I will defend you whether or not I am armed, but some people don’t have the choices and fortune I do. For example, a paraplegic man in a wheelchair.
Those who want to carry firearms should be subject to more stringent rules, however, if they intend to carry a weapon that makes it so simple to be lethal. The people I know who carry firearms understand the rules, and live by them, so this shouldn’t be difficult for them. But why should we not create a negative incentive for those who do not live a life worthy of the privilege?
Is it a fundamental human right to own a weapon, particularly a firearm? That is the actual question at stake. It is certainly a fundamental right that a living being should be allowed to live free from harm.
We don’t extend this right to most animals or plants; should that enter into our discussion here?
We don’t create a world where we are free from disease, the infringement of that one basic right by bacteria, viruses, and problematic genetic. Do bacteria have the right to live free from harm?
We don’t seem to understand that ISIL is now fighting the way America did against the British, the way all freedom fighters assault a larger, more technologically advanced enemy who seems bent on their destruction. Should we allow ISIL the right to live free from harm?
Should I carry a gun so that I can fire on an assailant? Is it the only way to stop them? Isn’t an ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure?
Is this a question of escalation? That is, once we know people are armed, will there have to be a new way for criminals to assert their dominance over such a population?
Is is true, really true, that a mentally ill individual (not a criminal for whom the gains are reasonable) will get a gun no matter what they have to do? I could legally buy a gun to kill myself in those moments of doubt, but I don’t. My reason? It’s too much of a hassle. Anecdotal.
It’s a complicated topic, obviously.