Quote Originally Posted by Pelion
Quote Originally Posted by Renton
Obviously the pivot point here is whether the guns should exist in the first place. Either A) you take away guns, and America becomes safe like every other country that has moved on to the 21st century, or you B) allow guns and just accept that Mr. Gonzalez has the right to be an evil piece of shit from time to time.

You can't have both, and to be honest, I'm not sure under our current system if Gonzalez should have even stood trial.
Or C) You have guns which are useable as a last resort for self defense and if someone uses one to take justice into their own hands or for revenge or in any situation where it is considered to be unjustified you treat it as a crime.
You're ignoring the fact that this is pretty much exactly what the law says.

Here's the florida law, since its the one I'm most familiar with after taking god knows how many classes on it:

A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.

It goes on to define exactly what those forcible felonies are, but I don't think that's important here. Note however that the bolded area does NOT say "against themselves, their family, or any person to which they have a legal duty". It says if they see the imminent commission of a forcible felony ANYWHERE at ANYTIME, they can use deadly force IF he or she reasonably (and that reasonableness test is decided by the JURY) believes it to be necessary.

People most certainly HAVE been put in prison by a jury for violating the reasonableness test.

So in short, your premise is flawed.