No, because necessity is not justification. If you kill someone you are succumbing to necessity through weekness. You are allowed a certain amount of leeway under the law, but technically you should be able to resolve any situation without killing someone.
Seriously? Guns, particularly handguns, have only one purpose; it isn't to help you compensate.
Guns don't protect people, body armour does.Whilst, on the other hand, here we have hardware that can PREVENT innocent people from being endangered. Although, admittedly, it means that serial killers, rapists, and burglars run a higher fatality risk.
Necessity is necessity, doesn't make it right. If you have no options left but to kill someone, you aren't good enough, you should be better. That doesn't mean you don't have a reason to do something, it does mean you aren't justified.That's the very point of the issue.
You said it yourself: The last resort is shooting people. When there are no options left, his life or mine, we already have to come to grips with the fact that someone will die.
You said yourself that it's necessary, yet we shouldn't do it? Interesting.
Kill a killer and you become what you kill.So the very fact that it's necessary means that the alternative is probably that my own life will be snuffed out.
Difference is, I'm a law-abiding citizen promoting the general wellfare and contributing to society; he's out to do the exact opposite and is putting people in danger, perhaps on a regular basis.
No, but don't pretend you're morally justified, or you won't have night mares about it.When the only alternative is a different killing.
Somehow, because somebody has to die in this scenario, you're making it a "hitter's game" and giving the CRIMINAL the benefit of the doubt? Why should HE get all the advantages and lifelines when he's intentionally going out of the way to do harm to me and people like me???
Bookmarks