I personally like the stand your ground law, as in many of the states in the US. You have no duty to retreat, if in imminent danger. In other words, if a mugger pulls a knife on you, and he gets shot dead, then so be it. Also the Castle Doctrine law, of you may use deadly force if someone invades your home, car or place of work, and you will be free from prosecution.
[..]
Who wants a nanny government telling you, you're not allowed to protect yourself or your family? Not me. In England the crooks and crims have the advantage.. In the US, the general law abiding populous, are at an advantage.
You appear to have been fooled by the ongoing campaign of propaganda and disinformation.
The UK has strong defence laws, up to and including killing in defence of life if that's necessary or happens unintentionally.
You have no duty to retreat in the UK.
The USA does not have the carte blanche for legal killing that you claim it has. Even the states that have castle doctrine laws (and not all of them do) don't just ignore killings when defence is claimed. UK law could be considered a castle doctine anyway - your legal right to use force in defence of self or others is stronger in your own home than elsewhere.
If you look at records of how the law has been implemented in the UK, instead of taking the sustained campaign of disinformation as gospel to be believed without thought, you'll find that the reality of UK law is very different to what you claim it to be and in many ways the opposite to what you claim it to be.
The handful of people convicted of illegally killing after claiming defence were not doing anything any sane person would regard as defence. Battering unconscious people, throwing them in a pit and burning them to death is not defence. And yes, that is a real case. That's the sort of level of psycho violence used by people who were convicted of illegally killing after claiming defence.
The most recent test case involved the deliberate shooting and killing of someone outside of the house the killer was in. It went to court because it was considered unclear of the legal status of doing so. The defendant was acquitted on the grounds that in this context shooting someone through a window and killing them was reasonable force in defence.
The most recent famous case involved someone gathering other like-minded people (i.e. a lynch mob), getting weapons, hunting someone down and trying very hard to beat them to death
in revenge. They never even claimed defence because it so obviously wasn't. Yet it was used as "evidence" for the ludicrous claims that you're not allowed to defend yourself at all in the UK, criminals have the advantage and have more rights than law-abiding people, etc.
It's worrying how many people, like you for example, are advocating for UK law to be made far more extreme in its support of killing than it is now. How far do you want it to go? There's already precedence for particularly brutal hunting and attempted murder purely as revenge for tying someone up and threatening them to be legal. The attacker got a 12 month suspended sentence. For hunting a person and particularly brutal attempted murder in revenge. There was widespread support for them to be acquitted entirely, i.e. for hunting and attempted murder in revenge to be legalised.
How much violence do you want? That case I mentioned earlier...what do you think about that one? Do you want to be allowed to throw a burglar in a pit and burn them to death? Just where do you want the line between reasonable force and unreasonable force to be drawn? You claim you want it to be drawn in a far more extreme way than it currently is and the current law allows deadly force in some circumstances, so you must want a very extreme position. Hunting people and killing them in revenge, a good old fashioned lynching? Torturing people to death? Blood feud (i.e. killing family members and not just the person who wronged you in some way)? Where exactly do you want the line to be drawn?
make them count.
