The right to defend yourself in your home

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Like Jack Burton always says, "It's all in the reflexes."

"Who?"
"Jack Burton! ME!"

While I always take the "self defence is good" and "having a gun is better than any other alternative" stance, I will agree that being willing to kill is not the same as killing. If I confront an intruder and he makes the wise choice to run, I'll let him go, even though here in Utah I'm not legally bound to do so.

This doesn't mean I'll stop and consider the situation for long, but if he sees me and my weapon and my intent, and runs, or surrenders, or faints, I'll let the cops handle it. Killing isn't something anyone should enjoy.

[NefariousKoel]

Originally Posted by Konovalov

How about countering the persons arguments rather than attacking members with lines such as "pansy" and "Yay limp-wrist!" like grown up men.

In case you missed it: I was directly questioning his manhood. Ya see... I haven't the false luxury of the authorities being around to do a d@mn thing. What ya gonna do then? Scream like a little girl and beg them to take your albums? :rotfl:

[The Avon Lady]

[QUOTE=NefariousKoel]

Originally Posted by Konovalov

What ya gonna do then? Scream like a little girl and beg them to take your albums? :rotfl:

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by P_Funk

What is with you guys and your need to qualify the value of a human life? The fact is simply that all human life is equally valuable in the broad definition but to each of us certain lives matter more, those being our own and those we love and care for.

Ah, I see, so your solution is, instead of depressing the value of the criminal in your mind, to raise the value of your own life and that of those close to you.
Not only is this nepostic idea even more subjective than depressing the value of the criminal (for which you can at least try and say they are damaging the good of society or whatever), but it doesn't even solve the problem.
Once the two sides are assumed to be unequal, one side is by definition worth only a part of the other. Which opens up the possibility that a lethal self-defence (or pre-emptive strike) is justifiable for things worth only part of your life, ranging from serious bodily injury to loss of a treasured possession.
Example:
Criminal = 100
Your Life (raised by your "emotions" and nepotism) = 1000
Your family heirloom = 20% of your life (example) because of your emotional attachment to it.
1000*20%=200>100 so your family heirloom is more important than criminal's life. Ergo, OK to shoot criminal making off with it, of course under the assumption there is no other way to seriously retrieve heirloom.

I know you hate math, but as a utilitarian I find it useful to use simple math to quantify these things.

[donut]

Where does "Walk softly,and carry a big stick" enter into this thread.I am all for avoiding confrontation,if it is forced upon you,you must respond.because force of any human animal kind involves emotion,& instinctive survival of oneself.

[P_Funk]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

Ah, I see, so your solution is, instead of depressing the value of the criminal in your mind, to raise the value of your own life and that of those close to you.

Yes that is how I see it. I am not just being untilitarian and sober in my philosophy but I'm taking into account the emotional aspect of it; that irrational thing we do when we naturally value the lives of those close to you more than that of someone who is a stranger or of that person who threatens you. Those feelings contradict the philosophical basis of our society yet we must reconcile them. So you accept the natural instincts which posses us but we give them rational domain through justifiable cause. But I won't say that one life is more or less valuable in a general way. To me in that moment mine or my family's is more valuable to me but the court certainly doesn't see it that way. That is the beauty of our society. And I think to enter math into any discussion of the value of life is just misleading. People don't think like that, in the moment or in the aftermath. I'm all for utilitarianism but not in this case.

The distinction is significant. Debasing is different from elevating. To value your own life in one context is about you and not him. To say he isn't as valuable is to measure the value of a life that is not ours which is nothing that any of us can do. It is a difficult assertion to articulate but I think that you can understand it. Most people will just scoff at it but I stand by it.

[sunvalleyslim]

Gentlemen,
Having actually taken anothers life in defense of life and property, I can say that when the time comes you will do in what you believe. What matters is what the criminals intent is or was before, and what transpires during. All of which is his choice. Not yours because you did not start this event. You merely react. You will react according to your training or beliefs. Obviously if confronted and he flees, the danger is over. However if he doesn't flee and becomes confrontational, Then I hope by God that you have the courage to confront evil. Because this is when he thinks he's going to control the situation, and I want you to use all means necessary to make sure that doesn't happen. Once resistance by him begins and belief that injury or death may happen to others, please to not hesitate to use the necessary force to over come this situation. If it comes to the use of deadly force, there has always been a saying here....."I'd rather be judged by 12, then carried by 6"..............SVS

Other than donut no one has answered my question. Please.

Where does all this disdain for self defense come from? Even so far as to suggest one abandon his/her domocile to avoid defending onesself against an unlawful entry. I don't understand it. Perhaps someone would explain it to me.

"et domus sua cuique est tutissimum refugium"

[P_Funk]

Originally Posted by waste gate

Where does all this disdain for self defense come from? Even so far as to suggest one abandon his/her domocile to avoid defending onesself against an unlawful entry. I don't understand it. Perhaps someone would explain it to me.

"et domus sua cuique est tutissimum refugium"

Once again your words place your question in such a way that most people here who don't agree with you would not be able to answer it. Your idea of the "disdain" for self defense is a characterization of our opinions based on your own. It is not like asking where economic collapse comes from, you're asking us to tell you why we're wrong.

So I could go on and on about my position but instead I'll give it to you this way.

Where does the disdain for non-violent solutions come from?

[lorcan3]

If someone comes charging in my house, or I should say try, 'cause I have steel doors front and back and another door wth a vinyl window. If he DID make it through, let's see he'd have to go through two border collies, an M1 Garand with pigsticker, a very long Moisin-Nagant with a 2 foot long pigsticker, a very, very, very sharp double edged two-handed scimitar, and a very sharp basketed claymore. Not to mention a 7.62mm Broomhandle Mauser and my wife's single shot .22 caliber bolt action lady's rifle that belonged to her Great-Aunt Marie that her aunt used for shootin' rabbits. It maybe 150 years old, but it'll still shoot the butt off a fly at a 100 yards.
I have a 15 year old daughter and my wife. I'm 100% disabled but if anyone, ANYONE threatens my family or my home, I'll rip out their guts and use 'em for garters. I don't give a rat's fart what happens to me, my concern is my family. 1st priority is God, 2nd priority is family and 3rd priority is home in that order.

[swifty]

Originally Posted by P_Funk

Once again your words place your question in such a way that most people here who don't agree with you would not be able to answer it. Your idea of the "disdain" for self defense is a characterization of our opinions based on your own. It is not like asking where economic collapse comes from, you're asking us to tell you why we're wrong.

So I could go on and on about my position but instead I'll give it to you this way.

Where does the disdain for non-violent solutions come from?

I think most everyone here who is pro self-defense will try to seek out a nonconfrontational means.
ie:
- If you return home and suspect you home has been broken into call the police and have them clear it before entering.
- If your at home and you can safely secure yourself and others call the police and have them secure the house.
The main idea is preservation of life.

However things to keep in mind. Professional burglars do not break into an average person's home when the dwelling is occupied. It is just to big of a risk. So the people you are going to run into at two in the moring are going to be drug addicts, rapeists, murders, ect. Youre not going to reason with a addict high on meth or some one intent on causing you harm. If I cant secure my famly and contact athoritys (ie I left my cell phone down stairs in the kitchen) Im going to put a round in them like svs said "I'd rather be judged by 12, then carried by 6".

I don't under stand this argument about how all lives are equal. I agree all men are created equal but if someone breaks into my home or committed a crime for that reason they have mad a choice to start forfeiting their rights. It just may be that they are forfeiting their right to live. They put themselves in that situation I'm just reacting to it.

I'm also in favor of a more broader blanket and think one should have the right to protect property as well. Not all property can be replaced. One can't just replace Fido and to many he is part of the family. Also in some cases loosing property can mean loosing one means of income and not every one has insurance. If a mechanic as his tools stolen it's usually thousands of dollars to replace. Data is anoter and not everyone keeps backups.

It comes down to self preservation and protecting others. The other person is the one that made the choice to be there I'm only reacting to protect myself, famly and others.

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by swifty

If I cant secure my famly and contact athoritys (ie I left my cell phone down stairs in the kitchen) Im going to put a round in them like svs said "I'd rather be judged by 12, then carried by 6".

In the case of home invasion you are defenceless unless you carry a weapon in the house. I think that would make company a little nervous. You won't have time to go to the bedroom unlock the trigger, load it then come back. Unless of course you have CCTV set up.

Originally Posted by bradclark1

In the case of home invasion you are defenceless unless you carry a weapon in the house. I think that would make company a little nervous. You won't have time to go to the bedroom unlock the trigger, load it then come back. Unless of course you have CCTV set up.

Why would anyone using a firearm as self defense use a triggerlock (liberal feel good law) and or use the bedroom as the only place to keep the firearm(s)?

[AVGWarhawk]

Best defense for home defense....two ankle bitters (dogs). I have two. One is 7 pounds of ferocious bark (poodle) the other is 60 pounds of wirehair pointing griffon who takes no crap from anyone. Therefore, when said intruder attempts to open door/window Jaws will be there awaiting the first leg coming over the ledge. If said intruder hurts/shoots the ankle bitter, the poodle is back up and certainly will trip the intruder as he enters the house. By then, the house will be up with all the noise and I will have Brown Betty (baseball bat) ready to swing away. After said intruder has his read removed, I'll drag his soon to be rotting body to the front porch, put the bat away and call the police. Once they arrive I'd advise them he fell while running out of my house and cracked his head on the door step. I'm guessing that is how that big concaved portion of his head got that way.

Sure some will say dogs don't always work and this is true, but for the most part, I'm betting dogs deter more than one would think. Fight fire with fire I always say!

[tycho102]

Originally Posted by NefariousKoel

It's okay, the rest of us will protect you.

I've started to question the rationality of this specific position. I used to question the pragmatism, now I question the actual logic.