And that's all that needs to be said. People that force themselves into the homes of others or threaten them physically need to be inured to the idea of getting shot. No one compelled by law to wait around for someone else to defend them in an attack from ordinary criminals is, in any meaningful way, a free citizen. In a relatively confined spaces, like single family dwellings, a handgun is the choice weapon for many residential defenders. The closest we could get to an ideal world would be daily news photographs of attackers with felonious intent bearing bullet holes between the eyes. This kind of assault on the youthful psyche might make that convenience store job look a lot more appealing.

Another possible fringe benefit would a curtailment of police excess. They'd doubtless be more reluctant to break into peoples homes illegally if the chances of lead coming their way at 3000 feet per second were upped say 500%. Corrie Maye ought to be freed and given a medal. Gun control is good for criminals and for police but it and individual rights can't very well coexist. Such a policy requires an ordinary person to depend on the government for his very existence.

Anyone that acts outside the law to physically threaten or violate a domicile should have to consider deadly force as a consequence. This means Edgar Hoover's progeny, the constabulary, FEMA, anyone that is on a power addicted ego trip. This is a malady agents of the state commonly share with violent criminals. The remedy is identical in all of these instances, a sovereign citizenry and no special privileges for public employees.

anyone that is on a power addicted ego trip

Oh, you mean BATFE?

No, that is not all that needs to be said. For instance, your post has said nothing about the ease with which intruders deploy deadly force on homeowners...sometimes using the homeowner's own weapon.

If you are going to make that claim, and I'd say it's a dubious one, you'd better be prepared to back it up with sourced statistics.

There are very few documented cases of an intruder using a homeowners weapon against them, of of those few cases it was a homeowner who had the gun but had never spent time learning to use it.

I like your style Mactosh.

superposition:

No, that is not all that needs to be said. For instance, your post has said nothing about the ease with which intruders deploy deadly force on homeowners...sometimes using the homeowner's own weapon.

Can't that be left up to homeowners as to whether or not they wish to take that risk?

One thing we don't know is the number of crooks detered from committing a crime because of the fear that the target may be packing heat. Maybe a sign in the yard saying "Security by Smith & Wesson" will give them a clue.

If everyone who wants to ban firearms would kindly put a highly visible "Gun Free Home" sign on their house, we could maybe get some statistics on that. It's really the least they could do considering they essentially want everybody around them to have such a sign implicitly put on their homes.....

superposition:

No, that is not all that needs to be said. For instance, your post has said nothing about the ease with which intruders deploy deadly force on homeowners...sometimes using the homeowner's own weapon.

It's difficult to fathom the mental IMPOTENCE of someone SO fearful that they fear having the means to defend themselves because they fear those means will be taken from them and used against them.

You should probably just dig a hole under a rock, and live there, with the bugs.

I am fascinated by all these people defending their homes. Whether or not there are firearms about criminals try to enter empty homes. If you think about it is much easier to steal from an empty home than an occupied one. For those of you who think you can shoot first remember the criminal be carrying his, you won't be, so that gives him an advantage. He will certainly be more hyped up than you are and so more ready to fire. Also, you will need a gun with stopping power, if it is your wife that has to defend the house make certain she a strong enough to carry it. You are much more likely to be safe if you have a substantial door with solid locks.

Are you saying that homeowners shouldn't have guns because criminals may be armed? Most burglars don't carry guns incidentally. This issue of an empty home is an equally baffling feature of your "argument" if that's what your post is supposed to be. If an intruder tries the security system of a home while it is occupied should occupants inform the criminal of his folly in not targeting easier prey? Women are seldom so frail they cannot ably deploy handguns, their less violent heartbeat even gives them a natural accuracy advantage.