Quote Originally Posted by MMI View Post
So, if we are mainstream citizens, do we take steps to protect ourselves? Yes, certainly. We can arm ourselves. Or we can stay away.

If we arm ourselves and walk into the lion's den, can we then be heard to say we are innocent victims?
There are times when walking near the lion's den is necessary. For better or worse, the main courthouse and police department in my town are adjacent to the worst areas, so anyone having business there must get close to those areas. Not enough to get paranoid about, but certainly enough to keep you on your toes.
And, as you note below, sometimes the lions come looking for fresher meat!

But what if members of the violent underworld go out looking for unarmed people to rob rape and kill? Should we be prevented from defending ourselves. To me, the answer is clear. No. You should not be prevented from defending yourself. In fact you may do whatever is necessary - but no more than necessary - to protect yourself.

It is legitimate to use a gun in self-defence where you are facing a threat to your own life, but if you use a gun where there is no threat to your life, then you have gone too far. Maximum deterrence is only appropriate in a few limited circumstances.
And once again, we agree. But how can someone who was not present determine whether or not a victim had a justifiable fear for his life?

And if you shoot an unarmed intruder by accident or mistake, you cannot claim self defence. All the more so if an innocent bystander is hit.
I'm not so sure about the unarmed intruder. Any intruder can be a threat unless he's physically incapable of attacking you. As I mentioned in a previous post, bare hands and shoes can do just as much damage as a knife or a gun, just not as quickly.
But hitting an innocent bystander is bad news all around, which is why gun owners must be required to learn how to handle their weapons, to minimize the risk of such a tragedy.

Furthermore, displaying a gun to an intruder is an implicit threat that you will use it, and this could cause him to legitimately fear for his own life, even if you do not intend to fire. If he shoots you first, he can claim self-defence and walk free.
If he attacked you on the street and managed to kill you, then he might be able to claim that you attacked him and get away with it. If he breaks into your home, or your place of business, he has already committed a felony, making him liable for all consequences.

But the possibiity of such an incident affecting any particular citizen is remote (and for most people it would never happen), and so widespead gun-ownership to meet such a contingency would be over-reacting.
This just seems counter-intuitive to me. It's like saying: The chances of falling down a flight of stairs is remote, so why bother with handrails? Or the chance of catching an STD is remote, so why bother with a condom? Regardless of how remote any possibility is, there is always that one chance. And I, for one, would rather be prepared for that remote chance than to have to explain to my children why I couldn't prevent their mother from being raped and killed by an "unarmed intruder"!

A balance has to be struck between the safety of an individual and what we call "the public good". We consider freely available weapons to be contrary to the public good.
Ah, the old "Kobiashi Maru" defense: The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Which may be admirable, unless you're one of the few.
And I, at least, am not promoting "freely" available weapons, but controlled, licensed and regulated ownership of guns.
And in my opinion, criminals having to worry about law-abiding citizens being able to defend themselves with deadly force is in the public good.