Lance,
Thanks for the comprehensive response. It is nice to see that you take the issue seriously enough to take the trouble to stay well trained. It looks like your actions were entirely justified (and more than likely correct). One of the main reasons for my response to your post was chronology regarding U.K. registration followed by the loss of the right to own weapons. You made it sound like one followed the other in a short timeframe - I do not know the actual figures, but I'm guessing it runs into decades. It would be reasonable to assume that there was no conspiracy that spanned several governments! The loss of the right to own firearms (in the U.K.) relates much more to the atrocities in Dunblane, than anything else (IMO).

>>- Did you actually fire any rounds?
>
>Since you are genuinely curious I'd be happy to answer you. A brief description of the situation would help, I'm sure.
>
>I live in a pretty nice neighborhood, and the city I live in doesn't have much crime. I work from home, and I have a bad habit of working late at night. About 3:00 AM one morning I heard someone walk up my steps and begin screaming and trying to beat my door down. I'd never heard anything like it in the 10 years I'd lived here. He was literally beating my door in.
>
>I own several weapons and grabbed the closest one at hand, an AR-15. I inserted a 30 round mag, cocked it, and approached the door. I figured he'd be through the door in a couple of seconds so I opened it. As the door swung open it covered the rifle in my right hand. He started screaming "I'm going to kill you motherf---er!!!"
>
>As he pushed me back into my hallway I raised the AR-15 and pointed it at his chest. I said "you picked the wrong house, pal!" as I moved my finger from the frame to the trigger. He nearly soiled himself and went running off screaming like a psycho. I didn't fire a single shot. I have no idea who he was or what he wanted. I'd never seen him before or since.
>
>When someone says "I'm going to kill you" I assume the worst and take it for granted that they are serious. From the look of him he likely would have.
>
>If I had called the police I would have been dead 10 minutes before they arrived. I am certain that since the door frame was beginning to splinter, he would have been in my home before long.
>
>>- Did the possibility of (innocent) bystanders being hit exist?
>
>Not really. He was standing outdoors, and it was late at night, so there were really no bystanders. My nearest neighbors in that direction are over 150 yards away.
>
>To quote "The Tactical Rifle - The Precision Tool for Urban Police Operations" by Gabriel Suarez:
>
>"The high-velocity .223 bullets lose much of their penetration after going through many common barriers, compared to pistol bullets, which tend to penetrate more."
>
>and:
>
>"...concerns about overpenetration and the danger to the populace presented by missed rounds have been greatly exaggerated, and that the 5.56mm/.223 is relatively safer than pistol bullets for everyone in the close-quarter-battle (CQB) application."
>
>So it really would not have put my neighbors in very much danger if I did have to fire a shot and had actually missed at such a close range. I would not have missed though. He was about six inches from the barrel.
>
>>- Have you received any kind of training to help you distinguish between genuine targets (whatever that might mean) and those that should not be shot at?
>
>I take my right to own firearms very seriously, just as I do anything else that is could be dangerous, such as driving a car. And I think that others should, and if they do not they should be punished for their negligence.
>
>I have taken it upon myself to do extensive training. I've shot over 100,000 rounds practicing at firing ranges. I do at least 5 hours of FATS training per year, the police officers in my city only do 1 hour per year.
>
>I also do MilSim training, which I believe is the best training that you can do. MilSim is also very popular in the UK. Some people treat it like a game, but to me it's also good training. It teaches muzzle discipline and shoot-no shoot discipline. It also teaches you real world practical techniques that shooting at a paper target doesn't.
>
>I believe that because of my training I would never fire at a target that I have not identified, even under stress. I have a proven track record because of my FATS and MilSim training. FATS is good for determining whether or not you would have had good legal standing for use of force because you can replay the scenario and determine at what point you took action. MilSim training is good because it requires you to identify the enemy before firing on them. You quickly learn that firing at moving bushes is a good way to kill your own team members. Both FATS and MilSim can be extremely stressful.
>
>>- Are there any kind of regulations (similar to car drivers) about eyesight? In the U.K. there are minimum levels of eyesight before you can obtain (and maintain) a drivers license.
>
>No. In the United States, whether good or not, they leave it to the individual's best judgement. I have very near 20/20 uncorrected vision though, if that's an issue. Most states in the U.S. have a procedure for obtaining a concealed carry permit, and almost all of them have practical requirements that someone with bad eyesight simply could not pass. In Iowa it's very difficult to get a concealed carry permit, so I can't carry a weapon outside of my home.
>
>>- In the event that "you" had shot and injured or (perish the thought) killed an innocent bystander - would you be wide open to big-time litigation, or would you get off with a smack-on-the-wrist?
>
>The last thing on earth I want to do is injure anyone. But I think each individual needs to determine for themselves ahead of time what they will do if they are unfortunate enough to be in a position where their life is in jeopardy. I have chosen to use lethal force as a last alternative. Some people will choose not to use lethal force. It is a very personal choice, and each person must be ready to deal with the consequences of either choice.
>
>I live in the United States, and here lethal force is acceptable use of force if you or someone else is imminent danger of grave bodily injury or death. There are also couple exceptions for felonies in progress. Since I believed that I was in imminent danger (remember, he screamed "I'm going to kill you") it is unlikely that I would be charged with a crime, let alone found guilty by a jury if I was.
>
>Secondly, I live in the state of Iowa. In Iowa there is a "Castle Law" which essentially loosens the restrictions for lethal force within someone's home. Under the "Castle Law", since he was in my home I could have used lethal force under a wider set of guidelines. Fortunately it was not necessary in my particular case.
>
>As I understand it a man in the UK was recently put in prison because he shot someone who was burglarizing him in his own home. The case has really been played up in the U.S., but I've read a pretty detailed account of it in the UK press, and I don't think it was a cut-and-dried case of self defense. The situation just didn't sound quite right to me. But in more clear cases I think it is essential that people be allowed to use whatever force is necessary to defend themselves in a life or death situation. Whether or not someone has the means or the inclination to is an entirely different argument.
>
>If someone uses poor judgement and injures or kills an innocent bystander he could face criminal charges and would likely face extremely expensive civil litigation (ie. they could sue you for a LOT of money). Of course it varies a lot depending on the situation. If someone had a knife to their throat they would likely not be too upset if a bullet just grazed them, but saved their life.
>
>I'd be happy to answer any other questions you might have via e-mail.