I have gotten this question, or similar (more literate) examples of this line of thinking on several occasions. And I don't understand the thought processes that generate it.
"So my question to you Sir Had this been your son who committed an unthinkable and utterly unfathomable crime would you still be ok wil the use of and I quote 'Threat of force'"
(All errors, punctuation or lack thereof, and grammatical lapses in the original.)
And the answer is: YES!
If one of my loved-ones tried to commit an act similar to the one perpetrated by the Sandy Hook murderer, I would want him stopped- with deadly force if necessary- before he managed to harm even one innocent person. Why is that so difficult for some people to understand?
If a loved-one attempts a massacre of innocents, then I have already lost him anyway. I want as little harm to come from his actions as possible. In a case like this, the "least harm" comes with stopping the attacker as soon as possible. However you have to. No matter who it is, or "why" the attack was put into action.
For that matter, if I ever went berserk and tried to go on a killing spree, I would hope someone could stop me before I hurt any innocent person. If I am not innocent and am an immediate threat, then I need to be stopped. If my son or daughter is not innocent and is carrying out an attack, then they need to be stopped.
My desire for self-preservation, and for the well-being of my loved ones, does not trump my desire for the safety of innocent people.
This is also why I want to see any cop, soldier, drone operator, politician, or bureaucrat dead as soon as they initiate force, or give a credible indication that they intend to do so. It is why I will NEVER "support the troops" or honor "law enforcement".
No double standards!
.
