Thou shall not kill.
What a BS. Come on sissies, killing can be neat! I'm sure lots of you have done it in a computer game, but I can assure you, it's much more thrilling in reality! Talk about adrenaline rush! And the graphical effects are so much better: blood gushing and dripping, limbs twitching, muscles tearing. With that in mind, I recommend a shotgun. To you, your loved ones and everyone who cares about safety. Besides, it's the only way to make sure that those annoying unknown persons won't dare to come to your backyard more than once. You know these "Sorry, I seem to be lost, could you tell me..." or "My car broke down and...". Yeah right punk, wrong backyard... Let's make the world a safer place.
Also keep in mind...If you do shoot someone in ''self defence'' and you do kill them, you will still goto prison (depending on how your DA reacts)
If it's in self-defense (meaning you reacted to a situation where you felt you are in imminent peril), you will not go to prison. It's called "justifiable use of force", and most states (if your actions are justifiable) give criminal and civil immunity to the defender.
Yes its justifiable use of force if you shoot someone in a neutralising position, allowing you to escape.
But if you shoot them in the head..don't drop the soap
An individual who uses deadly force or force other than deadly force in compliance with section 2 of the Dr. Ossian Sweet self-defense act and who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses that deadly force or force other than deadly force commits no crime in using thatdeadly force or force other than deadly force.
If a prosecutor believes that an individual used deadly force or force other than deadly force that is unjustified under section 2 of the Dr. Ossian Sweet self-defense act, the prosecutor may charge the individual with a crime arising from that use of deadly force or force other than deadly force and shall present evidence to the judge or magistrate at the time of warrant issuance, at the time of any preliminary examination, and at the time of any trial establishing that the individual's actions were not justified under section 2 of the Dr. Ossian Sweet self-defense act.
As fun as the killing is, there's just one minor negative aspect: it's kind of a permanent "solution". So if there's an accident or misunderstanding or something like that, you can't just say "Sorry buddy, didn't realize it was a comb you were holding in your hand. I though it was a knife, how silly of me, eh? Now let's put that brain mass back to your head and pretend nothing happened".
I recon there's an easy fix (in theory). Let's swap all the guns to stun guns or alike. Surely in this state of modern technology those kind of weapons could be made as easy (but maybe not as fun) to use as real, lethal guns. So defending something would still work, just stun the attacker and perhaps tie him/her up and call the cops. No need to waste a whole life here. Now this would also prevent all the accidental killings and school massacres etc. So why an earth are we still using guns? Lemme guess. Money and masculinity. Of course there are huge markets in weapon and ammo sales & production, so it's quite clear that those parties wouldn't like losing most of their business. And then there's masculinity. There wouldn't be any more manly bragging about recoils, penetrating powers etc. Amount of volts or density of a rubber bullet isn't quite the same, I suppose. IMFHO, we could sacrifice some of our money & masculinity in order to save a vast number of lives, annually.