Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That is the problem. The goal should be to merely incapacitate someone like that, not kill them.
What nonsense.
The goal should be to protect you and yours from a plausibly deadly threat. You owe yourself and your family etc. protection and whatever safety you can give them. Anything you owe the guy breaking in, is much farther down the list, if it's on the list at all.
If the guy breaking in doesn't like it, then maybe he shouldn't break in. He has that COMPLETELY under his control. In my opinion, that's all the "control" of the situation he gets. And if he makes the wrong decision, what happens to him is his fault, not mine.
I don't owe him consideration OR safety if he's breaking in to my house. I owe him NOTHING.
The goal should be to protect you and yours from a plausibly deadly threat. You owe yourself and your family etc. protection and whatever safety you can give them. Anything you owe the guy breaking in, is much farther down the list, if it's on the list at all.
If the guy breaking in doesn't like it, then maybe he shouldn't break in. He has that COMPLETELY under his control. In my opinion, that's all the "control" of the situation he gets. And if he makes the wrong decision, what happens to him is his fault, not mine.
I don't owe him consideration OR safety if he's breaking in to my house. I owe him NOTHING.
If he stumbles onto a railroad track by mistake in his stupor, he might wind up injured or dead.
If he stumbles near a cliff by mistake, ditto.
If he tries to break into someone's house by mistake, ditto.
He owes himself the responsibility of keeping enough control of himself, that he doesn't do something fatally stupid.
If he doesn't take that responsibility, he might wind up injured or dead. Not because I want it that way (I don't), but because it is that way.
That's life. I can't change the world for him, to make his own stupidity less dangerous to him. I don't owe him that. I owe my family their protection and safety, much more than I owe a drunk stranger anything.
How much less should I do to keep my family safe, in order to devote more of my time and effort to keep a drunken stranger free of the results of his own stupidity? And why, exactly, should I devote that time and effort to a drunken stranger instead of to my family?
Oh no, not an obsession, I do find it interesting, though, how something can be so important in one country and utterly unimportant in another...
I write a lot on any topic, not least because I tend to reply to people addressing me, that easily adds up...
As others have said, his mistake and it could prove fatal. As I said, none of us are going to ask if he's drunk when he breaks into our house. We're going to react protectively and that may well be lethally. Again, his mistake.
I live rurally. It can take the Sheriff's Dept. as long as 40 minutes to get deputies here so we're on our own to protect ourselves. But the good news is, a medical first responder can be here within minutes, Para-medics in about seven, an ambulance in 10 and a helicopter for Med-Evac in about 15-20 so if I've shot him and just wounded him, his chances of surviving to go to jail are pretty good.
As others have said, his mistake and it could prove fatal. As I said, none of us are going to ask if he's drunk when he breaks into our house. We're going to react protectively and that may well be lethally. Again, his mistake.
I live rurally. It can take the Sheriff's Dept. as long as 40 minutes to get deputies here so we're on our own to protect ourselves. But the good news is, a medical first responder can be here within minutes, Para-medics in about seven, an ambulance in 10 and a helicopter for Med-Evac in about 15-20 so if I've shot him and just wounded him, his chances of surviving to go to jail are pretty good.
There now, don't you feel better?
Yes, much better, thanks for shooting just his arm off
If he stumbles onto a railroad track by mistake in his stupor, he might wind up injured or dead.
If he stumbles near a cliff by mistake, ditto.
If he tries to break into someone's house by mistake, ditto.
He owes himself the responsibility of keeping enough control of himself, that he doesn't do something fatally stupid.
If he doesn't take that responsibility, he might wind up injured or dead. Not because I want it that way (I don't), but because it is that way.
That's life. I can't change the world for him, to make his own stupidity less dangerous to him. I don't owe him that. I owe my family their protection and safety, much more than I owe a drunk stranger anything.
How much less should I do to keep my family safe, in order to devote more of my time and effort to keep a drunken stranger free of the results of his own stupidity? And why, exactly, should I devote that time and effort to a drunken stranger instead of to my family?
Interesting how cold you people come across... Of course you don't owe him anything. So? Do you only do things if you owe someone? And what is some time and effort when a human life is at stake? A human life is a human life. And I am not even a Christian, but an atheist...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Although I heard that it is increasingly popular in the US as well 
I hate soccer, stupid waste of time...
