On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 00:16:10 -0600, Don Foreman wrote:
On 3 Jan 2005 22:33:23 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

Depends on if it's a concealed-carry state or not, I suppose. Armed victims
tend to make criminals a bit more ...docile...

Would you shoot a thief if he disobeyed your command to "stay"? I
wouldn't risk my freedom to catch a thief, though I suppose there's
little downside to trying a bluff.

Of course not. Unless he is threatening you, there
is no justification to shoot him. But, _he_ doesn't have to know
that, does he.

I really don't know how stuff like this works in real life, as opposed
to TV and movies. I certainly understand the prudence of being armed
and skilled if one goes in harm's way or lives in a risky place but I
(possibly naively) believe that killing someone for disobeying you
could cost far more than it's worth -- and shooting but not killing
them might cost even more.

You are basing this statement on your flawed supposition.

I'm ambivalent about gun control for that reason. I oppose it in
principle, but I find some of the attitude exhibited by
second-amendment activists to be disturbing.

Well, the fact is, that person-on-person violent crimes have gone
down in each state which has allowed their law-abiding citizens to
choose to carry if they wish, and CCW holders have been astonishingly
well behaved. Basically, I think it comes down to this: good people
can be trusted, and bad people cannot. Let the good people defend
themselves from the bad people.