TD's right. Each state is different. Some of them allow you to use force in the defense of a third party, some don't (I guess).
The article about the "sniper" (I hate to use that term for just a murderer who shoots at random people) was likely Phoenix, where I live. We have *2* serial killers. One is the 'sniper' (who shoots at dogs, horses and usually men and has killed 5 people) and the other is the Baseline rapist/killer (who attacks, robs, rapes and sometimes kills women and has killed 6 people). Between the 2 of them, they've attacked over 40 people since last year. Some of the murders were unpleasantly close to my house.
If a woman wants be able to do something besides cower, submit and plead with the criminal not to hurt her, and chooses to carry a gun so that she can, I don't see why people need to make snide remarks.
A criminal is way more likely to be able to use a gun,
Wrong. Many criminals are as convinced of the 'magical' properties of guns as anti-gun people, and, like them, think that just having the gun and aiming it in the general direction means it will solve their problems. Some of us practice regularly because we believe it is irresponsible to carry and not practice. It's not amazing marksmanship to hit center-of-mass on a human at 7 yards, but if you don't practice you're likely to miss.
WAY more motivated to use it (cos hes desperate, probably, for money or drugs or money for drugs)
Wrong. If you think I am less motivated to prevent myself from being raped, robbed or murdered than a criminal is to do attack me, you are mistaken. Selfishness and laziness are not the same thing as desperate.
and way less likely to feel a human inhibition about causing fatal damage to another human being
Ask the women on my women and guns forum if they would cause fatal damage to an attacker in defense of their children.
And, for the record, I object to being called "dumb" just because I choose to do something you don't like, don't understand, and fear.
I didn't really intend for this thread to turn into an anti/pro gun debate. People were murdering, raping and robbing for tens of thousands of years before guns were invented. What guns have *really* changed is that smaller, weaker people (women, the physically infirm, the elderly) have a fighting chance against a larger, stronger aggressor. Try that with a sword or knife...especially if you hadn't devoted your life to the practice of martial arts. There are some JWs I would not hesitate to come to the defense of...however, I knew a significant percentage who were superior, holier-than-thou jerks, who would have rather been attacked than defended (it would make for better press about how Satan's world is out to get Jehovah's people). I can just see the Awake article now..."Brother so-and-so used to have a gun for self-defense, until his elders counseled him about it. He disposed of it in a theocratic manner (insert Bible verses about people burning valuable magic books) and his family were attacked and were very glad they could uphold Jehovah's name by being defenseless victims. Brother so-and-so is particularly glad that owning a gun did not cause him to potentially become bloodguilty by killing a murdering theif. Sister so-and-so is particularly grateful for the resurrection hope, because if she stays a JW she might see her murdered daughter in paradise"...that kind of drivel.