Good for you, Bill. Killing a man is a sad thing, but have no regrets that you did the least of all possible evils. That man will never break into another house.
Those who break the law no longer deserve full protection from their "rights". I would gladly shoot and kill anyone who endangered my family, friends or (to some extent) my property. I would probably be very sad that I had to kill the person, but I would not change the decision to protect myself and my family.
To me, responsible weapons handling is defined as being in control of the weapon at all times that the weapon is not locked up. A gun is for entertainment (shooting range, etc...), collecting, or killing. It is not a threat. If I pull a gun out, someone is going to be shot. Otherwise, you'll never see it.
Yes, I have taken the required classes for a concealed weapons permit.
Having said that, I choose not to have a gun in the house because I have small children that make a gun more difficult to keep simultaneously safe and effective. If I was worried about my neighborhood, I would get a large dog, because dogs are less likely to accidentally kill family members (pack instinct). Now, when the kids are older, I might reconsider my gun ownership options.
Misc thoughts:
1. Criminals will always have weapons that are illegal. Laws don't usually change that.
2. People will kill each other with any and all available means at hand. You may change their method, but they will still kill each other. Reducing the homocide rate means that you change the culture, not change the available weapons.
3. The government should fear the people or it will have no respect for them.
4. The people should respect the government because it protects them.
|