I'm a little concerned about your post. No offense, I think I get what you mean and probably agree with you for the most part, but I'm concerned about the word you are using.
Instead of advocating self defense, you are using the word vigilante:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VigilanteA lot of people mistakenly claim that people advocating self defense are advocating vigilante behavior, and it can hurt the cause of those of us advocating self defense.
Many people in our society and government want us to be sheep, only protected by our great government. While we need a great government, both on a national and local level, with military and police to protect us from the many harms that may come our way, unfortunately, there are too many threats out there now that may require immediate action to save your own life, and those around you, before law enforcement can intervene.
Say person 'A' loses a loved one, and the perpetrator, or alleged perpetrator, walks free on a technicality, so person 'A' believes due process hasn't worked to avenge his loved one, so he tracks down and kills the alleged perpetrator. That would be an example of a vigilante. Another example would be someone arming themselves and going around looking for trouble, trying to find someone breaking the law and then hurting or killing them, doing away with due process of having them arrested and tried in a court of law, etc.
Whereas person 'B' is an advocate of self defense, and encourages those around him to be aware of their surroundings and help them be empowered with knowledge and tools, including situational awareness, home and vehicle security, evasive maneuvers, self defense skills, and possibly the proper and effective use of weapons for self defense, be they keys, mace, a stick, or firearm. This person, and those around him, may be more prepared to defend themselves if attacked, whether in their home, car, or out in public, or avoid the situation altogether. This person would be justified if they were to have to shoot at and possibly kill an intruder or anyone posing a deadly threat to them, or those around them. This to me is not a vigilante, but someone defending themselves.
While one could argue that it is frustrating to see criminals anywhere, in our case the Charlotte area, roam free with little or no consequences for their actions, and one might be tempted to do something about it. That's another debate about what you can ethically and legally do, but I just don't want anyone to confuse a person trying to protect themselves and their loved ones from danger, with someone looking to be a vigilante.
Make sense? Don't mean to be overly critical or picky, but I've heard people condemn individuals defending themselves as vigilantes, when that's not what they are at all, and I don't like to see that stereotype propelled, even unintentionally.
Take that pizza driver today, was robbed after delivering a pizza. Don't know all the details on it, but I believe they were armed with a gun(s), the pizza driver had his own weapon and fired on them, killing one of the robbers. Now, if this all plays out like it was originally reported, I believe he had a right to defend himself.
Example of everday people wishing you don't have rights to defend yourself: One of the neighbors in the area interviewed was saying on the news that the robber did not deserve to die, despite what he was doing. Some people think that if you are robbed with a gun, you should just give the robber what they want, and you'll be ok, and if you take action to protect yourself, that you are then a vigilante, not letting the robber get his chance in court etc. Problem with that is, the robber is posing a deadly threat by bringing a gun into the situation, and is essentially saying he is willing to use a gun on you, and it seems these days you hear numerous reports about robbers shooting and killing their victims, EVEN THOUGH THEY COMPLIED with the robber. So by these criminals setting this precident, it leaves law abiding citizens no choice, in my opinion, to treat every threat as a potentially deadly one, and if they have the means, defend themselves accordingly.
Example of companies not wishing you have the right to defend yourself: Same pizza driver, his company does not allow him to carry a firearm, even if legally allowed to do so by obtaining a state certified concealed carry permit. Don't know how this will turn out, but many other cases around the country have ended up w/ the person legally defending themselves, but going against company policy, getting fired a result of saving their own life.
Examples of government preventing you from defending yourself: While NC allows the ownership of firearms by law abiding citizens, and allows you to defend yourself in your home, or allows open carry in some areas, or concealed carry with a valid permit in some areas, does not allow someone, even w/ a valid permit, to carry into many areas, including restaurants that serve alcohol for consumption on premises, anywhere admission is charged (think movie theaters, etc.), schools, etc. Why can't we punish criminals for criminal behavior, and leave the law abiding citizens alone? By creating gun free zones, that criminals already intent on breaking the law will have no regard for anyway, they create areas where law abiding citizens can't legally arm themselves, similar to the company policy that should have prevented the driver from defending himself. Now, going against company policy is one thing, but going against the law is another, so most law abiding citizens will obey these laws to prevent getting into trouble, leaving large assemblies of people virtually defensless against an attack (think mall shootings and school shootings of recent months), where even with excellent response time by law enforcement, if there's not someone on the scene already prepared to defend themselves, many innocent lives can be taken.
I say all that to point out how important public opinion is about these topics, and that we don't want to project the wrong image by advocating vigilante behavior that scares a lot of people, but to point out how the ability to effectively defend ourselves and loved ones is paramount to the stability of our cities, states and country, so that we don't let the special interests drum up enough public and political support to further strip our constitutional rights away from us any further than they already are.
Regards,
Karz