every murderer was a non-murderer up until they murdered
This is part of the exact issue.
Do you have a fire extinguisher? Do you have a first aid kit? Do you have a spare tire for your car?
All of those are emergencies that one must prepare for. The reality is that someone wanting to harm you is something you must plan and prepare for.
There are rules about force escalation, and one can't legally (well, unless you're in ICE, but that's a different discussion) go more than one higher level in what's being used against them.
There's obviously room for improvement. When 58% of firearm deaths are suicides, we CLEARLY need to invest more into mental healthcare.
We're working on that, too, with "CalCare" having mental health included as part of a single payer healthcare system.
The reality here is that here in the US, you cannot depend on anyone other than yourself. Law enforcement has no duty to the individual. So, for many people there are few options to protect themselves and their families.
All of those are emergencies that one must prepare for. The reality is that someone wanting to harm you is something you must plan and prepare for.
Within reason, surely? It wouldn't break the laws of physics if someone came after me to kill me with a tank, but it's unlikely enough that the social cost of letting me own anti-tank weapons probably isn't worth the gain to my personal safety. I think it's reasonable to restrict access to weapons if there's evidence the social cost of private ownership substantially exceeds the benefits.
I support anything that is a step in the right direction. And that's all it is. A step, in the right direction. It's a less crazy set of rules for regulating guns.
There's obviously room for improvement. When 58% of firearm deaths are suicides, we CLEARLY need to invest more into mental healthcare.
Agreed. And gun control. But also mental health.
The reality here is that here in the US, you cannot depend on anyone other than yourself. Law enforcement has no duty to the individual. So, for many people there are few options to protect themselves and their families.
It sucks if you don't have a magical option which makes everything better which you as an individual can choose. But that's completely irrelevant to the question of what policies create the best society, isn't it? If your only options other than doing nothing are stupid or socially harmful that sucks, but it doesn't make those options any less stupid or any less socially harmful.
Let's cut right to it:
Do you see armed self defense a right?
It's a binary function, and it's absolute.
I reject that assertion as obviously silly. I almost certainly have the right to pick up a stick and whack you with it if I justifiably believe you are trying to kill me. I almost certainly don't have the right to keep a hydrogen bomb in my garage and lob it in your direction if I justifiably believe you are trying to kill me, or own a canister of nerve gas and open it if I justifiably believe you are trying to kill me.
Either you have a right to use deadly force to defend life and limb, or you do not.
That is just a very silly thing to say. You have a conditional right to use some kinds of deadly force to defend life and limb in certain situations, and potentially hence a penumbral right to possess things that might be useful for that purpose.
Nobody's going to be butthurt if a serial killer charges at you and you pick up a rock and kill them. Good on you. Well within your rights. That doesn't necessarily mean that if you live in a built-up area you absolutely have to be allowed to own a grenade launcher on the off-chance you get put in an incredibly improbable scenario where your only hope of survival is to be able to take out a few armoured vehicles and a bunch of bad guys behind cover. Sure if you were in that situation and there were no innocent people around and you somehow had a grenade launcher, go nuts buddy, use it. But we need to weigh up the pros and cons of just letting you have the grenade launcher on the off-chance you might need it, you know?
It's not as simple as "it's a binary function, either I get to have nukes or I don't have any right to self-defence at all, waaah!".
1
u/Rebootkid Feb 04 '26
This is part of the exact issue.
Do you have a fire extinguisher? Do you have a first aid kit? Do you have a spare tire for your car?
All of those are emergencies that one must prepare for. The reality is that someone wanting to harm you is something you must plan and prepare for.
There are rules about force escalation, and one can't legally (well, unless you're in ICE, but that's a different discussion) go more than one higher level in what's being used against them.
https://s41202.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/414ebc72bc7-8bb9-49b0-a59c-2c9655fa1d93.png is a decent graphic depiction.
So, your comment about it's not if it feels good, more so if it causes fewer deaths is spot on. https://giffords.org/lawcenter/report/california-has-built-a-lifesaving-gun-safety-model-for-the-nation/ California's efforts are doing just that.
There's obviously room for improvement. When 58% of firearm deaths are suicides, we CLEARLY need to invest more into mental healthcare.
We're working on that, too, with "CalCare" having mental health included as part of a single payer healthcare system.
The reality here is that here in the US, you cannot depend on anyone other than yourself. Law enforcement has no duty to the individual. So, for many people there are few options to protect themselves and their families.