My problem is that the gun owner appoints himself as jury, judge, and executor, being death the only possible verdict.
The gun owner also appointed himself "survivor". I think it's important to remember that in each case stated in "The Armed Citizen" and each and ever other case where a citizen used a gun to defend himself,
it was the criminal who started the incident, not the gun owner! The gun owner just wanted to be left alone, but when forced to act, he choose to defend himself, he choose to survive.
The gun owner didn't choose to appoint himself jury, judge or executioner, the criminal forced those roles upon him. I am sure in 100% of those cases, the gun owner would prefer to avoid any altercation and just live his life in peace. But, because he owned a gun, he had an option beyond just waiting to see what the criminal had in mind, waiting to let the criminal decide his and his families destiny, he had the ability to defend himself. That is the choice/ability I choose rather than stand by like a lamb waiting for the slaughter. I hope and pray I never have to be forced to use a firearm against another human being, but if a criminal threatens me or my family, I am glad I might have a chance to defend us.
BTW laz, I agree with you that in 1990 every state in the Union was sure to have some gun controls, and this doesn't take into account federal gun control laws. But that statement quoted by MT is typical of the nonsense put out by the anti-gun zealots, big on emotion, big on sesastionalism, but very short on truth and proper context. Ya know, never let the facts get in the way of a scary statement.
dago
