If they find out after entering people are awake and armed, they're bailing out.
Better for them to "bail out" before coming through the front door. They won't even catch a charge if they do that.
Clearly, we aren't talking about the kind of people who "bail out", so I'll invite you to think on that a moment.
Every time I get COVID, certainly. It's the responsible, civic-minded thing to do.
If you could answer that question, you could keep 1.1 million people from trying to commit suicide every year.
Even if theynare putting a price tag on it, they are only making an "offer" on a home invader's life. It is entirely up to the home invader as to whether they want to "accept" that offer.
But I'd rather just the person get scared and run, since I'm not exactly willing to kill someone over my pc.
Agreed, but you have no direct control over that. The decision to get scared and run is theirs, not yours.
What kind of moron charges a door when they know there's people with a guns behind it?
Exactly. Why are they assuming there are no guns behind the heavy front door, and the only guns are behind the thin bedroom doors? What kind of moron do they have to be?
You're just trying to create scenarios where you get to shoot someone lmao
The scenario I "created" is functionally identical to the scenario the parent comment created. I simply clarified that relying on a weak interior door is monumentally stupid when a tough exterior door is available. You know it, I know it, everyone reading along knows it.
Of course there is going to need to be a different set of rules for businesses with few employees, I never said otherwise.
Stop gaslighting.
You replied to a comment where I had presented the case of a small business, valued at $150,000 to $250,000. I presented that hypothetical small business as an example of unrealized gains.
When I asked your preference, you stated:
A moratorium on IPOs, and purchasing of businesses in any form.
After responding to an example of a small, $250,000 business, you used unequivocal language about businesses to demonstrate your point. You certainly did "say otherwise".
But you've jumped to conclusions instead of asking and having an actual conversation about what this would look like.
My grandmother could make that "jump" in her wheelchair, and she died three years ago.
Your plan is not particularly well formed and/or you are communicating it rather poorly. Slow down, take your time, present it reasonably, and be prepared for reasonable criticism.
Respirators do not filter their exhaust. They protect the individual wearing the respirator. They do not protect the public. With one exception, your advice is nonsensical.
I wholeheartedly agree.