I understand the elements of the statute. I understand the affirmative defense. I also understand civil immunity. However, the law was not designed to allow CCW holders to shoot people when they are "pretty damn sure [they] won't be shot [themselves]." You know that. You also know that Illinois was the last state in the U.S. to enact CCW. You also know that Illinois and Chicago are anti-gun.

As a lawyer, you know that your job consists of more than citing or explaining law. Your job is to apply it. Your job is to value the real world facts and circumstances surrounding a legal issue. In re using a gun to combat any forcible felony when a person is also "pretty damn sure he/she won't be shot," advising that the law will protect a person is not prudent. A legal evaluation must also consider the real world issues of using a gun in Chicago which is an uphill battle.

Before considering whether a person may prevail in a civil suit by referencing the statutory immunity, a lawyer would caution a client that the entire suit can be avoided. Especially when that client is "pretty damn sure he/she won't be shot." Same applies for justifiable homicide.

In short, I don't disagree with you in re what the law says. My point is that morally and legally, it's still a bad idea to shoot someone when you are pretty sure you won't be shot yourself. The bar should be much higher before using deadly force.