealing the last food in the county, last drop of water in the desert, little Timmy's irreplaceable dialysis equipment or the thermonuclear weapons from your garage is or isn't a threat that requires deadly force to protect someone.
He simply asks the basic ethical question that
if no one is put at risk of grave bodily harm or death, is it ethical to kill someone to keep your property from being stolen. He then clearly says that he thinks it is ethical to kill another person just over property.
I might interpret the fact that about 53 of you either said something akin to "Of course not! It's unrealistic to think like that and no one should do it!" or "Yes, if he's a direct threat to the safety of myself or others by (insert extenuating self defense condition negating the premise)..." vs the 22 that pretty clearly said it was ok, that the greatest majority of members that responded to his thread think that killing another person is justified only to defend their own lives or the lives of another and not if it's
only to protect property that isn't essential to life.
This thread wasn't allowed to go on when folks were howling for blood just to prove that more members thought killing someone over property was wrong. It was to have all of us think about what was realistic and rational before we were put in the situation where in a split second it was someone's life held in the balance over stuff.