Why aren't buildings built in such a way that it is deadly dangerous to steal metal? Wouldn't that have scared off or killed the looters?

While the idea of making theft from buildings deadly dangerous might initially seem like an effective deterrent to looters, implementing such measures would raise numerous ethical, legal, and practical concerns. Here are some reasons why this approach is not taken:

**Legal and Ethical Issues**: Creating lethal defenses against theft would raise serious legal and ethical questions. In many jurisdictions, using deadly force to protect property is not permitted, and such measures could lead to severe legal consequences for property owners.

**Public Safety Risks**: Making a building deadly dangerous could endanger not just thieves but also innocent bystanders, emergency responders, and even the property owners. Unintended injuries or fatalities could result from booby traps or other lethal defenses.

**Liability Concerns**: Property owners could face significant liability issues if someone were injured or killed as a result of their security measures. Lawsuits could arise not only from thieves but also from anyone else affected by the hazards.

**Practicality**: Designing buildings with deadly traps or severe security measures would be impractical and could lead to challenges in accessibility and safety for authorized occupants, such as maintenance workers, firefighters, or residents.

**Deterrent Effect**: There are more effective and humane ways to deter crime, such as security systems, surveillance cameras, lighting, and community engagement. These methods can effectively reduce theft without posing risks to human life.

**Focus on Rehabilitation**: Many societies are moving towards rehabilitation and restorative justice approaches rather than punitive measures. Adopting deadly defenses would run counter to these principles.

In summary, while the thought of using deadly force as a deterrent might seem appealing from a purely protective standpoint, the broader implications regarding ethics, legality, public safety, and effectiveness do not support such an approach.