> If a stranger's inside of your home, there is a significant chance they're going to murder or grievously harm you or others in your house.
Why would you assume this? Do you have any studies that back this up? My default assumption, way more logical I'd say, would be that they want to steal stuff. Stealing is logical and rational, under some circumstances. Attacking someone (so putting yourself at risk as the attacker) or killing someone (again, putting yourself at risk immediately and after) are not rational.
Why would you assume that they want to kill or harm you? I'd say that I have Occam's razor on my side with this one. Stealing stuff makes waaaay more sense and again, can be quite logical in many circumstances.
This person is already doing something irrational, you can't expect them to do the most rational thing once they find someone inside. If they were inside just to steal, they would have a plan if they find they are not alone. Now GP's situation had someone staring at them in their kitchen. So the assumed thief has not run away yet. Why would you assume best intentions? Why is it irrational/illogical to attempt to defend yourself at this point?
Occam's razor involves rationalizing based on the fewest assumptions. The thing is, I do not feel at liberty to make any assumptions at all about the stranger in my house. There is no sense in tolerating intrusion and I will act with haste and lethal force if there is no other relevant context. If the intruder makes an effort to explain themselves, though, I'll listen for any reason to understand what's going on and de-escalate
There are too many variables and too many possibilities which could end in you and/or your loved ones dying.
Of course it's not in their rational interest to kill anyone, but what if they're suddenly surprised by a homeowner armed with a baseball bat while they have a gun? They're probably going to shoot and kill the homeowner.
And there is a significant chance they're not in any sort of rational state of mind at that time.
So even if they don't want to kill or harm anyone, they easily may end up doing so due to the circumstances. And then there's the added possibility that they want to steal but would also not turn down the opportunity to sexually assault someone while they're there. And then also the additional possibility that they do intend to harm or kill people while there. That's far too great a risk to treat it as anything but a lethal threat.
Why would you assume this? Do you have any studies that back this up? My default assumption, way more logical I'd say, would be that they want to steal stuff. Stealing is logical and rational, under some circumstances. Attacking someone (so putting yourself at risk as the attacker) or killing someone (again, putting yourself at risk immediately and after) are not rational.
Why would you assume that they want to kill or harm you? I'd say that I have Occam's razor on my side with this one. Stealing stuff makes waaaay more sense and again, can be quite logical in many circumstances.