I beleive I'm as prepared as I can be against random stabbings or hammers. Also, I often carry a knife.
I'm genuinely curious about the benefits of minimally restricted gun ownership. In a game theoretic sense, theres only two stable power dynamics. 1. Nobody has weapons 2. Everyone does. Otherwise, the power dynamic is so skewed as to be trivially exploitable.
Since 1 is not possible 2 must be the only option.
Firearms are trivially easy to build with any machining experience. Takes a little more chemistry to make gunpowder. That said we've been doing it in far more primitive situations for hundreds of years.
If people want to kill you. Simply put, you are dead. Our focus should be on building a world where we dont want to kill each other.
But thats not actually what I asked. What are the benefits of minimally restricted availability of weapons or how do I find a "canonical list" of such benefits?
(also, option 2 is not possible either. What you propose is trending towards 2 has some scaling of benefit, and I believe the opposite: that removing as much as possible the possibility of gun violence will have far reaching de-escalating effects on police, politics, health, etc etc.) I just dont have a clear picture of how proliferation of guns helps to prevent gun violence except perhaps in the limiting, unobtainable case where everyone fears immediate lethal reprisal for any violent act?
"benefits of minimally restricted availability of weapons"? Seriously? There are over 2000 laws on firearm ownership over the US. It like there is a new law every time there is a shooting. In Maryland, if I want to purchase pistol, I have to take a course (min 8 hrs), pass a test, prove marksmanship ability, get fingerprinted, and pass a background investigation. This, to qualify for an HQL - Handgun Qualifying License. This is usually $150 or more for the training, plus $45 for the license, plus $55 for the fingerprinting. Then I can select handguns approved by the state of MD, which are on a list. Then I can order or purchase one from a licensed dealer, or an individual. Then I fill out additional paperwork, and another background check. BTW, if I have been convicted of a misdemeanor which might have a possible sentence of 2 years I'd be disqualified. MD laws are written such that almost any misdemeanor COULD cost you 2 years. When the firearm arrives, there is a 7 business day waiting period before you can claim it. Of course you have to pay for the firearm, so figure $350-$500 for a reliable firearm which hopefully will not jam when used in self-defense. At this point, you've spent $600-$1000 dollars to purchase a handgun. And you can only use it at a gunrange (public or private) or in your home for self-defense. You cannot carry it in your pocket. You cannot carry it in your car except to and from a gun range. and you can't carry it loaded then. This is what legal firearms owers go thru.
Gang-bangers in downtown Baltimore or St Louis... not so much.
I'd like to keep this conversation going. Maybe email me or find me on keybase from my bio.
I understand that regulation is enormously inconvenient for owners. But making it easy to acquire firearms isnt a benefit of more people owning firearms, its a prerequisite. I want to understand why people should own firearms at the level of scenario 2 above.
I'm genuinely curious about the benefits of minimally restricted gun ownership. In a game theoretic sense, theres only two stable power dynamics. 1. Nobody has weapons 2. Everyone does. Otherwise, the power dynamic is so skewed as to be trivially exploitable.