Death wish fulfillment (and then some)

Did you know there are four sequels to the movie Death Wish, that paean to vigilantism that makes Dirty Harry appear restrained? I knew there were at least two, and probably three, installments in this series, but five? I noticed this excess when I was leafing through my wonderful 800-page TCM Catalog (in association with Movies Unlimited) and came across the Charles Bronson subsection in "Action & Adventure." I think I may be forgiven for conflating two or more of these titles because, according to the catalog's descriptions, they all share the same storyline and other key elements [emphasis mine throughout]:

Death Wish (1974)
Original vigilante thriller that spawned a slew of sequels [you don't say] and "copycats" still packs a potent punch. Charles Bronson takes the law into his own fists when his wife is killed and his daughter raped by local toughs. ["Original"? Wasn't this a "copycat" of Dirty Harry?]

Death Wish II (1982)

Charles Bronson is back...and meaner than ever. His daughter's been assaulted [Again? Yeesh.], so once again he goes on a one-man vigilante spree against the crooks, rapists and muggers of the city.

Death Wish 3 (1985)

Crime-busting vigilante Paul Kersey (Charles Bronson) returns in the third action thriller, defending the terrorized residents of a New York apartment building from a horde of marauding gang members and blowing the punks away as only Bronson can. [Filling the breach left by law enforcement with all its rules and red tape!]

Death Wish 4: The Crackdown (1987) [The series graduates to "colon" level, indicating its seriousness!]

He takes the law into his own fists, on a one-man vigilante spree, blowing the punks away as only he can. Yes, Charles Bronson returns to the streets, and viewers of "Death Wishes" One, Two and Three know what that means! [I.e., you know what you're gettin', and no explanation necessary!]

Death Wish V: The Face of Death (1994) [And returns to a Roman numeral! Unless that's V for Vigilante . . . ]

Charles Bronson's Paul Kersey is back, this time returning to New York with girlfriend Lesley-Anne Down. When she's killed in the crossfire of her ex-husband's protection operation, Bronson hunts down the scum responsible in his legendary vigilante style.

So, I guess if these films have a "moral," beyond legal process being for pussies, it's that you shouldn't cross, get close to or even hang out with Paul Kersey. You'll be in for a world of hurt.

And, Chuck, I hope you've achieved the peace you denied (or supplied) so much street "scum."

Actually, there is a lot that could be said about vigilante "justice" and cinematic depictions thereof. Is vigilantism justified under any circumstances? Are nonjudgmental or even glorifying treatments of vigilantes and their actions, by their nature, pernicious? Do they reinforce or activate our most base instincts and impulses or, alternatively, provide something of a safety valve or outlet that could reduce the commission of acts of real-world violence or both, depending on the particular presentation or state of mind of the viewer? Does the appeal of movies of this sort reflect a powerlessness many feel in day-to-day life? Does the particular vigilante hero, say, a rape victim seeking vengeance against her attacker(s), make a difference? Was Pauline Kael fair when she excoriated Dirty Harry for its "fascist medievalism"?

Discuss. With me. I'm lonely. And unarmed. I promise.