I agree with you. If you are defending your
family, I think your goal should be to incapacitate, or
even kill if necessary. No one wants to have to make
that choice.<br>Think about how it was on the American
frontier in the last century. There were those men who
were called upon to use their guns to kill an attacker
or group of attackers on the home. I have absolutely
no doubt that they did not hesitate. Women sometimes
had to use the family gun when the man of the house
wasn't home.<br>I think that when someone aggresses, you
are free to defend under the tenets of the Christian
faith. You may choose not to, but I believe that doing
so lies in the realm of Christian liberty.<br>The
law says one may use whatever force is necessary to
protect oneself or another. This means that one must not
use excessive force. In an actual situation, if you
do not attack someone who is obviously retreating,
the law will usually leave the judgment up to you. If
you do shoot someone in the back, for example, the
only way you could escape prosecution is to say that
the person was attacking a loved one at the time.
Such a victim is presumably physically located such
that the attacker has his back toward you.<br>Pat