TopHat:
No, no, no. I don't think you're a tough-talking internet hot-air ninja. I have the utmost respect for you based on the attitudes you've shown in your posts. Hell, I wouldn't want to fight you and I'd fight just about anybody.
Yeah, I'm definitely try to see all the sides to home defense. What a mess. I think it's a positive move though considering how many guns are out there and the increasing boldness of criminals because they know there are easy pickings and minimal consequences.
Hmm, I don't see the number of firearms increasing all that much. A few maybe. Very few previous non-gun owners would go out and buy a gun based on some piece of legislation. Those of us that already own firearms "got that blue steel fever" and probably have a couple around the house. States that have a castle doctrine already host the gun nuts of the US who are more likely to cap an intruder than residents of other states anyway.
I concur that accidental shootings will increase based on the number of guns in homes, but not necessarily due to this kinda of legislation. Simple math, really. Give a bunch of scared people firearms and no training? Whoops. I wish there was a way to mandate training without it being another gummint restriction to individual ownership. People don't learn about their new stuff before they use it and they get hurt. This goes for vehicles, power tools, appliances, and firearms.
I'm all for Darwin's natural selection... but not to one of my friends.
The dilemma.
Your point about the escalation of force used in such crimes is a noteworthy deduction. I don't see this as a particular problem in that the kind of person who already has the deviant mentality to invade a home and kill everybody in cold blood would end up committing such a crime anyway. Men and their balls, again. I'd rather have more guns in civvie hands... it increases the threat threshold necessary for the criminal to consider that type of crime an option.
Great points, man.