Responsible Firearm Use?

[genuinegirly]

This is a mimic thread for a political discussion that stemmed from a thread with a similar name in Tilted Weaponry:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/tilted-...earms-use.html

That thread's OP:

Originally Posted by Slims

YouTube - Real Gunfighter Lance Thomas on Justic Files

This guy was a watchmaker in LA who, following a string of nearby armed robberies/murders of fellow shopkeepers sought and was given a CCW.

He has since killed 5 armed robbers in his store.


Edit: I am deliberately posting this in Weaponry in the hopes we can avoid a discussion on politics and whatnot. Please try to keep comments objective. If you think he should have behaved differently feel free to explain, but don't get bogged down with the 2'nd amendment, how precious life is, etc..

A touch of the political discussion that began in that thread:

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

He is a killer who has ended 5 people's lives.

It is astonishing to me that even those who would claim he acted in legal self defence would consider the taking of human lives in this manner as something worthy of celebration and congratulation.

And I'm sorry - if you think that the destruction of human life is not an ethical question - you live in a different world to I do.

Originally Posted by FuglyStick

He is a killer who ended 5 people's lives, 5 people who had no respect for anyone else's lives, and might have taken other innocent people's lives. The man in the video is not mounting heads on his wall, he's just protecting himself, the right of any man. Don't come looking for sympathy for his "victims," because they're not victims.

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

They are also not trophies.

Originally Posted by FuglyStick

As I said, he's not mounting the heads on his wall. He doesn't come across as a braggart or a vigilante. He's a guy protecting his life. I'm not going to fault him for that, or accuse him of being immoral or a criminal. That's not what protecting yourself means.

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

As far as I can tell he is using lethal force to protect his property, not his life. If he handed over what the thieves wanted he wouldnt be shot. He has made a judgment that he considers his property to be worth killing to protect. The law in the US allows him to make such a choice - but for the original conversation - if we are going to talk about this the ONLY conversation I can imagine is a moral one... unless we are to talk about the fact he's a good shot?

I make my comment about "trophies" in the light of the perspective taken by other people making comments in this discussion. There are two comments which I specifically find incredible and unacceptable - 1, that the fact he has taken 5 lives is "awesome", and 2 - to speculate on the "saving to the tax payer" of thieves being shot down rather than having to be kept in prison.

There is a debate which I at least can comprehend as to whether this individual should have the right to kill the men he has to protect his property. It is incomphrensible to me that anyone should consider 5 killings to be something to be proud of or consider as an achievment worthy of merit. This is a terrible weight. For whatever reason you end a life, and whether you have the right or not, there is still blood on your hands and on your soul; even someone who has no choice but to kill or be killed.

Opening the floodgates here for continued political debate- have fun!

[Rekna]

sigh... Is it that time of the month again?

[filtherton]

I just want to say that the vast majority of instances of responsible gun use occur with nary a mention anywhere.

Other than that, the world isn't nearly simple enough to support the blanket notion that killing people who make you feel threatened is always the most responsible thing to do.

I'm sure that there are some folk who consider the recent shooting in Pittsburgh -where the guy ambushed a set of cops because he was afraid Obama was going to take away his guns- was responsible too. As far as this guy was concerned, Obama was clearly threatening his fundamental right to bear arms, which is surely just as sacred a right as the right to sell watches. He no doubt reasoned that Obama's policies would be enacted locally by his city's police department and preemptively struck.

This is not at all to say that killing robbers is never justified.

[Polar]

That is true. Rarely is it mentioned when someone uses their personally owned firearm to stop/prevent a crime. But it happens regularly.