In which case, once I return in the afternoon I will be entitled to shoot whomever is there for trying to steal my home. I'll be 'naturalisticaly' defending it. Sounds like a great way to run a society. I better make sure I have a bigger gun than the rest then. (edit-language)

Is shooting people your first go-to for defense? I prefer arguments and evidence presented to institutions who have both been given permission to shoot people and are willing to do it on my behalf pending their judgements of my arguments and evidence.

Of course, if the institution's judgement is that people can take things that I'm not using at that exact moment, and it is not interested in intervening, then it's not my 'right' to leave my house alone for the day.

Turns out my rights are entirely dependent on the amount of guns I can bring to bear vs. the amount of guns somebody challenging my claim can bring to bear.

When an armed intruder is breaking into my house? Yes shooting them is in fact my first go-to defense. When someone else is intending to do harm to me or someone I love I'm not going to wait around for the police to get there 30 minutes later. All the police are going to find is my dead body by then.

He was talking in a 'naturalistic' way so I responded in kind. In reality if I found someone has stolen my home I'd call the authorities unless of course I feel a danger to my life in which case, had I not lived in the UK where guns are illegal, yes - shooting them would have been the first course of action. That is nothing to do with law or ethics, and lots to do with survival instinct.

Actually, castle doctrine does give you the right shoot someone breaking into your home in almost every state. It is exactly the way our current society is run.