Originally Posted by Space_Coyote

Been there man, sucks but your home is worth defending. Good show man.

A Glock 17 is a fine weapon, good home defense pistol, I would've preferred a shotgun personally, but different strokes I guess.

Originally Posted by Space_Coyote

Children, please, knock it off.

If you have a gun in your chest (since muggers aren't known to stand far away from you), you're not going to pull your piece, since it takes far less time to move a trigger 1/2 an inch than it does for you to draw, align, and fire. Only the bad guy knows when the violence will start, that's what makes him the bad guy.

Aikido, judo, taekwondo, all useless in this situation. Again, no matter how fast or badass you THINK you are, in a gunfight, the guy with the gun has a 100% chance of winning, you will lose. Let's not pretend like our dicks are bigger than they really are.

If I'm packing, the guy has taken my money, and I believe I am about to be shot anyway, then yeah, I'm going to go for my gun (die standing up, as it were), no brainer. The smarter thing to do would be to hand over your money, and when he turns to leave, either draw and put a gun on him (thus evening the odds) or jump him and try to gain control of his weapon. Your property is YOURS, and his life is forefit the second he tries to take it, but you need to be smart about it.

Originally Posted by Donkey Jote

Not baiting/joking, a serious philosophical question: is the life of a corrupt corporate CEO forfeit the moment he starts stealing money?

Would it be justified to march into Kenneth Lay's office and lay waste?

Originally Posted by Space_Coyote

No, because the threat of harm isn't there. If a homeowner sees a man in his house taking his tv, a reasonable person could conclude a threat to the homeowner's life or safety (since they broke in). The fact that a direct threat does not exhibit itself (like the robber waving a sword around) doesn't matter, because reasonably a warning or attempt to dissuade the robber may give the criminal greater opportunity to threaten the homeowner's life, liberty, and property.

A CEO who steals from his company and is caught after the fact poses no threat to the life, liberty, or property of anybody else, and thus cannot be killed free of judicial remedy (though he probably should be).

Originally Posted by xjoe3x

The best gun for home defense is the gun the person is most comfortable with. That is my opinion at least.

Originally Posted by Donkey Jote

Then that contradicts what you said earlier.

Originally Posted by Space_Coyote

No it doesn't. A publicly traded company that would have a CEO has no definitive lines where your shares begin and mine end, and so while the CEO's actions will definitely devalue our stock, his actions cannot be construed as a personal taking of property.

Further, the original intent of my statement was to disagree with the notion that only violent offenders in one's home should be shot, as I have nothing but contempt for thieves. I could've been clearer.

Originally Posted by Donkey Jote

What if someone steals your credit card, and you figure out how who and where they are based on where they are spending, and you track them down. Do you have the right to kill them? They are only stealing your money.

Originally Posted by Space_Coyote

I would say yes, the law would say no.

Originally Posted by diuretic

Good stuff. But you had the self control not to shoot anyone in the back as they fled the scene and that's commendable. The question is, would you have felt justified in shooting one or several of them as they fled the scene? The other question is, given they were fleeing, should you be lawfully allowed to shoot them as they left the scene?