> Around here, such a crime would be very risky. Burglers tend to get shot.
> Howard

Using my natural talent for picking up on an entirely redundant part of the message and expanding it way out of proportion, I wanted to comment on this little note. Did any American Rinkies (or Australian, New Zealandish or whatever) hear about the case of a farmer here in Britain a few years ago who shot a burglar? The burglar in question was an unarmed teenager, shot in the back with a shotgun (to the best of my knowledge, which is pretty rusty on important things). If my memory serves me correctly (which, again, is pretty unlikely) the farmer is now in prison doing a life sentence. This highlights an interesting difference in legal procedures between Britain and the States - here, you're only allowed to go one step above an attacker. In other words, if a burglar attacked you with an iron bar, you could defend yourself with a knife, but probably not a shotgun, and if he was unarmed you probably wouldn't be allowed to knife him. This means that a lot less burglars die, but on the other hand it could be seen to be difficult to defend yourself. There was a case when a criminal robbed a gun shop (rather stupidly, I would have thought) and the proprietor shot him in the shoulder. The bullet bounced downwards off his collar-bone and killed him. The proprietor wasn't arrested, but that was controversial. Even the police don't shoot unless they absolutely have to, and if you are a cop, you have to obtain permission before firing on a suspect. So maybe it's not just a legal difference, but a difference in gun laws that we're looking at. Any thoughts from people on this?

Phil-"Whew, that's one heck of a long post for me...what was I talking about again?"-bee