Let’s take it point by point, shall we?

1- The vast majority of burglaries take place when the thief assumes nobody is at home so to suggest they’re asking for a death sentence is asinine.

The problem with this assertion is that the author assumes the intentions of whomever breaks in are peaceful (the action of breaking in already contradicts that) and that our posture should be one of, if not submissiveness, at least immobile pacifism.

2- housing policy is inherently racist and poc have a greater difficulty to access quality housing so this idea that we should give the residents of a house free reign to just shoot whoever steals from them has serious implications and will inevitably hurt marginalized people

I have to say I have no idea what provoked this train wreck of thought. But we would do well to remember that once not too long ago, firearm ownership was verbotten to those of low income and having to live in government-provided housing. A couple court decisions invalidated such dangerous policy and allows those “marginalized” people to defend themself with the proper tooling against home invaders.

3- If you’re not willing to show that you’re on the property or have the capability to use lethal force you’re not giving the burglar a decent chance to escape the situation and save their life.

I can tell these are people who really do not know the criminal element and truly believe all burglaries are done by poor people looking for a loaf of bread and a gallon of milk to feed the babies they have at home. We do not have the legal ethical or moral obligating to inform the criminal element when we are not home so they can come and steal our stuff. The onus of getting killed because they broke into an occupied home with armed inhabitants lays 100% on his future corpse.

4- a significant amount of burglaries happen in affluent neighborhoods and in that case I’m on team burglar frankly.
First, I believe she/he/it/they/wtf is wrong and even if that is the case, what we have here is a cute little Starbucks Socialist thinking she/he/it/they/wtf belongs to the People’s Party and do not own a BMW so they are not rich. The problem has always been that there are people poorer than you that see you as rich and thus, they have the right to remove your poseesions and maye take a joyride with your body orifices.

5-most burglaries aren’t going to end with someone dying but you shooting to kill guarantees that someone suffers so keep that in mind

Death is an unfortunate by-product of a criminal breaking into a wrong house or selecting a victim that is not a victim. And my guess is that once dead. he won’t be suffering much. I cannot account for his soul’s travels to lower regions.

6- this idea that a burglar knows the risk if they choose to break into your house is ludicrous. The rate of deaths by burglars getting shot isn’t very high lol

I am reading and I am trying to figure out if it is burglars dying during a Home Invasion (That is what breaking into an occupied home is called, by the way dear she/he/it/they/wtf ) or if the occupants or a home die during a home robbery invasion. I am going to assume is the latter and say that in my case, I will use my firearms to keep the chance of being killed or injured by some idiot who got in my house without permission to zero by the proper application of ballistic therapy. Why? Because I do not know their intentions, nor I have the time or the inclination to ask them before I make a life-saving decision.

And truthfully, may they never find out what is to deal with the criminal element. They will be in therapy for decades and very possibly in chemical dependency forever.


Spread the love

By Miguel.GFZ

Semi-retired like Vito Corleone before the heart attack. Consiglieri to J.Kb and AWA. I lived in a Gun Control Paradise: It sucked and got people killed. I do believe that Freedom scares the political elites.

15 thoughts on “The twisted and ignorant vision of crime virgins.”
  1. 1. Most states recognize that a person entering your home with criminal intent as a justification for use of deadly force. The criminals know this, that is why they generally do not try to break into occupied homes. So, stat is used without knowing the reason it exists.
    2. What housing policy? Where is this policy written? (If it is not written down, it is not policy.) Is there some vast conspiracy between real estate agents and landlords that I am not aware of?
    3. OK, I will start playing by the “let’s give everyone a fair chance” rules. As soon as the criminal entering my property illegally does the same.
    4. Just being a good socialist/communist. Besides, that “most” statement is not necessarily correct. Do not have any crime stats handy, but I remember seeing something about most burglaries happening in the area where the perps live.
    5. People do not defend themselves by shooting to kill. They shoot to eliminate the threat. If the criminal dies, that is bad luck.
    6. No, sorry miss enlightened, but the burglars do know the risk. That is why they generally break into unoccupied houses. Did you forget your first “point” this quickly?

    1. More specifically, if the criminal dies, it’s he/she/it’s bad luck.
      Even more specifically, if the criminal dies, it’s my more gooder aim and great luck. Or, I like to think, skill.

  2. I dont think you have to worry about therapy for this imbecile…. They ever are a victim of crime they will probably be dead…. Fuk em. As Rush used to say – liberals are 26% of the population… its time the 74% start acting like it and live life

  3. gods, I made the mistake of reading the tweets. that is some serious incoherent thought processes going on there. Consistency is not present.

  4. So many people are so clueless. It’s not like there aren’t any sources available for research. So sad. (Oh, and infuriating.)

    1. “Lived experience” only counts if it fits the academically approved narrative, derived from academically approved philosophers (all white European Marxist).

      So, the ‘lived experience’ of a Woke white 3rd generation trust-funded Red Diaper baby at an Ivy League school has more validity than that of a Conservative black son of a poor single mother who makes his living as a bricklayer.

  5. It isn’t that I value my stuff more than the thief’s life.
    By breaking into someone’s home, the thief is valuing that person’s stuff over the chance the thief could lose his life.

    1. True. But on top of that it’s not the thief’s life vs. your stuff. It’s the thief’s life vs. your life and that of your family. The issue is that you need to assume that a criminal breaking into your home will kill you. He may do that because he planned to all along, or he just does it for s**ts and giggles, or he does it to eliminate the witness. While it is true that some robberies end with the victim still alive, there is a vast record of evidence demonstrating that to rely on the good intentions of a criminal is a reckless course of action.
      As CBM points out, in civilized states you’re entitled to use deadly force against home invasion; the law recognizes the fact that home invasion is a threat of deadly force against the victim.

      1. Correct. To rule otherwise is to put an onus on the homeowner that he should somehow determine — in a split second — what the intruder’s intentions are.

        To which I say: nuts to that. That’s the bullshit mentality that now infests Great Britain, and they’ve paid for it.

        1. There’s a court case relating to that bit about split seconds:
          “Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife.” — Brown v. United States, 256 U.S. 335 (1921)

  6. One of the first things I learned from my gun-owning friends was to never advertise that you are armed. (I don’t live in an open carry state.) Don’t put stickers on your car or home, etc., because one of the top targets of burglars is not milk or bread or diapers but guns. Home invasion should be like a box of chocolates. You never know what you’re going to get.

  7. “1- The vast majority of burglaries take place when the thief assumes nobody is at home so to suggest they’re asking for a death sentence is asinine.”

    For their statement to be the full truth, it should have said “the vast majority of burglaries in the US take place when the thief assumes nobody is at home.” That statement is not true about other countries, and a big reason is that burglars in the US know there’s a significant chance of being shot for their trouble if they break in when someone’s home.

    Home invasions are much more common in countries with strict gun control because the burglars know the chances of getting shot are slim, and it’s much more quick and efficient to just beat the homeowner into telling where the “good stuff” is stashed rather than waste time tearing the house apart hoping to find it.

    “4- a significant amount of burglaries happen in affluent neighborhoods and in that case I’m on team burglar frankly.”

    Affluence is something shameful and worthy of punishment? I sense a bit of jealous bitterness here.

    Basically, this person’s entire premise is that we should entrust our well-being to the kindheartedness and gentle nature of the criminal who just violated the sanctity of our home.


  8. Another point about #3 is that if you were legally/morally obligated to have your presence unequivocally known, that would give the criminals assurance when you’re *not* there so they could break in without being impeded by any residents.

Only one rule: Don't be a dick.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.