People who don’t understand the difference between justified killing, and murder, you cannot reason with them. They simply must not be allowed to hold positions that can impact such decisions.
It’s society’s duty to protect the innocent from the guilty and when the guilty take another person’s life, society has a duty to ensure they an never do it again. Murder someone, you forfeit your right to live. Kill someone defending your life they are trying to steal from you, THAT is not murder (and no this doesn’t make thieves or murderers ‘defending themselves’ trying to defend their lives from police).
Are you recommending vigilanteism, or do you actually mean nothing else but government when you say, "society?"I make the point only because using "society" as a euphemism for government is a classic leftist ploy. Not that your post seems at all "liberal" substantively, but it's a pet peeve of mine. If I were making rules for the House of Representatives, it would be a point of order never to allow the use of the term "society" when nothing other than government is meant.
In the runup to the 2000 election, Democrats criticized the health care expenditures of "Texas." Bush gave the figure for how much money was spent in Texas on health care - i.e., how much the hospital, doctors, etc. of Texas were paid - but the "liberals" wanted to restrict the discussion to how much the State of Texas spent.If you say, "society should feed the children adequately," that is undeniable. If you say that the federal government should feed the children, you are saying that the children's parents have no responsibility for their nurture - and that is a different statement entirely, and one which many would dispute vigorously.