If someone tries to steal your car should you have the right to shoot and kill them?

[schneiderguy]

Yes, they contribute nothing to society and the world improves when they die.

 

[HAL9000]

Someone find me the clip of this exchange, STAT!:



MotionMan

I didn't understand this, I assume it's a reference I don't get.

 

[Crono]

How do you know the thief isn't going to pull a knife and shank your ass while he's trying to pull you out of the car?

You don't play the what-if game when it comes to taking life. You analyze the situation quickly: if it seems like he's pulling a weapon, I'd pull one out and tell him to stop. If he didn't, then I'd fire.

But that's in the case of an imminent threat. If see some guy breaking into my car, I say let him have it, and I'd let authorities deal with it. No point in exercising force when it could potentially lead to my death, the thief's death, or both. Theft of property doesn't warrant death.

 

[Capt Caveman]

I wouldn't shoot him. I would imagine he was the OP and bludgeon him to death with a baseball bat.

And another gun thread to incite OT. Troll thread. Ban.

 

[rudeguy]

no

There is a difference between protecting yourself and protecting your property.

 

[HAL9000]

I wouldn't shoot him. I would imagine he was the OP and bludgeon him to death with a baseball bat.

And another gun thread to incite OT. Troll thread. Ban.

No. Curiosity poll. Although your post was a troll post. Ban.

 

[zinfamous]

Why?

b/c that then gives the thief two choices:

1) allow my self to be shot and die in the process of trying to steal this person's vehicle
2) run away like a little bitch.

Remember--the thief basically made the choice to be shot and die in this situation.

 

[OCGuy]

I wouldn't shoot him. I would imagine he was the OP and bludgeon him to death with a baseball bat.

And another gun thread to incite OT. Troll thread. Ban.

I guess it has been decided it is allowed...

 

[HAL9000]

no

There is a difference between protecting yourself and protecting your property.

Good call.

 

[HAL9000]

b/c that then gives the thief two choices:

1) allow my self to be shot and die in the process of trying to steal this person's vehicle
2) run away like a little bitch.

Remember--the thief basically made the choice to be shot and die in this situation.

No the thief didn't make any choice involving death or guns.

 

[rudeguy]

Good call.

its my state's law not mine

 

[MotionMan]

Theft of property doesn't warrant death.

If potential thieves knew that they could be shot and killed for their trouble, I venture that some would decide a few shifts at McDonalds does not sound so bad.

I read a study somewhere that found that, out of all accused or convicted criminals in the study who were killed in the act or were put to death, 0% were accused or convicted of any further crimes.



MotionMan

 

[HAL9000]

its my state's law not mine

Fair enough, but I was asking what YOU thought, not your state.

 

[rudeguy]

Fair enough, but I was asking what YOU thought, not your state.

if it were up to me, I'd shoot people for taking too long at the soda fountain. Its best that decisions like that are not left up to me.

 

[zinfamous]

No the thief didn't make any choice involving death or guns.

who put you in the position of having to make the choice to take someone's life?

the thief, or you? It's not like you go out, hopign some dickless twat will show up and try to steal your car, just so you can make that choice. No--it's the thief's fault.

Here's the point: the right to make that choice doesn't mean that you will--or necessarily mean that you should. The crucial part is that you have the right to make that choice. You then offer that choice to the thief.

it's your "Do you Feel, Lucky, punk?" opportunity. You aim your gun, then allow him to make the choice for you.

simple, really.

 

[Crono]

If potential thieves knew that they could be shot and killed for their trouble, I venture that some would decide a few shifts at McDonalds does not sound so bad.

It's not up to me to exercise justice.
Self defense or defending someone else is one thing, but saying, "hey, that guy is trying to take my stuff! He should die as a lesson", well, that's just not right.

Thieves run the risk of getting shot and dying, but I'm not going to be the one to kill someone who steals.

If I believed in vigilante justice, I'd be out there in an exosuit fighting crime and terrorism, a la Tony Stark/Iron Man. Alas, I don't and I'm not.

 

[Perknose]

If someone tries to shoot you with their car, can you run over them with your guns?

A man can get a lot of mileage out of a high caliber question like yours.

Shoot, Rich, do you mind if I steal it in order to drive my point home?

 

[HAL9000]

who put you in the position of having to make the choice to take someone's life?

Whomever bought and carried the gun.

the thief, or you? It's not like you go out, hopign some dickless twat will show up and try to steal your car, just so you can make that choice. No--it's the thief's fault.

Here's the point: the right to make that choice doesn't mean that you will--or necessarily mean that you should. The crucial part is that you have the right to make that choice. You then offer that choice to the thief.

it's your "Do you Feel, Lucky, punk?" opportunity. You aim your gun, then allow him to make the choice for you.

simple, really.

I just don't understand why you think someone should have the right to kill someone over a car?!

 

[bfdd]

No the thief didn't make any choice involving death or guns.

They made the decision to forcibly take my vehicle from me, my property. That choice has consequences/risks, one of those potential consequences/risks is that they will get killed for it. So yes, they decided the risk was worth it and put their life into my hands.

The same way you decide to put your life into someones hands when you step into an air plane.

 

[KK]

Hell no, and the cars owner shouldn't even been able to defend his property any more than saying stop. Thats why we pay taxes, to pay the professionals(police) to handle issues like this.

 

[HAL9000]

They made the decision to forcibly take my vehicle from me, my property. That choice has consequences/risks, one of those potential consequences/risks is that they will get killed for it. So yes, they decided the risk was worth it and put their life into my hands.

The same way you decide to put your life into someones hands when you step into an air plane.

That is hugely different, in that case you die through inaction and accident, to take your example a person has the right to run someone over when they are walking down the side of the road, because by standing at the side of the road they put them self in danger for a car driving onto the pavement.

 

[HAL9000]

Hell no, and the cars owner shouldn't even been able to defend his property any more than saying stop. Thats why we pay taxes, to pay the professionals(police) to handle issues like this.

Yes. All of this Yes.

 

[bfdd]

Whomever bought and carried the gun.



I just don't understand why you think someone should have the right to kill someone over a car?!

Because it's not their car. My time, my life, was put into earning said car. By attempting to steal said car they are saying my life is worthless, my time is worthless. Well if my life and my time are worthless, then so are theirs. Meaning I'll probably be pissed that I have to spend another 50 cents on a bullet because the bullet actually holds some value to me.

 

[HAL9000]

Because it's not their car. My time, my life, was put into earning said car. By attempting to steal said car they are saying my life is worthless, my time is worthless. Well if my life and my time are worthless, then so are theirs. Meaning I'll probably be pissed that I have to spend another 50 cents on a bullet because the bullet actually holds some value to me.

Wow. you think your time is more valuable than a human life.

 

[schneiderguy]

in b4 this thread hits 250 posts