5 ms·

Obtaining, training with, and carrying a firearm are not "reasonable precautions" for a lot of people.

• rdl 16y ago
  I absolutely agree, for the average citizen of a first world nation who isn't at any particular special risk. However, when you face a credible death threat for your (principled, honorable) actions, you have the choice of backing down, running, or standing your ground. If you're going to stand your ground, it is prudent to be armed. During the Civil Rights movement in the south, Rabbi William B. Silverman stood up for the rights of blacks. Some racists threatened him and his children. Instead of backing down or running away, he got a .38spl revolver (and became a deputy sheriff), and drove his kids to school every day vs. having them ride the bus; no one touched him. From a practical perspective, is it a bigger sacrifice to change your name, give up your job, and go into hiding, or to spend a few thousand dollars becoming credibly able to defend yourself with a firearm?
  • jat850 16y ago
    Sorry, I didn't write very clearly in my post. What I meant to imply (and did poorly) is that many people, no matter what, would not be comfortable with the notion of picking up a gun in the name of self defense. You sound like you would, I know I would, but there holds a large body of people for whom that is just not an option they would pursue. Those with a doctrine of non-violence, turning the other cheek, etc., are the people I have in mind.
    • rdl 16y ago
      Definitely, those people exist. I would not advise those people to pick fights with terrorists.
• hugh3 16y ago
  I think those are more reasonable precautions than changing your name and going into hiding. However, owning and carrying a firearm is a great defence against muggers and burglars, but a lousy defence against assassins. The thing about gunfights is that the guy who shoots first has a huge advantage.
  • rdl 16y ago
    Generally the kind of people who act on fatwahs to kill people like that are not super ninja assassin masters, but actually fairly incompetent. Being alert (which is one of the main things taught in self defense classes) would be a huge advantage, but in a place like the home, being armed would improve one's chances substantially.
    • hugh3 16y ago
      You don't have to be a super ninja assassin master, you just have to be hidden. Even walking behind the target is good enough, especially if you're happy not to escape. John Hinckley Jr was neither particularly competent nor particularly sane, but he managed to shoot Ronald Reagan and not get shot himself despite the fact that Reagan was surrounded by quite a few armed guards at the time. And there was another president who got shot by some random bozo in a good hiding place, whom I shall refuse to mention because this is the internet and you just know it would immediately summon a horde who want to discuss their conspiracy theories. Basically, if I had people actively trying to assassinate me, the simple act of carrying a gun would probably only increase my confidence by a few percent.