Yup..thats what I am saying.
[Snip]
First, I'm not advocating shooting someone for "kicking sand in your face". And secondly, that sounds like an issue that you need to take up with legislators. Part of the issue is that you live in a very liberal-mindset run state.
Typically, there aren't too many "justified" shootings because most mature people get themselves out of the situation without having to use the gun, or more often than not, don't have a gun with them when it would have, in fact, been justified to use it. I can name several instances off the top of my head where someone came into another person's house, with a gun of their own, and without, where the intruder was shot and the shooter was not arrested. They may have been detained for a short while, but after a call to the DA, charges were not sought.
If you want some examples of instances where it's ok to shoot here you go:
-home invasion where invaders have guns or otherwise threaten harm
-armed robberies on the street
-armed car-jackings
-large unarmed group attacking single person that is armed
-etc, etc
Granted, I am generalizing and the specific details of these encounters would determine a lot.
The fact that it seems like you are saying there are no justified reasons to defend oneself with a gun is a little disheartening.
I am also not advocating, for those that are not LEO's, to use deadly force in the situations you described (store robbery, bank robbery, etc). Those examples you gave were ones where the bystander was not in the direct line of harms way. For those times I suggest not risking your own life and being a good witness when the police do arrive. For a citizen simply out with his family, the use of firearms is best used only when they or their family is in direct danger. For myself, as a LEO, I am expected to act if a felony is taking place in my presence (if I am off-duty when I witness it) so it's a little different, but I won't go into those details for now.
I also never suggested that the OP shoot the guy for cutting the rope, that is ridiculous. What I did advocate is HAVING a means of protection. The guy could have had a gun throughout the entire encounter, pulled it on the OP towards the end and then what would the OP have done? He could have tried to do something, but it might not have done any good. Preparedness is the key, and as you alluded, I would rather take action and protect my own life or my wife's life and end up doing time (should that be the case) than be dead. But you can't protect yourself against people (who you should assume are armed) unless you too are armed, it's that simple.
If it is true, in your state, that I would go to jail for defending myself in a clear-cut situationn please remind me to not visit there. That is not the case in the majority of places.
ETA: I too am using "you" as a general term, not meaning you specifically.