Criminals are NOT VICTIMS of their upbringing or anything else. It is a CHOICE to be and act moral or immoral. There are those that have the best in the world and still will choose to do evil and criminal acts. And there are those, many, who have not let their circumstances determine their moral character and have not become criminals or choose to do evil. The choice is the same FOR ALL, no matter their circumstances, rich or poor you choose to live in dignity and character, or NOT. Some have to work harder to achieve this, and circumstances do not matter if they CHOOSE to better themselves.
OP you say that there is no way to tell if they are intending to kill you when they break in to your home or business. Are you to wait to SEE if they are actually harming/murdering and then say “Oh, so sorry you were murdered by the CRIMINAL, I guess he really was intending to do harm when he was BREAKING the LAW”? And, you say that a person who has proven their low or non existent character and determination to do evil by BREAKING THE LAW, to BEHAVE in a CIVILIZED (a law abiding, moral character etc. person) manner and NOT cross that line into harm or murder, just because the ones that they have preyed upon COOPERATES with their evil intent – to them you say when the criminal harms or murders a cooperative true VICTIM here, “ So sorry you must have won the lottery on the ONE criminal who isn’t CIVILIZED (meaning one who has moral character)”.
And to your “criminals don’t feel a need to own a gun”, here is an article about guns and crime in the Netherlands that disputes your opinion - [link to qsi.cc
] And also, just how many murder victims of armed robbery (where the robber murdered the one whom he was robbing) were there in the last several years in the Netherlands? How many would be acceptable to you? You do not seem to feel the same compassion for the true victims in these cases. The ones getting robbed don’t get to CHOOSE NOT TO BE ROBBED, they are the ones getting preyed upon, on the other hand the criminal DOES CHOOSE TO DO the evil and criminal act.
And as for intent of the criminal (one who has intentions on doing harm and criminal acts despite the law) – it doesn’t take much search for you to see that many armed robbers don’t wait for someone whom they are robbing to “cooperate”, they will come in and start shooting whoever is in the place so that there are no witness or hindrance of their evil intentions and goal. What do you say about these instances when they are not given the CHOICE to COOPERATE?
You say that it is the police who they are to report it to so that THEY can capture or possible SHOOT and KILL the criminal. You have stated that ANYONE who has killed another, despite the circumstances should face some amount of incarceration. Then, by those standards the POLICE whom have killed someone should also. Are they, as people, exempt from that moral “law” of killing? Or why not?
On the same subject of anyone killing another. Should a person who is driving a car, and has a heart attack or other physical impairing circumstance, and looses control of their car and hits and kills another – by your standard this person should face incarceration for murder. I guess that they should have KNOWN that they were going to have a heart attack or whatever and not driven that day (or any other), right?
Accidents happen with no malice, negligence or intent, that result in the death of another. Should these people be called murderer’s and incarcerated? You might feel different if it happens to you. The death of anyone should be mourned as a loss. We all will die at some point, whether by accident, disease, naturally, or by another – accidentally or intentionally. Some of these can be prevented and life extended a bit longer. You seem to value the person who chooses to do evil over the one who choose to be moral and of higher character. Which one is more valuable to society? And which one should be protected for the good of society?