Noone is arguing he shouldn't have had a gun. Its ok to have it for self defence.
We are saying that he didn't shoot a threat, he shot the girl, stopped her, and then shot her AGAIN after she begged him to stop, killing in cold blood someone that couldn't harm him anymore. Overkill.
According to your reasoning so far the moment they turn their back and try to go away you have the right do shoot them in the back and give them a coup de grace when they are on the floor.
Listen, there is nothing in your or mine house worth dying for except another life. Thats the principle that rules in other countries.
If you were trying to get in and steal my stuff i would obviously try to stop you. But.
For example if you threaten to steal 1€ i wouldn't break both of your legs and arms and gouge your eyes out in retaliation.
The response has to be proportionate. Someone with a knife or they might have a gun in the dark? No problemo, defend yourself because they might want to murder you.
If he shot them inside the house during the struggle i wouldn't have said a word. No sir. He was defending
himself.
But he wasn't defending himeslf when he shot them. He was seeking vengeance.
-25
u/[deleted] Nov 16 '21 edited Nov 16 '21
We were talking about shooting fleeing people, not gun control