Quote Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars View Post
When it is just or absolutely necessary it is not evil. It is terrible that it must happen in these cases, but not evil. Then again, you appear to be a moral absolutist, so I don't think you'll agree.
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.

Quote Originally Posted by Ariovistus Maximus View Post
Flawed logic.

When you give cars to the general public, people get run over.

When you give cars to law enforcement, people get run over.

When you give cars to the military, people get run over.

Somehow the fault is the cars?

Doesn't this suggest to you that people are bad and they will ever be harming each other regardless of the hardware they use?
Seriously? Guns, particularly handguns, have only one purpose; it isn't to help you compensate.

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.
Guns don't protect people, body armour does.

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.
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.

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.
Kill a killer and you become what you kill.

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???
No, but don't pretend you're morally justified, or you won't have night mares about it.