• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:378] Home Intruder Clings To Life After Being Shot In Head By Young Dad Protecting His Family

Michael McMahon said:
Firstly there is the ethical problem of disproportionality. While some criminals do commit horrific crimes, homeowner vigilantism is clearly not the answer.

Even if one disregards the ethical problem, there is then the functional problem of perverse incentives. Applying the death penalty to rapists for instance may lead to perpetrators killing their victims to prevent witnesses. Another example would be armies who execute POWs will deter enemy soldiers from surrendering in the first place. Likewise, killing thieves might lead to escalation and petty criminals committing murder as seen in the link below.

Armed Intruder Who Shot Homeowner Argues ‘Stand Your Ground’ Defense – ThinkProgress
Click to expand...

I can see your point but I'm not sure this would technicality be a case of vigilantism. Alamaba has a Stand Your Ground Law that allows people to defend themselves or a third party from a perceived threat of imminent danger. Part of being a vigilante is going outside the law, this homeowner didn't go outside the law.
 
Michael McMahon said:
Firstly there is the ethical problem of disproportionality. While some criminals do commit horrific crimes, homeowner vigilantism is clearly not the answer.

Even if one disregards the ethical problem, there is then the functional problem of perverse incentives. Applying the death penalty to rapists for instance may lead to perpetrators killing their victims to prevent witnesses. Another example would be armies who execute POWs will deter enemy soldiers from surrendering in the first place. Likewise, killing thieves might lead to escalation and petty criminals committing murder as seen in the link below.

Armed Intruder Who Shot Homeowner Argues ‘Stand Your Ground’ Defense – ThinkProgress
Click to expand...

Seems like drug addict criminal should have thought about that before breaking into someones home and threatening them.
 
Bum said:
Im sure you believe this train of thought you are on has a final destination, so why dont you spare us the 20 questions and get to it?

You are the "experienced" one here, right?

Tell us in your own words how this should have gone down....we are all listening.
Click to expand...
This is exactly how lefties protect their families.

 
dave8383 said:
I thought you just told us you were experienced?
Click to expand...

Indeed...and you were the one to bring up "outside" as a factor for whatever reason.....enough with the rabbit hole questions and deflections already.

You brought this to the thread...You did; make the case or do not.
 
Bum said:
Indeed...and you were the one to bring up "outside" as a factor for whatever reason.....
Click to expand...

So even with your experience, you don't see the difference between a shooting that takes place outside in the open, with the target on the move perhaps, shooting back occasionally, and a shooting that takes place in a comparatively highly confined area where there is no returned fire?

BTW, my point is these BS good guy with a gun stories that appear in NRA magazines, etc., are mostly just that, BS.
 
Last edited:
dave8383 said:
So even with your experience, you don't see the difference between a shooting that takes place outside in the open, with the target on the move perhaps, shooting back occasionally, and a shooting that takes place in a comparatively highly confined area where there is no returned fire?

BTW, my point is these good guy with a gun stories that appear in NRA magazines, etc., are mostly just that, BS.
Click to expand...

:roll:

M'kay....I'll just file your comments under "N" for "Not a clue", "C" for "Completely inapplicable" and send you on your merry little way.

You and your experience Carry on with your bad self.
 
Bum said:
:roll:

M'kay....I'll just file your comments under "N" for "Not a clue", "C" for "Completely inapplicable" and send you on your merry little way.

You and your experience Carry on with your bad self.
Click to expand...

In other words you have nothing to back up your nonsense but more nonsense. I see.
 
dave8383 said:
Yeah, it takes a hero to shoot an unarmed intruder.
Click to expand...

Key word being intruder. I’m sure you’d feel better if someone in the house had been harmed or even killed, but fortunately there are no victims in this scenario.
 
dave8383 said:
More absurd nonsense.
Click to expand...

What’s absurd is whining about a homeowner who protected his family and property against an intruder with unknown intentions and weapons. You obviously side with the criminal, so it’s logical to state that you would be happy if someone in the house had been injured or killed by the criminal you’re defending so fervently.
 
Moon said:
What’s absurd is whining about a homeowner who protected his family and property against an intruder with unknown intentions and weapons. You obviously side with the criminal, so it’s logical to state that you would be happy if someone in the house had been injured or killed by the criminal you’re defending so fervently.
Click to expand...

How ridiculous, laughable really.
 
dave8383 said:
How ridiculous, laughable really.
Click to expand...

I agree, but I’ve seen people here with your same viewpoint. Actually, that way of thinking is more sad than ridiculous or laughable. Well, pathetic, really.
 
zsu2357 said:
Yes guns do make you safer. But the morons that clean loaded guns and twirl them on their fingers and just take them for granted give the rest of us a bad rap.....
Click to expand...
You're missing the point.

Anecdotes are not data and are not proof. If you treat it as such, it is trivially easy to refute in the exact same way, because people are accidentally discharging firearms in the US -- several times a day. See how that works?
 
dave8383 said:
So even with your experience, you don't see the difference between a shooting that takes place outside in the open, with the target on the move perhaps, shooting back occasionally, and a shooting that takes place in a comparatively highly confined area where there is no returned fire?

BTW, my point is these BS good guy with a gun stories that appear in NRA magazines, etc., are mostly just that, BS.
Click to expand...

Tell us your alternative in this case.
 
CLAX1911 said:
No need they do.

Answer this question for me if I had a big old stack of money sitting at my feet and you wanted to steal it. Would you be more or less likely to steal it if I had a shotgun pointed at your face then if I didn't?
Click to expand...
LOL

That's got to be the most absurd scenario I've ever heard. Let me know when you have an actual argument.
 
zsu2357 said:
Keep up with it. Ever hear how many are counted by the mere presence of a firearm?
Click to expand...
I do keep up with it. The studies that make those kind of SDGU claims are, again, based on self-reporting, and vastly exaggerate their effects.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom