What is so "wrong" about a castle doctrine?

Jambo's post is profound, to say the least. No one wants to see their neighborhood, city, apartment complex or place of employment become such a risk to safety and security that loaded firearms are the only safe and viable means of self protection, but facts are facts, and when someone is forcing their way into a home, vehicle or business in an illegal manner with the express purpose of committing a felonious act... and you KNOW the police/law enforcement is at least 5 to 13 minutes away from being able to respond in person... what other option is there?

As for arguments that there is a moral requirement to "do no harm", I'd say it extends FIRST and FOREMOST to those individuals that have made the conscious decision to forcibly enter a dwelling/vehicle/business in which they have no reason to be, and NOT primarily with those legally within those dwellings/vehicles/businesses.

Jambo might have concerns and worries about the state of society that has brought about a situation where he feels forced to keep a firearm handy for self defense, but I truly hope he doesn't let his mind dwell too long here. Mississippi enjoys one of the most well-defined "Castle Doctrines" on the books, for anyone wanting to look for one.

I quote the Mississippi Code of 1972, Title 97, Chapter 3, Section 15 (97-3-15), Subsections 3 and 4:

"(3) A person who uses defensive force shall be presumed to have reasonably feared imminent death or great bodily harm, or the commission of a felony upon him or another or upon his dwelling, or against a vehicle which he was occupying, or against his business or place of employment or the immediate premises of such business or place of employment, if the person against whom the defensive force was used, was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, occupied vehicle, business, place of employment or the immediate premises thereof or if that person had unlawfully removed or was attempting to unlawfully remove another against the other person's will from that dwelling, occupied vehicle, business, place of employment or the immediate premises thereof and the person who used defensive force knew or had reason to believe that the forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred. (...);

(4) A person who is not the initial aggressor and is not engaged in unlawful activity shall have no duty to retreat before using deadly force under subsection (1) (e) or (f) of this section if the person is in a place where the person has a right to be, and no finder of fact shall be permitted to consider the person's failure to retreat as evidence that the person's use of force was unnecessary, excessive or unreasonable. "

This is, and has been for more than 1,100 years, considered a basic and fundamental "common law" understanding of the primary importance to being able to feel safe and secure in our own homes and businesses against those that would do us harm or violence in any manner. Alfred the Great understood this when he first codified the Law in Saxon England, and King John reaffirmed this when he signed the Magna Carta in 1215, as did the Founding Father when they drew up the Constitution in 1787 and made such provisions for the same legal protection of rights and property as they saw existing in England at the time. This sentiment is basic to the established inherent Rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness and our understanding of all that stems from them.

While I understand your unease when thinking about what leads a society to this point, Jambo, I certainly hope you don't lose any sleep thinking about the nature of the right you are exercising by keeping that gun handy. We can talk about the "right" to keep and bear arms all day long, but the point everyone forgets about until they are facing a break-in or an armed assailant is the "obligation" you have as a husband and a father to protect your family, your property and your person from harm.