Many areas in the United States, police response is no less than 15 minutes away. This is especially true for rural areas. By the time, police force can respond in situations like this, the perpetrators could have already killed you, your family and your immediate neighbors. Now the chances of such a circumstance is very low, much lower than a guy just coming in to walk away with your MacBook and a handful of Benjis, but if someone has enough gall to come into your home and chance being apprehended by the police or shot by you, he probably has enough gall to hurt you and your family.
No one wants to hurt another fellow human, but we don't want to be hurt by another fellow human ad well. So I think the right to protect yourself with deadly force is justified with an intruder, because in a situation like this, you can't readily evaluate his intentions, his reactions, nor his equipment at hand. Give him a chance if the situation allows, but if not, snuff him.
There is an ongoing, disappointing "yes, but" excuse making trend in America which attempts to legitimize the predatory, criminal act of burglary. It is stomach churning to watch the mainstream media support perpetrators of burglary and demonize law-abiding citizens who exercise their right to self-defense. If a person makes the decision to break into a home, it is the homeowner's right to protect themselves. The risks of breaking and entering are and should be debilitating injury and/or death. Maybe if more people weren't victimized for shooting burglars, it would prevent more break-ins from occurring in the first place.
You have no time in a home invasion to rationally decide if the invader is armed or what his motives may be. You don't know if he's violent. You don't know whether he plans to just take your stuff or rape your wife. You may or may not be able to determine if he's armed or not before he makes a move on you. What you do know, without having to think too hard, is that he is directly and deliberately encroaching on you, your property and your well being and you have every right to shoot him. His life is pretty much forfeit because he put himself in a position where he may be killed. Don't want to die? Don't break into peoples houses where there is a very real possibility they may be armed.
Let me tell you something, this is trespassing and trespassing is against the law and many human values and morals. If someone comes into YOUR house, your life is at risk. The person could be planning your murder, it's merely self- defence, or so I do see it that way
It's simple, if everyone knew how to defend themselves, people would break into homes and steeling. I lived in Arkansas for many years, one law was that people couldn't cary guns in a church, because of that law churches have been shot up, no one could defend themselves. Now I remember in my mom's surprise that she was in a church and the old ladies were showing their hand guns to each other. No one would shoot up that church and survive. Laws against shooting criminals doesn't just hurt the people in the homes, it hurts the criminals because they lower themselves to a life of like that, of harming people. If criminals knew it was a lost cause, they wouldn't even put themselves in the position in the first place.
I understand how killing an unarmed person can be condemned as wrong and evil, however you have to take in other points, like the other people around you, your well being, and the chance that the intruder could be armed. Risking the time to take to find out if they are armed could turn out to be fatal. Another point to examen is who would be in the home against the invader. If the invader is a large man that stands 6'1 and 250lbs and the person at home is a small women (5'4 130lbs) there stands no chance that she could successfully protect herself against the invader. For myself in comes down to the fact that there are too many variables and if you come in to my house trying to either hurt my family or me, or take what is mine, you have forced me to go after you with, hopefully not deadly force, but force nonetheless.
If i'm sitting on the couch watching T.V and someone breaks in to y house armed with rifle and he is shooting at me and i just so happened to have a gun nearby yes i would shoot him its called Self Defence. BUT if someone breaks into my house not armed no i wouldn't kill him i would try to knock him out or simply just call the cops and let them deal with it. It seriously depends. If the guy has a knife shoot him in the leg, call the cops then they will treat his leg properly and he will live, and of course go to jail.
If someone was to break into your house and you were fully aware of his presence, The first thought in your head comes from primitive animal instinct which is to find a weapon, and naturally a gun would be the optimal choice because if the invader has a gun you can have a chance of surviving an inevitable confrontation. But if their was a law that banned shooting intruders, and the invader has a gun you're basically defeated, unless you've mastered melee combat. You could plead self-defense but why have a huge court case that could be skipped just by allowing people to shoot invaders?
The right to life is a pivotal right to the functionality of society. If we cannot respect such a fundamental right how are we supposed to be able to function in society. The simple fact that someone broke into your house is not enough grounds to shoot the person. What if the person is not armed is you shooting the intruder still justified? In essence you would have shot a defenseless man/woman. Is that something we as society should condone?
Criminals should be taken to court, not shot at the site of the crime. However, in a country where everyone has access to a firearm I can understand why people would be more willing to kill a home invader. So I wouldn't judge people for saying that is absolutely wrong.