Lethal force is most times a last resort, but in some cases it should be a first. If someone has a gun trained on your family, or anyone else you have sworn to protect, you fire before anyone else has the chance. If someone has a gun on you and you have a concealed weapon, it’s best to wait it out and play the victim until the time is right. But basically if you or someone you are protecting is in danger of being killed, lethal force is okay in my book. It’s you or them right?
Deeper than that, it goes to the philosophy and the moral high ground aspect of it all. If you rush into someone’s abode and point a gun at them, and they shoot you, they had the moral high ground. Lethal force was reasonable, and in the eyes of the defender, completely necessary. The defender always has the moral high ground unless he has created a situation wherein his need for defense is based on previous offenses in which he did not have the moral high ground.
Killing someone should not be taken lightly… there are always repercussions… whether they be mental, retaliatory, or even as simple as missing your intended aggressor and hitting an innocent person. Shooting a gang member to save your family is almost a given, but the fact that he could be avenged by other gang members, is an entirely new problem beyond your decision to kill. There’s so many aspects to taking a life, that a simple pull of a trigger or twist of a knife is only the first chapter in most cases.
"When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson