It really isn't that hard to figure out that shooting a guy breaking through your bedroom window at 3 AM with a crowbar and a TEC-9 is a Good Thing, (at least if you value your continued existence, and that of your family) while shooting someone giving you the finger on the way in to work is a Bad Thing. In the second case, there is no threat to your life involved, so there is no reason to kill anyone. In the first case,
Jonathan Wienke: there
is. Is this brain surgery?
Maybe not, but how about the suggestion earlier to shoot people who are painting graffiti on your property? What happens if someone gets shot in that situation, or in some other gray area? How would you propose to handle claims that a shooting was unjustified. Mob justice? Get enough people in the streets to storm the house of the shooter? Keep in mind that the majority of people may have views about the proper use of force which differ from yours and mine. Consider the roundup of Japanese Americans during WWII. Yes, a government action, but one with popular support. A Japanese man holes up in his house and shoots at those who try to take him away. A Caucasian man outside shoots back, fearing that the Japanese is a spy, whose information will lead to Japanese victory in the war. Both men are shooting, both fear for their lives. And in each case, the fear could arguably be justified, based on the information available to each man at the time. How does your simple rule solve this case? "John ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com