But you could say the same thing about random people in the street that you don't like the look of: it's stupid to wait and see if they're going to murder your kids, so the best thing to do is murder them first.

And no, someone who breaks into a house with the intention of burgling is not an attacker, they're a burglar, regardless of whether other people are in the house. Someone who breaks into a house with the intention of attacking people is an attacker.

> But you could say the same thing about random people in the street that you don't like the look of: it's stupid to wait and see if they're going to murder your kids, so the best thing to do is murder them first.

No, you couldn't, because they did not use force to get into the space of your children.

> And no, someone who breaks into a house with the intention of burgling is not an attacker, they're a burglar, regardless of whether other people are in the house.

If they wanted to burgle they'd come when there was no one home. The fact that they came specifically when people are there is because they don't care about doing damage to the people (in which case, yes, they are attackers), or they came specifically for the people.

Really, if a burglar wants something, there's tons of opportunities when the house is empty.

> Someone who breaks into a house with the intention of attacking people is an attacker.

You only find out about their intention after they have done the damage (or lack thereof).

The only clear indication you have of their intent is that they deliberately waited until the people were home.

I am saying it is stupid to wait until after someone has killed your child to defend that child, especially when that person intentionally waits for people to be home.

It's hard to feel sympathy for attackers who wait for children to be home before they break in. If they didn't want to be dealt with as attackers, they should break in when no one is home.

> I am saying it is stupid to wait until after someone has killed your child to defend that child, especially when that person intentionally waits for people to be home.

But if you just preemptively murder anyone you want, you'll never know whether they were going to kill your child or not, and you'll think you're always right.

> But if you just preemptively murder anyone you want, you'll never know whether they were going to kill your child or not, and you'll think you're always right.

Who said that I want to preemptively murder random people?

I'm only preemptively hurting attackers. If people don't want to be dealt with as attackers, they should not attack.

After all, if they're only there to take your stuff, they can do so when you're not home.

Your logic that people who attack you should be left alone is, quite frankly, weird.

You're only preemptively hurting "attackers", but you've redefined "attackers" to mean "anyone you want to preemptively hurt".

I expect in the vast majority of cases, if someone breaks into your home while you're inside, it's because they didn't know you were inside.

> You're only preemptively hurting "attackers", but you've redefined "attackers" to mean "anyone you want to preemptively hurt".

No, I did not. How are you defining "someone who uses force to get to me"?

My definition of an attacker specifically requires that they force their way to me and my children.

You are on some insane mission to trivialise the danger from someone who is prepared to force their way to you. Why?

(I'm generally curious, btw - why is your expectation that someone who forces their way into a house is peaceful by nature?)

Or maybe they didn't know anyone was home? It's not so hard to imagine many scenarios where someone just wanted to rob the place.

Let me introduce you to my mom's former landlord when I was a kid. Former rodeo cowboy who got into drugs. He broke into a house to steal shit to sell and when the homeowner came downstairs to investigate and the former landlord proceeded to smash in the homeowner's face with a ball-pin hammer to the point dental records could not be used to id the body. This guy had no history of violence. I'm sure the victim's wife would have preferred the cowboy being shot dead and keeping her loved one.

> No, you couldn't, because they did not use force to get into the space of your children.

Why is use of force the line? What about burgulars who enter without using force?

There are large parts of world, where this will get you to prison.

> There are large parts of world, where this will get you to prison.

There is no country that I know off where defending your kids against a successful home invasion will send you to prison.

None.

This is literally not true when defending involves killing. Self defense laws swings widely.

> This is literally not true when defending involves killing. Self defense laws swings widely.

Can you name a jurisdiction where "defending your kids against a successful home invasion will send you to prison."?

I mean, that's specifically the scenario I started with, isn't it?

There are hundreds of examples if you google for "man jailed for killing home intruder".