Those are good points, and that is why good judgement is a necessary component for someone who wants to carry a gun. The above comment about being willing to kill someone over a stolen TV is EXACTLY the kind of ammunition that gun-grabbers scout this forum for, trying to find arguments for why carrying of a firearm should never be permitted.ScottDLS wrote:On a more serious note (from my last post). It seems Texas law allows for deadly force in protection of property, or against criminal mischief at night. I wonder if this is because deadly force doesn't HAVE to kill someone, only have the potential/possibility to.
Maybe it dates back to the cattle rustling or horse thief days. If you're in the middle of the wilderness and someone steals your horse, you may very well be dead. In that case there seems some moral as well as legal justification for shooting someone, in defense of property. As far as a TV...maybe legally justified. Morally...between you and your creator.
One situation where I might be willing to take a life is for strong arm robbery. If someone demands my wallet, clearly outsizes me, and threatens violence if they don't get it, I might shoot them. Even if I can replace the contents easily. Another situation, rape. I wouldn't hesitate to take a life even if my wasn't in danger. And I HAVE taken the LTC course multiple times...
The ethical consideration ought to be, "will the loss of this property threaten my health and/or safety"? I see no harm in drawing a gun to try and coerce the thief into putting the TV down, but if he calls my bluff, then the only steps I am willing to take would be to smack him hard with a 2x4 across the shins ..... or some similar action ..... to try and stop him. I have no compunctions about causing him pain. But I'm not willing to kill a man over a stupid TV, and I would consider anyone who is so willing to have a severely crippled moral compass with no sense of proportionality. What would that person do to his own kids for filching a couple of bucks out of his wallet when he wasn't looking? Put them in a hospital with broken bones? A person who has no sense of proportionality shouldn't ever raise kids or own a dog.
Now, if I am a very ill outpatient, with a home dialysis machine or a home chemotherapy setup, or some similar kind of medical equipment that would be not only difficult to replace, but that that would put my life at risk to be without it, and someone tried to steal it, then maybe I would go ahead and shoot that person if he disregarded my order to put it down and get down on the ground. If it was an armed robbery attempt, then regardless of what kind of property it was, I would probably shoot if given the opportunity........but in that case, it has nothing to do with the value of the property, and everything to do with being threatened with deadly force.
When you HAVE to shoot someone, then yes, it is THAT person's actions which brought about their being shot. But that justification doesn't work when you don't HAVE to do it.......and you don't HAVE to shoot someone over a TV. The law may permit it, but if you push that boundary too far, you're a moral cripple, and don't be surprised if law enforcement authorities don't share your moral sense (or lack thereof).
But over a TV?