Bang on!

@Serg97

Most people are not going to invest the time and energy required to be competent with a firearm let alone competent at knowing if a break in is just a stupid teen or a armed robber. As a professional you have years to learn the skills necessary to make split second decisions and accurately respond. Even then a gun battle leaves a lot to chance unless you kill your opponent with the first shot. As most people know retreating to a defensible position greatly increases the odds in your favor especially if out numbered. The goal of home defense is much different than the goal of the police which is to defend society.

There are 16 states that do not have "stand your ground" laws so you have to take that into consideration. Even in states that have stand your ground laws it is not an absolute defense and you may face legal fees or worse.

That said I have no issue with stand your ground laws. I also have little problem with shoot first and ask questions later unless we are talking gross incompetence and say someone shoots a police officer responding to a fake 911 call. I do agree that stand your ground laws are more than just protection for people legitimately defending themselves and their family. It sends a message to criminals that the risks are greater than the potential rewards. It is also a pragmatic realization that the police cannot protect you. What policing primarily does is remove criminals after the fact protecting society from future criminal acts by said perpetrator.

It would be nice to live in a society where every law abiding citizen was armed and competent. Where every criminal is shot dead before they can commit a crime. I just think that is as much a fantasy as believing that society is responsible for people becoming criminals in the first place. Plus I do not want to shoot a kid or someone else that may basically be a non violent offender that is a luxury that I afford myself.

Some historical reference is called for to put human nature in it's proper perspective.

"Gun Control Is as Old as the Old West"

""Tombstone had much more restrictive laws on carrying guns in public in the 1880s than it has today,” says Adam Winkler, a professor and specialist in American constitutional law at UCLA School of Law. “Today, you're allowed to carry a gun without a license or permit on Tombstone streets. Back in the 1880s, you weren't.” Same goes for most of the New West, to varying degrees, in the once-rowdy frontier towns of Nevada, Kansas, Montana, and South Dakota."

[smithsonianmag.com]

Now I understand that you will believe that the Smithsonian like every other institution in the U.S. has been taken over by liberal hacks. That is true. The thing is that today we have the possibility of having more measured gun control. The fact that almost all gun control today is Unconstitutional because it limits the ability to form effective militias is just something we have to take into account. Requiring a license is certainly a good step toward "well regulated" but I see nothing in the Constitution that talks about self defense. All the constitution says is we have a right to keep and bear arms apparently only if you are part of the militia. The reason we have the right to keep and bear is to prevent the government from controlling the arms. If the government can control the arms then the right to keep them is meaningless. For example if you are required to keep them in a local armory, which is a common historical practice, it renders the right meaningless. My solution is to have everyone who wants to keep a weapon be a member of a responsible gun club (militia) and make them responsible for who gets the privilege but that is probably a crazy idea.

@wolfhnd Does not change my advise one bit!!! my experience proved to me, I am Right!!
What experience do you have facing down and armed bad guys??
Want trade true stories?????

@Serg97

"Pack on the pounds!"

I don't really care all that much but this conversation is getting silly. You have your opinion I have mine let's just let it go ok.

@wolfhnd OK!!