Gun Rights

Reply

Evilsceptic Posted: Sun, Apr 10 2011 12:28 PM

rated by 0 users

I havn't seen an attack on gun control that was as convincing as libertarian arguments for a free market in healthcare and other things. can anyone link me to a good defence of gun rights? I have seen a lot of conflicting statistics and it would be nice to support gun rights from a utilitarian point of view rather than just an ethical one.

Reply

EmperorNero replied on Sun, Apr 10 2011 12:41 PM

rated by 0 users

The US with it's uncontrolled gun nuts has about 20.000 gun deaths a year. That's the high number which includes suicides. That sounds like a lot, but only adds up to about two million in a century. Now, how many people were killed in gun controlled countries in the last century? A few hundred times that? From a utilitarian point of view, a government monopoly on guns is probably the most deadly policy imaginable.

Reply

Caley McKibbin replied on Sun, Apr 10 2011 12:56 PM

rated by 0 users

Firearms are a level of technology.  Taking away firearms merely reduces the technological level of combat.  For example, my cousin warned of the high level of stabbings when I was visiting in London.  If the gun control nuts wanted a killer statistic, they could simply look at the trend line of homicide statistics around the time firearms were invented and find the anomaly.  They haven't done that because there is no such thing and the whole idea that altering the level of technology will alter behaviour is on the intellectual level of astrology.

Reply

Amadeus replied on Sun, Apr 10 2011 12:57 PM

rated by 0 users

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=41196

Not really a strong argument for gun control, just kind of ironic to opposing arguments. 

Reply

Nielsio replied on Sun, Apr 10 2011 1:41 PM

rated by 0 users

If you want less murders, you have to ask the question why people want to murder others and what stops them, as a general principle, from doing so.

If someone wants to kill you there are thousands and thousands of ways of doing it, and almost nothing you can do about it. So there must be something else stopping them from doing it (than making fire arms illegal).

Reply

Neodoxy replied on Sun, Apr 10 2011 4:40 PM

rated by 0 users

Whenever anyone talks about gun legalization I'm reminded of an excerpt from a book by a guy called Terry Pratchett which was called "Nightwatch" which was about a city under a deranged tyrant. The main character at one point talked about how the weapon controls at the time had been one of the only laws to lower crime which actually had any type of logic behind them, he even agrees that a lot of weapons were turned in during the weeks following the law's passage, but it overlooked one thing, that criminals weren't very inclined to follow the law, so you had a society where honest citizens were disarmed and where criminals had the only weapons.

In the U.S today there are too many guns floating around to think that they'll disappear if illegalized, and a similar even will take place.

Reply

Kakugo replied on Sun, Apr 10 2011 5:33 PM

rated by 0 users

Very simple. Criminals seem to have little or no problem obtating firearms even in countries with extremely tight laws like Japan or Great Britain. In countries with automatic firearm bans criminals can get their hands on AK47's, UZI's, Skorpion's etc if not military weapons stolen from arsenals without too much effort. By contrast law-abiding citizens wishing to own a firearm for self-defense or even target shooting are vexed in every possible way. Ever heard of ammunition accountability? That means you have to keep strict records of every single bullet you use at the firing range or while hunting. If you shoot a couple extra rounds and forget to chalk them up you can end up in serious troubles. Or how about having to report to the local police station the exact route you'll follow to get to the firing range while carrying your registered gun in your car? If a road's blocked and you have to take a detour that's a penal offense and you'd better hope you don't get pulled over for a random check. This is while criminals are buying, selling and shooting weapons and laughing at those idiots bothering to get a permit and trying following the rules.

Also there's the issue of self-defense. As much as they'd like otherwise, policemen cannot be everywhere at every time. If you live in a rural area a patrol may take fifteen or twenty minutes to arrive, provided the nearest patrol isn't already busy. What are you going to do when some scum is trying to knock down your door to get in? Gently ask them to pause while the cavalry arrives? Hope and pray your doors and windows will hold long enough? Hide in the basement and hope they don't find you and your family? Hope they are gentle thieves, just interested in money and jewels? I think one of the reasons criminals have become so brutal and people are so scared nowadays is because most of us have abdicated to the right of self-defense, mostly because getting a firearm permit is so difficult and you know you'll be treated like the worst criminal for defending your family and your house if the worst happens.

Reply

Brutus replied on Sun, Apr 10 2011 6:25 PM

rated by 0 users

You should check out Glenn Beck's Arguing with Idiots. He goes into nice detail surrounding the issue of criticism of the 2nd Amendment. He did a ton of research and his citations in the back are great references for his statistics.

I would argue from an empirical perspective. What do we know about gun bans? Beck says, "Remember the English Declaration of Rights with its right to arms? Like the rest of that Declaration, it restrains only the queen--Parliament can do whatever they want and, being that they are idiots, they wanted to take guns away. So, in 1997, they did. Over a decade later, the results are in: the ban is a disaster. From 1998 through 2005, the number of deaths and injuries from handguns sky-rocketed 340 percent" (Arguing with Idiots, p. 53).

One other good point he mentions is, "Despite what you may think, you do not have a right to police protection. And, once you're dead, nobody can sue the police for failing to protect you, no matter how incompetent they may have been" (Arguing with Idiots, p. 55). So what ought we to do with a criminal attempting to steal our private property?

Reply

Laotzu del Zinn replied on Sun, Apr 10 2011 10:50 PM

rated by 0 users

I think the gun war works the same as the drug war.  There's no good argument for allowing everyone to run around with guns and drugs.  There are only good arguments against prohibiting such behavior.  If you take the guns and drugs away from responsible people, all you're left with is a bunch of irresponsible nuts (addicts, criminals, and cooks) with drugs and guns.

Reply

Libertyandlife replied on Sun, Apr 10 2011 10:57 PM

rated by 0 users

@Epicurus

That's an excellent way of putting it. I'm gonna remember that for the next time I'm talking to social democrat.

Reply

Chris_Bacon replied on Fri, Apr 15 2011 5:07 PM

rated by 0 users

Brutus:

So what ought we to do with a criminal attempting to steal our private property?

I don't see how stealing property entitles someone to kill. It seems, to me at least, that killing someone for such an offense is a miscarriage of justice. 

Reply

Laotzu del Zinn replied on Fri, Apr 15 2011 5:12 PM

rated by 0 users

In Ohio, if a death was committed in self-defense that was found to be uneccessary (immediately went for the kill rather than the disable, or shooting someone more than 5x, or shooting htem in the back, etc) it's a minimum 6months prison sentence.

Reply

EmperorNero replied on Fri, Apr 15 2011 5:19 PM

rated by 0 users

In California if a thief breaks into your house at night, you are not allowed to shoot him if you can climb out a window and run away.

Reply

Chris_Bacon replied on Fri, Apr 15 2011 5:20 PM

rated by 0 users

Laotzu del Zinn:

In Ohio, if a death was committed in self-defense that was found to be uneccessary (immediately went for the kill rather than the disable, or shooting someone more than 5x, or shooting htem in the back, etc) it's a minimum 6months prison sentence.

6 months! I remember a story in the press in the UK. A farmers house was being burgaled and so he shot one of them in the back; he was sentenced to life (the equivalent of around 14 years) I think. I thought at the time that the length, the 14 years, was a bit excessive, but I think we should put more value on life than 6 months.

Reply

Laotzu del Zinn replied on Fri, Apr 15 2011 5:30 PM

rated by 0 users

California has some pretty crazy laws.

14 years is a little excessive, imo.  6 months may be a little short, but life sentence is just ridiculous.

Reply

EmperorNero replied on Fri, Apr 15 2011 5:41 PM

rated by 0 users

If you shoot someone who borke into your house at night, you shouldn't be punished at all.

Reply

Chris_Bacon replied on Fri, Apr 15 2011 5:45 PM

rated by 0 users

I completely disagree. If you think that killing someone who is attempting to steal shouldn't be punished - as is the case here - then you are putting private property above human life. Now that seems insane, especially since property is there to increase the quality of human life, so to kill over it, mad.

Reply

EmperorNero replied on Fri, Apr 15 2011 6:00 PM

rated by 0 users

Private property over human life, pfffff. When you're facing a burglar in the middle of the night it's not about protecting property, but about the safety of your family. You're in potential danger, it's self-defense. He made the choice to break into your house, so there's no way we can say he didn't see it coming. Not to mention that laws that protect burglars incentivize burglary.

Reply

MrSchnapps replied on Fri, Apr 15 2011 6:03 PM

rated by 0 users

Chris, it's not simply that someone trespassed on your property; it's that they have the intent to do God-knows-what. I'd really have no problem in saying that justice was on my side if I shot a thief who broke into my house. Of course, it would really depend on the situation. Obviously shooting to kill is a decision that no one wants to make, and I would only make it as a last course of action, if at all possible.

Safety of my family > thief. It's not just about private property--the thief could be armed and dangerous, etc. etc.

Reply

Chris_Bacon replied on Fri, Apr 15 2011 6:08 PM

rated by 0 users

That is a fair point and it makes the situation completely relative. However, there is a difference between shooting someone in self-defense, that seems justifiable, and shooting someone in the back, which is not in self-defense and so not entirely justifiable - if at all; that's where my issue with it all is.

Reply

EmperorNero replied on Fri, Apr 15 2011 6:25 PM

rated by 0 users

I certainly suggest tenants should practice constraint. But they should never get punished by the state for shooting someone in their house. In the street, yeah, that's a question of the particular situation. But in your house at night the burglar is the one who passed the threshold where he should have no legal protections. I really hate this compassionate modern intellectualism that considers everyone a victim, except the actual victims.

Reply

Chris_Bacon replied on Fri, Apr 15 2011 6:43 PM

rated by 0 users

He should have no legal protections? So that means you could not only kill them, but before killing them you could torture them as well?

I do agree with you that you can defend yourself, and if that means shooting them then, to use a slightly overused term, it's a necessary evil. But I don't think that shooting someone in the back in anyway can be considered self defense.

In regards to, 'this compassionate modern intellectualism' I think you misread me. In my honest opinion, I think the label, 'victim' is not a good thing to be using. These situations, and the one we are discussing, are highly complex with arguably two, one or no victims depending on your view of society and property. It seems that we are all victims of something.

Reply

Brutus replied on Fri, Apr 15 2011 6:48 PM

rated by 0 users

@Chris_Bacon

Then don't break into my house at night, because you might get a surprise lol.

Seriously, though, I take it back to survival. If I earn something, and somebody else tries to take it, it's a bit like "fighting" in a karate tournament to say killing is excessive. Have you ever been in a fight or a wrestling match and tried to execute some karate move you've learned from your fat, failed-at-life, ex-boy scout leader karate instructor, only to have it fail? "But I performed it 1000 times in a kata!" you exclaim.

Moral: if someone breaks into your house at night, are you going to ask them if they intend you harm and actually wait for an intelligent discussion before responding? Are you going to take the time to clearly think, "Gee, someone's breaking in. Well, if he's only stealing something, I shouldn't kill him. How do I know if he means me harm? Maybe I should ask him," or are you going to think, "Holy $hit, someone's breaking in! That's wrong; I'm going to get my gun out and shoot him because he knew what he was risking by breaking in." I would think the latter, my motivation being that I earned the $hit I own and he has no right to try and steal it and he could be doing more than just trying to steal my $hit.

Go back to karate class with that stuff. Maybe if you practice your kata enough, you'll scare the real fighters away and you won't have to actually test your hypothesis.

Reply

Chris_Bacon replied on Fri, Apr 15 2011 7:18 PM

rated by 0 users

I do understand what you're saying, and that's what makes it such a complex issue: how to know if the guy coming to steal my stuff, or to hurt me and my family. But generally speaking, burgalers are not murderers, that's why they come at night when everyone is asleep - so they can get away with what they are doing without alerting anyone. But the nature of a burgaler aside, I think using a gun in most cases would be unecessary. In the UK, guns are illegal for the average household, as you no doubt now, yet we somehow manage to defend our property and our families. Also, in the very random cases where someone is actually coming to kill or hurt you or your family, it's more likely that they will bring a gun as well.

Reply

EmperorNero replied on Fri, Apr 15 2011 7:30 PM

rated by 0 users

Chris_Bacon:

He should have no legal protections? So that means you could not only kill them, but before killing them you could torture them as well?

The burglar could sue the resident as a tort, but I don't think the state should have criminal laws punishing the resident. To me the boundary was crossed when he decided to break into your house. The legal faultfinding really stops there. He assaulted you no matter how you react. It's not the same as two people getting into a fight in a public area, where we can dissect their actions to determine who was at fault.

But again, the optimal situation is really that here are no burglaries because burglars are so afraid of getting shot... or tortured. I don't see how legal protections for burglars ever do any good.

Chris_Bacon:

I do agree with you that you can defend yourself, and if that means shooting them then, to use a slightly overused term, it's a necessary evil. But I don't think that shooting someone in the back in anyway can be considered self defense.

Well, in a fight someone might get shot in the back. I really don't think a self-defending resident should get punished or not depending on such technicalities. He shouldn't have to think about it. If a burglar wakes you in the middle of the night and you have to defend against him in the split of a second, it's kind of hard to think about the legalities of it. I don't think judges should be dissecting these situations in the comfort of a courtroom and decide whether someone in an extreme situation acted properly. So you can shoot him if he comes at you, but if he turns around you might go to jail for it? Too complicated. You have to defend yourself, that's it.

Chris_Bacon:

In regards to, 'this compassionate modern intellectualism' I think you misread me. In my honest opinion, I think the label, 'victim' is not a good thing to be using. These situations, and the one we are discussing, are highly complex with arguably two, one or no victims depending on your view of society and property. It seems that we are all victims of something.

Sorry, that sounded as if I was attacking you, but it was more of a comment on the side. I appreciate a honest disagreement.

Reply

Brutus replied on Fri, Apr 15 2011 8:08 PM

rated by 0 users

@Chris_Bacon

You're on the defensive. Why? Why would you try to think of scenarios for the guy breaking into your home? Also, are you going to be thinking this clearly with the surge of adrenaline you're likely to experience, having all the blood rush away from that vital cerebral cortex and into your essential organs to fuel the muscles in a fight-or-flight response?

I pity you and your family if someone breaks in. While daddy's trying to figure out if the man is just bad or really bad, I'm sure the wife and children will be thinking clearly by saying, "Stop him." Again, in karate class, we learn an inward, outward, upward or downward block will defend against all punches. What about a looping punch? What if the attacker shoots in for a takedown and doesn't even bother with punches? Your kata goes out the window.

There is theory, there is preparation and there is action. Again, you're not going to have time to reason or discuss intentions with the man in your house. He forsakes his rights when he walks into my house uninvited to steal from or do worse to me.

If you're talking practicality, in England, after the gun ban, crime rose roughly 400% over 10 years. Do you think that's coincidence?

Reply

EmperorNero replied on Fri, Apr 15 2011 8:17 PM

rated by 0 users

I just thought of something. In war it's forbidden to wear the other sides uniforms, right? If you do, you can get shot as a spy. It's ok to kill each others, but we have laws about wearing the right clothing. Well, what about that kind of system for burglars. If we say that burglars have to wear some kind of clothing, like a black and white striped shirt or a large 'B' on the front of their clothing. If they do, they get certain legal protections in court and the resident can get in trouble for hurting them. But if they don't they waive their legal protections.

Reply

Laotzu del Zinn replied on Fri, Apr 15 2011 8:44 PM

rated by 0 users

I certainly suggest tenants should practice constraint. But they should never get punished by the state for shooting someone in their house. In the street, yeah, that's a question of the particular situation. But in your house at night the burglar is the one who passed the threshold where he should have no legal protections. I really hate this compassionate modern intellectualism that considers everyone a victim, except the actual victims

The problem is that you could just shoot someone and claim self-defense.  There's also situations where my gpa came home from the army to what he thot was his parents house.  THe door was locked so he came in a window and fell asleep on the couch.... suffice it to say, they had moved and he never recieved the letter.

Reply

Laotzu del Zinn replied on Fri, Apr 15 2011 8:48 PM

rated by 0 users

Plus, if you shoot someone in the leg, the likelihood of him continuing his criminal escapade, at least on that night, goes down severely.

It just seems like some sick masochistic desire to think shooting to kill when you don't need to is justified.

Reply

Chris_Bacon replied on Fri, Apr 15 2011 8:59 PM

rated by 0 users

I'm on the defense, as you put it, for several reasons:

A) It seems that people who commit burgalry's are from poor backgrounds; most often it is out of need. How many middle-class burgalars do you know?
B) I don't accept that the killing of sentient life is morally right
C) I don't see private property as a good thing, instead it seems to be the root of a lot of problems - burgalry being one.

Brutus:

Also, are you going to be thinking this clearly with the surge of adrenaline you're likely to experience, having all the blood rush away from that vital cerebral cortex and into your essential organs to fuel the muscles in a fight-or-flight response?

I don't see how that is a criticism of what I'm saying. Most of us would hold that killing our brother is wrong, yet you neverknow, one day you might feel so angry and experience a surge adrenaline etc. But that wouldn't make it right.

Purhaps I wouldn't have time to reason with any burgalar, but again, I don't think that entitles me to killing him.

Just out of interest, what source did you get the 400% from?

Reply

EmperorNero replied on Fri, Apr 15 2011 9:06 PM

rated by 0 users

Laotzu del Zinn:

The problem is that you could just shoot someone and claim self-defense.

When you shoot someone who broke into your house it is self defense. Besides, I don't see how criminally punishing residents for shooting burglars in the wrong way keeps them from claiming it was self-defense.

Laotzu del Zinn:

There's also situations where my gpa came home from the army to what he thot was his parents house.  THe door was locked so he came in a window and fell asleep on the couch.... suffice it to say, they had moved and he never recieved the letter.

Plus, if you shoot someone in the leg, the likelihood of him continuing his criminal escapade, at least on that night, goes down severely.

It just seems like some sick masochistic desire to think shooting to kill when you don't need to is justified.

Yeah, yeah, and what about drunk kids stumbling into the wrong house. I know. My argument isn't pro shooting people, it's against laws protecting criminals. You can be agaisnt drinking without being pro prohibition, ok. You know, that's why it's so easy to argue for more laws protecting criminals, you can always make your opponent seem like he's advocating indiscriminate shootings.

Reply

Chris_Bacon replied on Fri, Apr 15 2011 9:15 PM

rated by 0 users

EmperorNero:

When you shoot someone who broke into your house it is self defense.

Self defense of what? The furniture?

Reply

Laotzu del Zinn replied on Fri, Apr 15 2011 9:21 PM

rated by 0 users

When you shoot someone who broke into your house it is self defense. Besides, I don't see how criminally punishing residents for shooting burglars in the wrong way keeps them from claiming it was self-defense

No I mean arbitrarily shoot someone, like over a bad monopoly game or something.  A friend of mine was killed in a drug deal gone bad.  Tho the resident claimed my friend tried to rob him, the other kid that got away (my friend's friend) claimed they were robbing my friend.  He got off scott free.  (Trouble is, my friend's dad was head of the Outlaws... that house was burned to the ground with the resident in it.  This is the problem with all this stuff.)

Yeah, yeah, and what about drunk kids stumbling into the wrong house. I know. My argument isn't pro shooting people, it's against laws protecting criminals. You can be agaisnt drinking without being pro prohibition, ok. You know, that's why it's so easy to argue for more laws protecting criminals, you can always make your opponent seem like he's advocating indiscriminate shootings.

Well... I mean you're saying if someone can stop someone by not killing them, it's still ok to just kill them.  It does seem like you're pro indiscriminate shooting, when it comes to home invasion.  .  

I don't think you're position is morally wrong.  It just seems morally overboard.  I'm not against your position, i just think there are better ways to go about it.

Reply

Prime replied on Fri, Apr 15 2011 9:54 PM

rated by 0 users

Unfortunately, this sentiment that the criminal is the victim actually leads to that criminals death in this particular situation. In fact, when you are trained in a conceal and carry class, you are actually instructed not to wound the intruder, but to kill him. This is becuase if he survives you are likely to get sued or charged criminally. Your chances of avoiding punishment are better if the guy is dead. You are even taught key phrases to say while on the telephone with the police after you kill the guy. Phrases such as "I am afraid for my life" are key in avoiding any prosecution.

Reply

Laotzu del Zinn replied on Fri, Apr 15 2011 9:59 PM

rated by 0 users

That's not what I learned in my gun safety classes.  Were I to know who you're teacher is, I would have some good words for whatever agency accredits him.

Reply

Prime replied on Fri, Apr 15 2011 10:10 PM

rated by 0 users

I'm certainly not talking about "gun safety" classes. I'm talking conceal and carry, if that makes a difference to you.

Reply

Brutus replied on Fri, Apr 15 2011 10:11 PM

rated by 0 users

@Laotsu del Zinn

Source: Arguing with Idiots by Glenn Beck. I think it was p. 53-55 when he mentioned it, I'd have to look it up to be certain. I quoted and cited it here the other day, though, in the post about gun rights.

As for the rest of your response, it seems you may unconsciously be driven to this forum. Does it fulfill a necessary reciprocation for you? Someone above mentioned it perfectly when he said everyone, including the state, is on the side of the offender and never on the victim.

Ever heard of John Wayne Gayce? Ted Bundy? Jeffrey Dahmer? Richard Kuklinski? These are just a few of the well known people that had ill intentions towards others. Think they would break in to steal something and leave? How about BTK? He would wait in women's houses for hours behind the couch only to wake them up and make a game of killing them. I would have shot the son of a bitch before he had the chance.

Stop thinking for other people and for yourself and your safety, and you won't steal and you won't be stolen from. In a Buddhistic sense, perhaps you should consider the thief to be the one initiating the negative karma. Karma being the action that follows the cause. Hence, if he steals, which is against one of the tenets of the Eight Fold Path, he is walking into the sticky web of karma, that everlasting system of resolution to causation.

No samsara for him; I sleep like a baby at night knowing my family and I are safe. He shouldn't have broken in in the first place.

What say you?

Reply

Laotzu del Zinn replied on Fri, Apr 15 2011 11:03 PM

rated by 0 users

Ever heard of John Wayne Gayce? Ted Bundy? Jeffrey Dahmer? Richard Kuklinski? These are just a few of the well known people that had ill intentions towards others. Think they would break in to steal something and leave? How about BTK? He would wait in women's houses for hours behind the couch only to wake them up and make a game of killing them. I would have shot the son of a bitch before he had the chance

I'm sure some of them would have too.  That tends to be the aspiration of a serial killer is to not let you get that chance.  They don't just pop up and say "I'm gona kill ya."

Stop thinking for other people and for yourself and your safety, and you won't steal and you won't be stolen from

Actually, for the most part, you could just have my stuff.  Unless it's something important to me, I'm just not that worried about it.

In a Buddhistic sense, perhaps you should consider the thief to be the one initiating the negative karma. Karma being the action that follows the cause. Hence, if he steals, which is against one of the tenets of the Eight Fold Path, he is walking into the sticky web of karma, that everlasting system of resolution to causation.

I don't believe in meta-physical mumbo jumbo like "karma."  Even if I did, his karma is his karma.  I certainly don't want blood on my hands, that's for sure.  Notice I said in one of my responses above that I don't necessarily think your position is wrong (except the implicit "I wish I had a chance to kill someone" attitude that usually goes along with it).  I just think there are better ways to go about it.  

You talk of karate a lot.  Surely you don't train at the Cobra Kai Dojo?

I sleep like a baby at night knowing my family and I are safe. He shouldn't have broken in in the first place.

That's exactly the attitude I'm talking about.  Even were I to be totally justified in taking another person's life... I sure wouldn't "sleep like a baby" because of it.  And almost anybody who has had to do it (like soldiers and policemen) will tell you the same.  

Reply

rxdawg72 replied on Fri, Apr 15 2011 11:33 PM

rated by 0 users

No, Mr Bacon,

Self defense of the woman who stole your heart and you pledged your entire life to... the little girl upstairs sleeping who amazes you day in and out... the unborn child in your wifes womb...that is self defense. And that is not a bunch of liberal rhetoric... that is aMY life....Sir, you are misquided with your progressive ideals....ideals that do not protect you in the middle of the night.  You would prefer that I and my family become a victim first (if that means one of my family losing their life) and THEN use the law to prosecute the offender. Sir, I refuse to become a victim and I damn sure wont allow my family to become one.

Private property is the basis of this society.  When you trespass on private property, you have trespassed into someones life.  Do you understand the meaning of that?  If you do not, then we have no need to discuss anything further.

Reply

JonnyD replied on Sat, Apr 16 2011 2:01 AM

rated by 0 users

First of all trying to argue from effect to justify gun rigths is pointless and waste a waste of time since either side can google and pull out statistics proving themselves right each time. The argument from morality is key - do you wish to initiate violence on individuals who own guns? 

As for the criminal breaking into your home.

If humans = private property.

If home = private property. 

If the criminal is breaking into your home, your private property, not only is he initiating force but he is also rejecting private property.

If he is rejecting private property then he is also rejecting the ownership of himself. So if home doesnt equal private property then his body doesnt equal private property either, thus accepting to be killed.

Universality?