From Mr. Ritter himself. The use of firearms for survival or preparedness, either for food gathering or self-defense, is a perfectly acceptable topic. Bearing this in mind, I don't want to stray into what would be considered inappropriate discussion on what usually turns into heated topic.
Guns for hunting or shooting aside, I strongly believe in having a firearm for defending my family. After serving in different places around the globe with the Military, I have seen just how cruel and vicious people can actually get. I will never allow this sort of thing to happen to my family so long as I can draw breath. I do not condone violence unless there is no way around it. I have had to fire my weapon with lethal results in the line of duty and no matter how justified, I prey I will never need to do again. The raw fact of life is that it is more likely to have someone break into your home intending you harm than it is to survive a plane crash and have to live in the woods. This happens every other day in a large place. If someone broke into my home and there was any way to avoid taking life then I would, warning shot to scare them off, using non lethal force first etc. As always, the situation will dictate the action you take. Was the person armed or unarmed?? Was it a kid or a 300 pound brute monster intent on assaulting your wife?? Where I live, this sort of situation is worth preparing for as much as any other. I feel that if anyone disagrees then they simply need to NOT break in to my home and threaten my family.

Are there people on this forum familiar with Canadian law?? (police officers etc) If you follow the rules regarding escalation of force what exactly will the legal repercussions be for defending your family with lethal force? I already know what I will do if I find myself faced by this situation. As long as the people I care about are safe I will deal with everything else later, But it does raise a few valid points.