Here’s an interesting viewpoint on what the author calls the Luxury of Self-Defense. Excerpt:
The most fundamental unalienable human right is the right to self-defense. This would seem self-evident, a basic understanding for all rational people. After all, if individuals do not possess that right, the consequences are obvious—and brutal. If one doesn’t possess that right, what other right matters?
How is it then, that many citizens of the United States of America, circa 2015, do all they can to not only deny the existence of the individual right to self-defense, but labor ceaselessly to deprive individuals of the most effective means and methods—arguably, concealed handguns–of defending their lives? Are they merely deluded, oblivious to reality, or is their stance intentional, a means to an end? How is it such people are accorded positions of honor, leadership and respect among men when they are working to deny men the very right that makes the continued existence of men—and which constrains governmental power—possible?
In large part, it’s because of emotion.
Granted there are irrational arguments on both sides of every issue, every time, but in this case there is a huge dichotomy. What examples the opponents of concealed-carry were able to muster were examples of criminals misusing guns, not people who went through mandatory training and background checks to get a concealed-carry permit.
The right to self-defense isn’t a luxury. It’s a natural right; a right that we have by nature of being moral agents, moral actors in a moral society. It’s something that must only be taken away for cause, and only for a compelling cause – only when an actor has made the decision to act in a way that causes harm, never because there is some potential that an inanimate object owned by that person may cause some harm at some point.
Acts count. Potential does not.