After reading the various threads about private gun ownership it is apparent that the arguments presented by each side are not changing anyone's mind. Therefore, I am withdrawing from those arguments in the future.
However, be it known that I have a license to carry a firearm and that I never leave home without one of my firearms. But being aware of the numbers of persons who do not believe as I do, I am presented with an ethical dilemma.
If you are one of the people who do not believe in guns, and I see you being beaten to death by someone with a baseball bat, how should I know if you are going to be offended if I use deadly force to save your life?
The answer seems to be a code word. If you believe you have the right to live and want me to intervene (I am very skilled with a handgun having won local competitions), say the code word: "Help!" and I will end the beating then and there.
However, if you are one that does not want to be the cause of "another handgun death", say the code word: "911!", and I will go see if I can find a phone and you can hope that the police get there in time. I would not think of offending your convictions.
Please do not suggest that I should intervene physically without deadly force because I am 63 years old, and in poor health...I cannot reasonable expect to overcome your attacker.

I think you are missing the main point of the mainstream anti-gun arguments. Yes, some people will say they don't want any gun deaths, but for most, the reason they want to restrict guns is not to stop criminals being shot by other people with guns, but to stop criminals getting guns and shooting other people.

__________________
... I am surprised at your insolence in writing to me at all. You know, as I know, that I bought this constituency... may God's curse light upon you and may it make your women as open and as free to the excise officers as your wives and daughters have always been to me while I have represented your scoundrel corporation.
I have the honour to be... your obliged humble servant, Anthony Henley
- MPs reply to constituent, mid 1700s

once again someone has made the assumption that criminals get their guns legally and that gun laws would prevent this. I don't see gun laws keeping guns from anyone except law abiding citizens.

Please, just answer the question: Are you going to yell "Help" or are you going to yell "911!"? YOU have missed my point...in my example the aggressor was not armed with a firearm.

If it was me, by all means SHOOT

I haven't missed that.
I'm not American, I have nothing to do with this question. It's just that you seem to think that the anti-gun types would not want you to help them, because they are opposed to normal people having guns. Actually, most would want you to help them. Their purpose is not to stop you owning a gun, they're purpose is to stop criminals getting guns, and the method they want to use is to stop everyone getting guns. Whether it is effective or not is a different matter: I'm not trying to argue they're right, just explain their beliefs to you.

__________________
... I am surprised at your insolence in writing to me at all. You know, as I know, that I bought this constituency... may God's curse light upon you and may it make your women as open and as free to the excise officers as your wives and daughters have always been to me while I have represented your scoundrel corporation.
I have the honour to be... your obliged humble servant, Anthony Henley
- MPs reply to constituent, mid 1700s

The post was intended as tongue-in-cheek. If you are not an American, would you please list your qualifications that enable you to have the confidence to explain American cultural beliefs to me. It must be youthful over confidence, because despite being 63 years old, I would not feel that I have the experience or the knowledge to explain UK cultural issues to you.

I wouldn't mind you trying. If you did so, and got it wrong, I'd point out your inaccuracies. I wouldn't say "don't even bother to explain, because you're American".

__________________
... I am surprised at your insolence in writing to me at all. You know, as I know, that I bought this constituency... may God's curse light upon you and may it make your women as open and as free to the excise officers as your wives and daughters have always been to me while I have represented your scoundrel corporation.
I have the honour to be... your obliged humble servant, Anthony Henley
- MPs reply to constituent, mid 1700s

Yelling '911' would not be very effective around here, either

Can't you use the gun as a way to threaten the man with the baseball bat? I don't suppose he would be stupid enough to attack a man with a gun.

There is no provision in the Michigan law(my state), that allows a person with a concealed carry license to use it as a threat. In fact they warn against it because there is a law against "brandishing" a weapon. We are instructed that the only time we should take the gun from concealment is if we intend to fire it to preserve life; never as a threat. Note: There have been incidents where someone has been stupid enough to attack a person despite them having a gun.