> let people have *reasonable* access to firearms and legal recourse in their use to defend themselves and property.
That sort of implies that we don't go Oprah on SF where everyone and their mother gets a gun. Reasonable access means that you have to meet certain conditions, like not be homeless, have an id, have no criminal record, e.t.c.
I suspect folks would be less brazen with hitting you over the head with a metal pipe, like with the SF gentleman from last week, if they knew that the median SF resident was ready and able to put a few holes in them in response.
Some argue that it's inhumane to be armed when you're assaulted by someone who doesn't have full control of themselves and isn't responsible for their actions. But folks also don't deserve to die just because someone has completely lost it and is now in the process of beating them to a pulp.
Right now you’re a sitting duck, hoping that it’s someone else’s turn to get stabbed today. Ultimately you either empower law enforcement, which is not happening, or you empower law-abiding pro-social citizens, which is also not happening. The only options people have left are to either suck it up, or move.
First, "solving" homelessness is wishful thinking - it can't be solved given the modern political climate, because on some level it would be accepting that some people should not have agency for running their own life, and need to essentially be made to comply to a set of rules to prevent them from self destructing. Good luck with that.
The best thing one can realistically hope for is inverting the opportunity cost committing crime the other way, where its generally more favorable not to steal. If homeless people can be shot by security guards for shoplifting, its almost guaranteed that you would see crime statistics reduced overnight. Homeless people would be more incentivized to pursue lives closer to normal.
