All very true. And since an armed population is harder to repress than an unarmed population, I'm not even sure that a clear-eyed utilitarian would favor restricted gun rights.
Self-defence would also justify owning hand grenades, rocket launchers, cannons, nukes, etc. After all if you outlaw nukes, then only outlaws will have nukes, amirite? This really is a juvenile attempt at thinking about gun ownership.
Regarding guns for self-defense: there is a rule that empirically holds up very well, which is "metal attracts metal". Carrying a gun influences your own approach towards risk in such a manner that the possibility of having to use the gun increases significantly. Call it victim blaming, but good old "being careful" beats armament by orders of magnitude.
My father traveled throughout Africa for several years in the 80s, including active war zones, and he explicitly made an effort to not carry any weapons, knowing that this will force him to assess his own risk more seriously and make sure to choose only the safest possible routes. He met thousands of people and left without a scratch.
I'm not against gun ownership in any way, but self-defense is just a very flawed argument.
All very true. And since an armed population is harder to repress than an unarmed population, I'm not even sure that a clear-eyed utilitarian would favor restricted gun rights.
Self-defence would also justify owning hand grenades, rocket launchers, cannons, nukes, etc. After all if you outlaw nukes, then only outlaws will have nukes, amirite? This really is a juvenile attempt at thinking about gun ownership.
Regarding guns for self-defense: there is a rule that empirically holds up very well, which is "metal attracts metal". Carrying a gun influences your own approach towards risk in such a manner that the possibility of having to use the gun increases significantly. Call it victim blaming, but good old "being careful" beats armament by orders of magnitude.
My father traveled throughout Africa for several years in the 80s, including active war zones, and he explicitly made an effort to not carry any weapons, knowing that this will force him to assess his own risk more seriously and make sure to choose only the safest possible routes. He met thousands of people and left without a scratch.
I'm not against gun ownership in any way, but self-defense is just a very flawed argument.
Also, how does somebody go unscratched for years anywhere?!
Wealth and care and sufficiently constrained behavior work better than guns, sure. Said another way, guns permit a greater amount of personal freedom.
I want you to use that arguement after the criminals bust down your door...oh wait, you won't be able to because you will be dead.