I don't think shooting an unarmed 13 year old in the back quite counts as defence in the name of "assuming your life is in danger". Its appalling the man shot a kid in the back, its even more appalling the US law system allowed them to get off. To be honest the entire "having a gun" thing in texas is asking for trouble... Scenario 1: Man breaks into house with gun, homeowner has gun - Likely fatalities 1, Maximum fatalities 2, Minimum Fatalities 0 (duh) Scenario 2: Man catches unarmed burglar in house, homeowner has gun - Required Fatalities 0, Likely Fatalities situational, Maximum Fatalities 2, Minimum 0 Scenario 3: Man breaks into house with gun, shoots homeowner and gets caught. 1 crime of break and entering started this - Man is given death sentence. Fatalities 2 Scenario 4: Man catches burglars in his house, man shoots burglars (whether attacked or not) - Man gets accused and found guilty of murder and -> death sentence. Fatalities 2 Scenario 5: Man catches burglars in his house, man shoots burglars (whether attacked or not) - Man gets off. Fatalities 1 I know there are plenty of scenarios where guns can be used as deterrants, but since its the pain and death thing that does the scaring its logical to assume another device such as a stun gun, tazer or baseball bat would do the trick equally well. I know they overlap a bit, but you get the idea - if the gun didnt get you the death setence MIGHT. The only safe/good reason for you to have them anywhere is with trained law officers (well... some), hunting, or on a range. If the law allows you to have a 1 shot kill device then there are ALWAYS going to be mentallists who can kill someone dead for some trumped up reason and get away with it. If for instance they were banned and a baseball bat was used instead, coroners would be able to more accuratele determine if excessive force was used and if it likely at one point turned from self defence into murder.