Gun-GAF, would you kill somebody for breaking into your car?
- Thread starter Ekdrm2d1
- Start date
- Status
Gravy Boat
Member
This is the thing, people act like there's no other way to recoup your losses if your car gets stolen. GPS is a thing, as is car insurance. Worst case scenario, you get an insurance payout and buy a new car. I think I saw one poster say insurance was a cop out because it still meant the thief got away without punishment and I think that's the problem. Some people seem to care less about protecting their own stuff than they do about making sure the bad guy gets 'punished'.
Gravy Boat
Member
'Being shot is the cost of being a criminal'
No it bloody isn't. That's why we have actual judicial systems where people go on trial to determine a suitable punishment. Good lord.
As the typical GAF saying:
Non-lethal can still be lethal. You can hit an important artery and they'll bleed out within minutes.
This was in reply to another GAF'er as well.
Gun ownership is common in America, and the castle doctrine exists for a reason. Criminals know that. It's a risk/reward type situation. If someone breaks into my house, you bet your ass I'll shoot.
True, but still better than shooting in the head or heart.
SturokBGD
Member
Jesus H Christ I can't believe this is even a question (no offence OP, just that the way things are in the US make it a legitimate thing to ask).
Most of the break ins in my neighbourhood are just local kids looking for loose change for beer money. Don't get me wrong, it angers me to no end (especially considering I clearly have little kids and feel it's a violation of an environment that's supposed to be safe for them) but at the same time I couldn't even consider ending some kid's life just because he was... just acting like a kid, really.
I don't own anything that's worth taking a kid's life for and it's insane to me that any of think that you do.
Most of the break ins in my neighbourhood are just local kids looking for loose change for beer money. Don't get me wrong, it angers me to no end (especially considering I clearly have little kids and feel it's a violation of an environment that's supposed to be safe for them) but at the same time I couldn't even consider ending some kid's life just because he was... just acting like a kid, really.
I don't own anything that's worth taking a kid's life for and it's insane to me that any of think that you do.
diffusionx
Gold Member
If I am not in the car, how the hell does castle doctrine/stand your ground/whatever apply? It's obvious that there is no threat to my safety.
Gravy Boat
Member
How about you just don't shoot the person stealing your car? What immediate danger are you in? Jesus christ. Burglary or theft isn't worthy of being shot.
Ordinaryundone
Member
I'm in immediate danger of getting my car stolen. Why do you seem to think it's ok for people to just take what they want without facing risk of repercussion?
Gravy Boat
Member
I don't, the police exist for a reason. Your car is not worth someones life. God it really angers me that people think theft is enough of an excuse to fucking kill someone.
I didn't shoot anyone, but don't blame the people that are defending their property. How about people stop being criminals and stealing? Every action has potential consequences and in America, trespassing with intentions of stealing can get you killed.
Btw, way I am mostly talking from the angle of home invasions and carjackings. Secondly, defending your property is a right to all property owners.
hydrophilic attack
Member
I would make them beg for their life, and then shoot them anyway.
The American way.
The American way.
I love this country, but that's how it is until the GOP stops blocking every little thing that has to do with gun control.
Nastrodamous
Member
naw id just collect the insurance money and go buy a mustang gt or golf r
To be fair American Police from my experience don't give a shit about people's cars getting broken into unless they happen to be there while the act is happening. When you file a report they just file it and that's about it. You still come away with nothing.
hobblygobbly
Member
I would never kill anyone unless there was immediate lethal danger to myself or someone else. That's really excessive and if it was a situation of a break-in where I could easily record his/her identity I'd do that, or maybe try stop them in some other manner, but killing is way too violent.
Edit: Also I see you refer to Gun-GAF, I've never owned a gun, my bad. This is just hypothetical on my part.
Edit: Also I see you refer to Gun-GAF, I've never owned a gun, my bad. This is just hypothetical on my part.
Pretty much the only common sense way to look at it. Though I would not hesitate to try and beat the shit out of and subdue them. I sure as fuck would not just take a picture with my cell phone and let them get away.
Gravy Boat
Member
I will absolutely blame the property owners if they shoot someone over a theft. Every other developed country manages to do it without shooting the guy. This is very much a US-specific thing. I'm not arguing that it's legal to do so, I'm arguing that it's goddam stupid that it's legal to do so.
Not if you have insurance, which exists for this very reason.
Other countries have better gun control where the chances of a perp having a gun is slim. In America, it's relatively high. You're straight up victim blaming and exonerating the thieves from their actions. You're typing away your ideologies safely behind a keyboard, while real people are faced with real crime against their property.
If someone breaks into my home, I will shoot without even thinking about it. Protecting family is more important than some dumb bum that decided to be trash by burglarizing a home.
diffusionx
Gold Member
I think it's quite reasonable to determine that people should not murder other people when their life or their family's life isn't in danger. A car is not a person. A guy breaking into a car I am not sitting in is not an imminent threat to my safety.
It's basically the same reason why people shouldn't be firing at people who are running away from them, even thieves.
I realize that the law might be interpreted differently in some states, I'm saying that those laws and interpretations are insane.
I know, I am mainly talking from the home invasion perspective and general laws around gun ownership.
That said, every criminal knows that their actions could get them killed. They measure the risk vs reward themselves.
Gravy Boat
Member
I'm not exonerating the theives of their actions, I'm advocating for a reasonable punishment, which getting shot isn't.
Iorv3th
Member
Of course it comes at a price. This probably wasn't his first car to break into either. I have a very large bias against thieves. The judicial system very rarely does anything to them and they are back out on the streets doing the same shit again and again.
If I had my gun on me I would point it at them, I wouldn't shoot unless they charged me or had a gun on them. Would probably use it just to subdue them until police arrived.
The article said they had an altercation so the guy may have tried to attack the homeowner or something. Meths a hell of a drug.
No. They have to be a threat, but if they break into your home and say your a sleep and wake up and grab your gun and shoot someone that broke in they will probably side with the home owner.
diffusionx
Gold Member
Home invasion is totally different. But your post specified "defending your property", as in everything sitting on my property is worth murdering over. Like a guy stealing a kiddie pool in my yard deserves to get a cap in his ass.
Insurance claims? Unless if you have one of a kind items or confidential information (that could get you fired if stolen) in the car material items can be re-bought.
Don't know. Why risk getting shot yourself over a Panasonic head unit and a Rockford Fosgate amp?
Iorv3th
Member
Ask the thief
Well, private citizens aren't law enforcement. Thus far, the castle doctrine exists and allows for gun use. Criminals know that and still choose to take the risk. Maybe, some of them will smarten up and choose a better lifestyle.
Use common sense, there is a gradient to most actions.
Kind of getting into a gun debate here but..
Many of lives have been lost by that scenario. i.e. Teenage son breaks into his own home at 3:00 AM because he sneaked out and got drunk.
lol.gif
Gravy Boat
Member
Exactly, so that fact that it's legal for someone to say 'This guy tried to steal my TV so I shot him dead' is mind boggling. The fact that people say they would do so, without hesitation actually scares me more than the idea of someone breaking into my house. I've been broke into twice, I couldn't even begin to imagine killing someone over it.
Yeah, the whole "crazed gunman" or bugler coming into your home and you have to protect your family scenario isn't as straight forward as some think it is.
If that scares you, then you never had a real home invasion. You're living in a fantasy world. Citizens should have the right to protect themselves. Until guns stop being easily accessible for criminals, that law shouldn't change.
Of course, a big dog is actually one of the best deterrents against home invasions.
No lies detected.
The issue with guns in the States, and one of the issues with appalling cop behavior, is that almost anyone is fairly likely to have a gun.
Now of course, simply HAVING a gun in your house massively increases your risk of death by shooting - including suicide, accidents, mistaken identity, children playing with them, and so on - all of which are MUCH MORE LIKELY TO HAPPEN than the fabled Home Invasion.
In fact, most home invasions are NOT random - the homes are targeted (often by criminals known to the homeowner) because they have drugs, valuables, cash, medicine, etc etc. That's not victim blaming, it's a fact that's usually completely ignored by fans of the Castle Doctrine.
But having said all of that - America IS in this mire, and the chances of a crook of any kind, burglar, mugger, trespasser etc, having a gun, are exponentially higher than most other countries.
Which is precisely why we need really serious gun control and the gradual reduction in the sheer number of "loose" guns.
You don't need one for home defense, that's a mathematical nonsense, and ironically a paranoia fueled by the very guns they fetishize, but there's no reason you shouldn't be allowed to own one with a universal background check and adequate safety measures.
Australia's model was a spectacular success. Hunters still hunt, farmers still farm, people still shoot at the range. And gun violence has almost vanished.
Gravy Boat
Member
I've been broke into twice in the past 4 years. Both times I chased them armed with nothing and called the police. It really blows my mind that you'd be willing to kill someone over stealing a TV or something. That's actually mental to me. Citizens should have the right to protect themselves, but you don't need to fucking kill someone stealing your stuff. You're insanely paranoid if your first thought is to shoot someone, and not someone I'd trust owning a gun.
Exactly, until we start removing guns from circulation, not much can change on how people react.
Sorry to hear, but it's not about a TV or jewelry. It's about potentially protecting yourself from getting hurt. As posted many times in this thread, the chance of a thief having a gun is very high in the states. You were just lucky to not get shot or hurt.
Secondly, I don't own a gun and not planning to, but can easily defend the other side. So, please stop making assumptions about me.
Don't own a gun, but if I did and I caught someone trying to steal my car, I would definitely pull the gun on them. Ideally call the cops or get someone to call the cops for me. But if the thief made a move against me, he would get shot. I've worked hard for my stuff and I would protect it.
maquiladora
Member
Absolutely not.
Edit : Not a gun owner anyway.
Edit : Not a gun owner anyway.
UncleMeat
Member
Personally I would not unless my life was in danger but it always warms my heart to hear about a thief getting shot in the face. I can only hope the people that robbed me break into the wrong house someday.
Just to be clear I'm not advocating for Singapore-like laws, I just think as a matter of karmic justice every adult career thief deserves to get hit by a bus. Fuck them.
Just to be clear I'm not advocating for Singapore-like laws, I just think as a matter of karmic justice every adult career thief deserves to get hit by a bus. Fuck them.
Gravy Boat
Member
The chances of getting hurt are also greatly reduced by buying a burglar alarm and locking yourself in the bedroom. You're also insanely paranoid if you assume that anyone breaking into your house is there to hurt you or your family. The amount that something like that happens randomly is practically 0. You may as well spend you life walking around in a rubber suit to protect yourself from getting hit by lightning because that's far more likely.
And I'm not making an assumption, you literally said 'If someone breaks into my house, you bet your ass I'll shoot.' What assumption am I making? I'm responding to something you explicitly said.
You really think the insurance ia going to pay for more than your car is worth? In most cases you'd be lucky to find something comparable to your stolen car and you'll still be out the 500-2000 deductable.
Iorv3th
Member
Yep and it sucks but just saying the court is most often going to side with the home owner. Nobody wants to ever be in that situation.
Because I will defend my property from pieces of shit, no matter what. I don't feel like I need a gun, either. Never have.
NoblesseOblige
Banned
I don't even think the whole family aspect of it matters to me. I'm just morally opposed to the taking of human life. And I hope I never have to actually put that resolve to any sort of test. Someone jack my car? Whatever they can have it. Someone breaking into my place? Time to skedaddle the hell out of there. Someone robbing me at gunpoint? Give them whatever they want until they go.
- Status