This freaking yo-yo makes no apologies for what he has said above, and withdraws nothing. Nor does he feel his intelligence has been at all impugned by what you say. This freaking yo-yo calls things the way he sees them, and you certainly give the impression described ... "gun-control means being able to hit my target" indeed! Ha!

But thank-you for refraining from returning my insults. I take it, then, that there is nothing derogatory about the term freaking yo-yo in the sense you used it.

OK - so the Right to Bear Arms amendment to the Constitution includes the right to organise militias against threats by the US government too. I'm loathe to say anything nice about politicians, but they are not the kind of muggers and robbers that walk up to you, point a gun or a knife at you and ask you to empty your pockets, or who break into your shop to rifle your till. A tyrannical US government would be every bit as bad as government by Britain and would deserve to be shot; but that has nothing to do with individual criminals trying to steal from you. So I still say that you are probably asserting a right you don't lawfully have.

And where are the "organised militias" that all these gun-toting citizens are supposed to have formed? The only militias I am aware of certainly aren't there to protect everybody's rights and freedoms. They belong to the armed right wing - hate groups and fundamentalist Christian movements, to mention a couple by genre. They are more likely to be vigilantes or illegal armies than organised militias created to protect the free state.

You've spent two years in law enforcement, and I have to respect that. You say you have been in several situations where you have had to choose whether or not to use your weapon, and you chose not to. That too demands respect. So I am cautious about what I say next.

The only time you should have been contemplating the use of your fire-arm is in a kill-or-be-killed situation which cannot be defused. As a responsible law enforcement agent, I am sure that you assessed the situation and, realising it could be defused, you let that happen. If you had used your gun in a situation which was capable of being defused, you would have been acting wrongly. So, really, you didn't have a choice.

I acknowledge that it takes skillful assessment of the situation and nerves of steel to act the way you did. True professionalism. (I am not against the police being armed, by the way, although I prefer them not to carry guns routinely.)

Otherwise, as neither you nor the other person was shot, it was not a kill-or-be-killed situation and it did not require you to consider the use of your gun at all.

If your life is threatened, or even your safety, I have no problem with you killing someone in self-defence with whatever comes to hand (Newby, this is for you too). If there happens to be a conveniently placed gun within reach, then shoot the bugger if you can! But if you kill to protect property, I question your moral values and your judgement. Are you any better than the man you shot, and does it matter which of you survives?

Normal defences against intrusion are locks on doors and windows, maybe high walls and barbed wire. Electronic alarms. A big dog, perhaps. Definitely not man-traps. And if not man-traps why guns? People who know their life is at risk (not just fear their life might be at risk, but know it), such as leading politicians for example, might be able to justify carrying a gun at all times about their person. But people who have a gun "just in case" an intruder breaks in are acting out of proportion to the risks they face - and in all probability will kill an unarmed person, possibly an innocent caller, because they were too busy shitting their pants with fear, and creating a life-or-death situation out of nothing. Over here we are constantly hearing of situations where unarmed people have been shot by over-excited paranoids with guns, or by trained armed policemen. Rarely do we hear of fire fights between the armed police and a gang of criminals. That was a rarity even in Northern Ireland during the Troubles.

So, I'd give you good odds, Midnite and Newby, that if someone shoved a gun in your face, and you co-operated with what he told you to do, you'd survive, whereas if you tried to pull a gun on him, he'd shoot you first. (I'd give better odds to Newby, of course, as Midnite clearly has handled guns professionally.)