Jim Doyle wrote:

"Jim Yanik" wrote:

Hey,sometimes it's a good thing to shoot a criminal.

Now tell me you're joking; that's just a ridiculous statement. It's never a
good thing to shoot anyone.

Well, there is a definite historical culture clash between Brits
and Americans concerning personal ownership of firearms (and that
alone is hard to overcome) - but it actually goes much deeper than
the legal mechanics of private gun ownership.

I assure you he is not joking, nor is firearm defense an
innappropriate response to a home invasion. The only one
of your points upon which there will be wide agreement is
that it is never (or rather, rarely) a good thing to shoot
someone - just as it is rarely a good idea to bash in a
person's skull with a bat, or to carve their heart in half
with a kitchen knife.

However, when that person invades your home, clearly with
the intent to do you harm (as in a burglary; murderous
intent need not be present) - the only safe way to ensure
he does not do you physical harm, is with overwhelming
force... and the more efficient/effective your choice of
tools, the better.

It's not as if each citizen receives a thorough briefing on the law when
they purchase their pistol,

You'd be surprised; many states do. (Particularly where
"concealed carry" is available to non-convict and sane
citizens.)

nor have they been deputised to shoot perps by the local sheriff.

No one - including those living where effective means of self-
defense are denied to them - requires deputization in order to
defend themselves from harm.

Is it correct then that in a free society one person has the
right to take the life of another?

If that killing is the only way to defend yourself from harm,
yes - and the tool used to do the deed isn't germane to the
question: a brick can kill you just as dead as a bullet.