MLeake said:So the number of people BG's could kill with a couple of stolen shotguns doesn't meet your minimum threshold?
In fact, I have more of an ethical qualm with telling thieves that I think their right to exist is more important than a homeowner's right to a feeling of security in their own home.
As stated before you are comparing apples and oranges. Protecting national military assets from sabotage by terrorists is not the same as your car stereo
MLeake said:Or are you saying that firearms are the lethal equivalent of home stereos with regard to use after a theft?
MLeake said:Most policies don't offer "replacement value." You can easily lose thousands of dollars after a fairly minor burglary.
Do you think deadly force would not be used against, say, ELF (Earth Liberation Front) if they decided to sneak onto McChord AFB and try to burn or blow up a cargo plane? After all, they wouldn't be trying to take explosives, or hijack a suicide plane. They just like to destroy eco-harmful items and gear, such as laboratories at UW...
I'm pretty sure deadly force would be used if surrender were not immediate.
So, do you see a problem with that? If so, what happened to your moral argument?
???They just like to destroy eco-harmful items and gear,
MLeake said:... if my enabling argument is so comical, then why have crime rates dropped in areas that:
MLeake said:Being disrespectful only works if you offer a decent counter-argument, and even then it doesn't win you any points with a competent judge.
MLeake said:TG, the argument isn't at all reductio ad absurdum.
Outcast
You are confusing legal with moral.
Your argument is that, in the ELF on a military base example, the military has "the ultimate castle doctrine" in their favor.
All that means is they have the legal authority to use force in that scenario.
Back to ELF, they tend to hit after hours, and avoid casualties. Given an after hours strike on physical assets, such as a known, unoccupied structure or aircraft, is a deadly force response morally acceptable or not?
... Try approaching any aircraft on the flight-line without authorization, no weapons necessary, and see how Air Force security responds. You'll be spread-eagled on your face, with a rifle at your back; the SP's will shoot if you don't comply with commands.
Actually, I've had a flight engineer end up spread-eagled on his face just for crossing the solid red line between our hangar and our own aircraft; for some obscure reason, the Air Force set up the red line so that the dashed, ok to cross area did not line up with the hangar doors.
Actually, as I think of this, you've argued in the past that defense of property within the home is immoral - IE it would be immoral to use force on a thief who is fleeing with your property,
or it would be immoral to stop somebody from breaking into a vehicle in the driveway.
Using your latest argument, if the entire base and airfield are "home", then by extension wouldn't "home" extend in a private individual's case throughout the property lines, and not just inside the house?
Your "surrender" argument is disingenuous;