Florida's "No Retreat" Bill Ready for Gov's Signature

It's a good damn thing, too. Why should I have to retreat? Different situations call for different reactions, but I should have the option of using deadly force if my life is in danger. I don't want to get shot in the back running away! The requirement that you attempt to escape was ridiculous, anyway. How do you define an attempt to escape? Do you retreat two steps and then fire? I'm not sure how the law is in my home state of Indiana, but I'd guess we have similar rights here. We do have the right to use deadly force in defense of our property, which is much more extreme than Florida's laws. The opponents of this bill are just being ridiculous. They suggest that it will turn Florida into "the O.K. Corral." It shows very little thought on their part. This law will not grant criminals any more rights than they already have. It only pertains to self-defense. What's wrong with empowering law-abiding citizens to protect themselves? Apparently liberals view using deadly force in self-defense as murder. A crime separate from the crime the criminal committed to provoke self-defense in the first place. They believe the violent criminal should have the opportunity to be rehabilitated and become a productive member of society, even if it's at the expense of your life. After all, liberals are moral relativists. They value the lives of the innocent the same as the guilty. What confuses me most is the fact that they often lie or spin the truth to advance their cause. Take, for instance, the study conducted by doctors Arthur L Kellermann and Donald T Reay ("Protection or Peril?: An Analysis of Firearm-Related Deaths in the Home," New England Journal of Medicine, 1986.) They came up with the much touted "43-1" ratio, where they suggest you are 43 times more likely to shoot a family member than an intruder. The problem with their study: a majority of the 43 deaths to which they refer are suicides! They failed to differentiate between potential "high risk" gun owners (alcoholics, convicted criminals, etc.) and normal citizens. They also drastically under-reported the cases of self-defense. They didn't account for the murder convictions that were over-turned on the basis of self-defense, or cases of self-defense that didn't result in a homicide. If they were being dishonest, then what is their motivation to promote gun control in the first place? Why believe in it, if you can't even present honest facts to back up your claim?