While the initiator is to blame for the situation each individual holds their own responsibility for how they respond.
Certainly not. If someone starst a fire in a theater, and a panic leads to a stampede, the only person responsible for anything that results is the arsonist - period.
Think of it this way, if a gunman entered a crowded room and shot some people, would it be acceptable to take him out with a grenade?
If he has body armor and is heavily armed, certainly. The context determines what the valid response should be.
I'd hate to see what would happen if a bunch of amateurs started firing in a crowded and smoky movie theater.
Whatever does happen, know that there is only one person to blame.
In short, would I want to spend every waking moment surrounded by people who are armed to the teeth for the highly unlikely offchance that I happen to be in a situation like this one at some point, and then hope that amateurs take him down without hitting even more innocent people in the smoke, darkness, and chaos?
You are discounting the effect that a society free of gun laws and fear of guns has on the decision-making of these sorts of people. Would he have bothered getting off his couch if he knew that many of the people in the theater were likely armed?
So no, you aren't arming yourself for an unlikely event, but helping make the event unlikely by arming yourself - in addition to promoting the easement of gun laws, and spreading gun education to reduce irrational fear of guns.
I wonder if government splitting up the companies that make the duopoly would improve things for the consumers.
So instead of having to pay the cost of two sets of CEOs, VPs, management, sales force, R&D, etc, we all now have to pay the cost of 4... 6... 8?
Why would a company want to continue doing business in your nation if you're willing have it ripped apart according to the whims politicians?
Seems to me that government intervention in economics is only worse than the free market when there actually IS true competition.
If there is no competition, but everyone considers the product to be great, what is the negative? In reality, everyone has their own opinions of what makes a certain product "great", so competition will exist. If Apple sells out to Microsoft, do you think the Apple fanboys are going to stick around? They will see that their beloved company has betrayed them, and demand will surge for something better.
"More software projects have gone awry for lack of calendar time than for all other causes combined." -- Fred Brooks, Jr., _The Mythical Man Month_