Sorry, not good enough definitions.
A starving man on death’s door manages to break into your home to steal a loaf of bread. You have a gun and see him do it.
Who is the strong one and who is the weak one there? Who is acting in self-defense there?
And I am happy to explain that if you shot and killed the man in that situation, you would be taking advantage of their weakness.
If someone is strong enough to break down my door even when they’re starving, I’m gunning them down and asking questions later.
Like your logic doesn’t add up here at all. “If someone is extremely weak but also strong enough to forcibly enter your home”
Nah
You know there are these things called ‘windows’ that you can break easily and climb through, yes?
Also, I thought you were done talking to me. Make up your mind.
I repeat my point: if someone is trying to break in my window- I’m shooting first and asking questions later
Wait, I’m no pro gun person, but like if some fucking random breaks into my house even to steal bread, you can bet your ass I’m threatening them back out with a knife or some shit. How would anyone know that they’re there as a poor person stealing bread and not to mess with your family? I doubt you or anyone else would act differently under that pressure short of being really well trained in conflict diffusion. This whole thing seems super disengenous.
Let me make it clear then, if a gun was around I would threaten them out / shoot them with the gun if they wouldnt leave. Pick your tool and I would at least try to use it. The part of Your strength argument that I don’t think makes sense and isn’t real is that if a poor person breaks into your house that you would allow them to steal from you from a high moral stand point. Further, you would somehow manage some sort of completely calm demeanour because you somehow know that they are someone in need there to steal and not there to hurt you or your family.
