4 ms·

If you aren't physically strong enough to defend yourself then you shouldn't be able to defend yourself?

• paulryanrogers 2y ago
  Are firearms the only way for people to be defended?
  • nradov 2y ago
    To a first approximation, yes. Other means of defense either require significant physical strength, or are barely effective at all.
    • paulryanrogers 2y ago
      And yet so many societies function without personal gun ownership. Guns are more likely to be involved in suicides, accidents, and crime than to prevent or stop a crime.
      • Aerroon 2y ago
        That doesn't really matter, because you're taking agency away from people. You say that you know better and everyone should be at the mercy of the system. But the system isn't perfect.
        • paulryanrogers 2y ago
          People don't need firearm agency. It won't fix unresponsive governments. Gun ownership just makes society measurably worse to stoke fragile egos.
          • Aerroon 2y ago
            >It won't fix unresponsive governments. Neither will anything else. Ultimately it's your life and you're the only one that's going to have to defend yourself at a random time. If a crime is committed against you then you're just a statistic for the government. Nothing more.
            • paulryanrogers 2y ago
              Odds are carrying a gun means you and your loved ones are more likely to be hurt than saved.
    • poincaredisk 2y ago
      I live in a country with barely any gun ownership and I feel safe. I feel no need to own a gun, and neither does anyone I know. Are you sure this is not your cultural bias speaking?