The Issue
The Household Defence Alliance is lobbying for the right to kill anyone who trespasses on private property.
The Debate
1. "We must take a stand against burglars and looters entering our property," explains HDA President, Catherine Gratwick, while digging a moat around her house. "We should be able to rip their guts out with a machine gun, no questions asked. If they want rights they should have considered the poor sod they were robbing."
2. "Even burglars have human rights," says @@RANDOMNAME@@, while thieving a @@CURRENCY@@ from your pocket. "And we don't deserve to be shot for trying to make our way in the world. People are far more important than property, I hope you agree! Why attack a burglar? That's the job of the coppers! I think anyone injuring anyone else should be severely punished with no excuses about trespassers or defending your property. Or yourself."
3. "Hey, let's not be hasty!" cautions @@RANDOMNAME@@, an anti-gun protester. "I'm not for riddling burglars with bullets either, but I do want to protect my family! I think it would be a lot more sensible if we allowed homeowners to attack burglars, but not with guns. In fact it would be even better if we just banned guns while we're at it."
My nation is currently experiencing problems with crime. However, none of these options seems like a good idea to me, as I am trying to protect my citizen's personal freedoms without banning guns or causing crime to rise even higher.
My guess is that option #01 would lower crime while decreasing civil rights and live expactations while number #2 would accomplish the opposite. Does anybody have reliable information how exactly these options affect a nation, or should I just dismiss it and wait for a better crime-related issue ?
