What do you think is irresponsible, the statement, or the course of action (shooting an intruder)?

There is nothing irresponsible about the statement. The statement was made to illustrate the difference between having someone on your property, vs in your house. The phrase "you can kill him because he is there" means...since he is in your house (THERE), you can shoot, if he were outside (not THERE), you can't shoot...therefore, there is a big difference between someone coming onto your property, and someone, anyone, coming into your house. You implied there isn't any difference between someone walking on your property, and someone coming in your house. My response wasposted to show you just how differently those two actions are viewed by the Law.

As for the course of action...I believe self defense is, in it's most basic form, taking responsiblility for oneself and not hoping someone else will save you. That is not for everyone, but it is also not irresponsible either.

Have a happy new year.