Steve3007 wrote: ↑August 6th, 2019, 5:32 am
But it strikes me that the question of whether any given weapon (or other device, like a shield) is well suited for the purpose of self-defence depends entirely on the environment in which one lives. The greater the number of other self-defensive weapons out there the greater the need for one to carry a weapon oneself, and this is true even if all parties refer to their weapons as defensive.
Oh, that is clearly not true. The number of weapons out there bears no relation to the risks posed by them, except perhaps for accidental shootings (for which owning one's own weapon would do little to prevent). For example, if 50% of people owned firearms, but the rate of gun crime was very low, the other 50% would have little incentive to acquire their own firearm. It is the rate of gun
crime that spurs gun sales, not the mere rate of ownership.
I agree that it's hard to argue against self defence altogether. But it doesn't follow that there is a simple, unqualified right to the most effective means of self defence. Why? The main reason for this is that it's pretty difficult to manufacture an object whose only possible use is self defence.
That is true. But it is also true of almost everything else --- almost anything can be misused, including for criminal purposes, from prescription drugs to automobiles to computers to claw hammers. Do we ban everything that can, if misused, cause harm? Some will respond to this with, "But guns have no other purpose than to kill people." That is not precisely true --- they are also used for sporting purposes --- but sometimes killing people is justifiable, namely, in self-defense, which we agree is a "fundamental right."
But even the wearing of body armour is sometimes seen as an aggressive act. The guy who did the mass shooting in Ohio was apparently wearing it. So what's wrong with that? Clearly he's just trying to protect himself against attack, right? How could that ever be seen as a bad thing?
It is a bad thing whenever you're trying to protect yourself against resistance to violence you have initiated.
Claiming that it's purely defensive is irrelevant. Everybody routinely claims that. Just as everybody nowadays (it sometimes seems) routinely refers to their enemies as terrorists, draining the word of real meaning.
Throughout history people have sought to dehumanize their perceived enemies, by labeling them with all manner of odious epithets. Rarely do those epithets literally apply.
It seems to me that at the heart of any disagreements on this subject is the points from which we start. On this and other subjects you clearly start from the position of individual liberty and make various arguments to support your position that nobody has the right to impose losses on another unless that other person is an immediately demonstrable threat to someone else's individual liberty. On the subject of weapons, with both individuals and nations, this means that any player can arm themselves with essentially anything they want so long as that thing has a possible defensive use and so long as they claim their motive to be purely defensive. But we all know that in the case of nations the resulting arms race isn't generally regarded as desirable. Governments try to come to agreements to de-escalate. Doesn't it make sense to try to also do the same thing in the case of individuals?
The analogy doesn't quite work. Reducing the numbers of missiles, tanks, bombers, aircraft carriers, etc., may reduce the risks of war. Reducing the number of firearms will not necessarily reduce the risk of crime, for two reasons --- you will not likely be able to disarm the criminals; they will not voluntarily surrender their weapons, and we have no good information as to who has them and where they are. Secondly, even if, assuming the impossible, all firearms could be confiscated, the criminals would still carry on their depredations with other weapons, and a firearm would remain the most effective means of defending against them.
