John, you make your point. It's the balance that disturbs me. Watching PBS last night of the split-second decision-making of an American soldier in Baghdad describing his responsibility to protect and kill while being fired upon was hair-raising. He was ready to blast one group and held his fire realizing it may be gawkers (it was) and then nearly held off too long when a RPG poked into view.

I agree entirely with your view of civic responsibility but that's not the world we live in. Thirty-odd people in a tenement watched and heard Kitty Genovese being murdered and said nothing. An university administration and faculty had a killer on campus and did the wrong thing. The police society delegated to keep civil order to replace vigilantes appeared timid of return fire.

This is not to denigrate police officers as much as to question their professionalism, their training for these circumstances. Nor do I express an opinion here on what another society, state or neighbourhood chooses concerning gun laws. I do have reservations about the killer acting differently if he thought he would face return fire or that vigilantes are the answer.

I think of that decent responsible American soldier in Iraq, consummately trained to protect and kill, who lived but could have as easily died doing the right thing, as it so fortuituosly turned out. A very brave man. They are in short supply. Canada does not approve of vigilante action or armed citizenry because on balance it's better to delegate killing to professionals trained to accept the responsibility.

Warm regards, King