BTW, be prepared to spend at least one night in jail if you ever, God save from such a thing, have to shoot to stop an attacker. Also be prepared to be sued in civil court by your assailant if he/she lives, or his/her family if the attacker dies. And, depending on where you live, your DA might try to get re-elected by victimizing you even further. All of these are risks I'm willing to take to protect myself and my family. Just wish we lived in a society that made this type of fear obsolete.
If it ever happens around here, the only way anyone's going to know about it is if I/we do a poor job of disposing of the body. As far as that goes, I remember an old saying that goes "Better judged by twelve than carried by eight."
I remember a woman calling G. Gordon Liddy's show a couple or so years ago. She lived in Indiana, but worked in Chicago, where I believe she said she couldn't get a carry permit. She said she was always having to walk through parking garages after dark, and described the purse with a pistol pouch, so she inconspicuously could walk with her hand in it.
Liddy told her the CIA assasination method. I believe it was one shot to the chest, one to the head, then one to the chest again. Then make yourself WALK, don't run away. He also said to look AT the chest, that if you look at the face it can make you emotional and cause you to hesitate. He said after that first shot, things will be happening so fast in your head that it won't matter after that, you'll shoot anything! LOL
I personally know of someone who was charged with a felony, and they were able to absolutely prove that they were guilty of a misdemeanor. The prosecuting attorney was running for judge and had commercials running on TV in which he stood up and proclaimed "I PROSECUTE CRIMINALS!" The prosecuting attorney offered him his choice. He takes the felony and walks out with probation. If he fights for the misdemeanor, he will serve every day of a maximum two year sentence. IMO, if the guy really prosecuted criminals, he should have taken a warrant out on himself.
That's why I have no problem with looking at laws on an individual basis and deciding for myself what's right and wrong. That, or someone's going to have to tell me that drinking was morally wrong during Prohibition, but then it was okay again after the government only revoked it when it decided that it was losing too many tax dollars.
The same person would have to tell me that whether gambling via lotteries is morally correct depends on where the profits go. Government run lottery equals good. Ron run lottery equals bad. You gotta use what's between your own ears.
