Oh, that argument that a life that's lost can't be replaced? What about that part of my life that went into working to get those funds to buy that vehicle? Sure, I can work some more... But who is going to replace those years of my life that were stolen? An insurance policy, for all that it will pay, will not replace those lost years.
Well, I believe addressed that actual point in one of my posts, and it's the reason I'm not entirely opposed to the use of deadly force to protect property (though I'd argue that the value of the property and whether it's your own property or that of another may factor in).
Also, if we're talking about simple property then
assuming it's insured no years were lost. If my $10K car is stolen, I'm probably out at most $1K or so (figuring deductible and increase in premiums...maybe $2K). After paying the deductible I will be able to purchase what is basically an exact functional replacement for the vehicle, and I'll be out a total of $2K...which hardly represents "years" of the average person's life (more like a couple months).
Those months/years also still won't balance out against
the entire rest of somebody's life. You're talking about a year (at least the working portion) at most versus...well, who knows, but statistically something on the order of decades. At the same time, I don't think it's necessarily unreasonable to place even one year of your own life above decades of another's, assuming the other person is attempting to unlawfully take that year of your life.
Which is to say that our positions are probably not all that far apart, I just find the attempts to characterize this as "self defense" (in the traditional sense of the term, not the "property=life" sense above) to be more than a little disingenuous.
No lethal force for property crimes: so Arson, Piracy, and Treason are out.
What about rape, WA? You don't mean to tell me that you would shoot to prevent someone from raping a woman? After all, she probably gives it away for free, anyway. She lost nothing but a few minutes of her time, after all. Hardly worth killing over. Dressing like that, she put herself in the position where the rape was unavoidable.
Arson, piracy, and treason are hardly simple property crimes. Arson generally presents a legitimate danger to the lives of others, piracy certainly carries an implied threat to the lives of the crew, and treason...well, is
treason. Other examples of crimes that definitely involve an implied threat against person in addition to property would be armed robbery (which you mention) or carjacking.
And rape is not a property crime either, it's a crime against person (on par with aggravated assault, at the least).
The false analogies in this thread are flying fast and furious, now.
If my wife collects the $500K or so in life insurance I have, she can't use that $500K (plus a small deductible) to buy a replacement for me.
Sure she can. She can get married again.
Will she get an exact replica of you? No, but then again the person who loses a car to theft likely won't get the exact same car, either.
Maybe
I'm the odd one here, but I can't think of a single piece of property I own that I would put on par, in terms of "irreplaceable," with a
human being.
I have a few that might come close, and certainly stand out above the others. A few relics from high school, or from military service, from deceased family members, maybe a few others. Still, not one of those is even on the same order of magnitude as
my wife. I'd generally be heartbroken if I lost them, but if she was killed in the same incident (fire, robbery, whatever) I'd probably never give them a thought.
I've certainly never owned a
car that I elevated to that position. Sure, I'd not be able to buy the
exact same car with whatever insurance I collected...but I'd certainly be able to buy the functional equivalent. Now, I've seen a few restored classics that might be a different story, where you can tell a lot of the owners time went into them. At the same time, if my wife died in an accident that destroyed such a car I'd probably not give the car much thought...how about you?
The comparison between life insurance and property insurance was absolutely absurd, and I'd like to think that anybody continuing to defend it is arguing for arguing's sake.