Thus, this "judge and jury" thing is misplaced. If he had hunted down the robber that evening and shot him, then he would be a vigilante. But he didn't... his life, and the lives of others at the restaurant, were in clear and immediate danger, and he acted within the bounds of the law.
The big complaint about gun ownership is that it makes it easy for people to commit violent crimes, and yet here we have you saying that the robber's life was too important to end despite the circumstances of his death... embarked on a career of violence, willing and able to use powerful weapons to commit the violent crimes, a de facto felon by his mere possession of a gun during the robbery (he's 19, remember), etc.
I'm being told that keeping people like the robber from getting guns is important enough to disarm all of the 50 million handgun owners of America, but once he had the gun and commits the crime, he's too important enough to shoot.
Meh.
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
= new reply since forum marked as read