9,146 gun homicides in US. 16,885 killed by drunk drivers.

[Chas]

(22-01-2013 11:02 AM)TrulyX Wrote:  Personally, I like broad statements like 'reasonable response to a (physical) threat' a lot more than specific ones like 'lethal force to a (lethal) threat'.

And I also like to see where a person actually has to have action taken on them first, as most realistic situations would reflect either that action will be taken on a person first or that any action they take will likely put them in more danger than they would have otherwise been in if they acted to remove themselves from the situation as opposed to doing the opposite.

I'd rather see a person go to prison for a year, or two, with a manslaughter change, for what he might have thought was just protecting his family, a lot more than I would want to see a person not even having to go through with a full trail after just murdering someone who they were losing to in a fight, that might have instigated in the first place.

Keep it simple and broad and leave it up to the state, a jury and judge to decide. People getting the idea that they should have the right, especially that they actually do have the right, in any situation they feel uncomfortable or threatened, to take action with intention to murder another individual, is just completely idiotic and absurd.

No one is contending that lethal force is always allowed. Any homicide will be investigated and could result in prosecution. However, killing an intruder who threatens harm is almost invariably judged to be a justifiable homicide.

This has been true in common law as long as there has been the common law.