Is in the saddest state I have ever seen, the amount of shootings on a daily basis is frightening for sure. I own guns,we have a small cattle ranch in the Cascade range in southern Oregon and I do have need of firearms. In fact had to use one about a month ago when very ill cougar killed one of our goats and then came back over the next few days and killed several ducks and geese.. I do not get any pleasure at all in doing so but we do have several young grandkids living here and playing in the woods on our land. Normally a cougar will not come near the houses or barns but this one was extremely ill and apparently could not hunt in any normal way so he did what he had to do to attempt to survive...Except for that purpose I have little use for firearms but do need them for that..

When dealing with wild predator animals I can totally see it. But shifting to act as people in our society are wild predators is a break down of our society.

...a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation.

individuals can't count on them for protection and safety.

Why isn't this issue raised?

Or would the Police prefer self-help instead of doing their duty?

When the first problem is why do we need or even just feel the need to be protected by them when so many other developed countries don't have that problem. Poverty, lack of health care, and immediate access to guns is what I would say our problems are. Fix those and you fix a lot of the first stage problem then the second becomes moot. To quote someone else "Its just a thought".

There are things that can be done help limit access. UBCs for sure.

Bigger cities are expensive and lots of small towns aren't cheap either. There are good programs to help the very poor but the working poor and at the lower end of middle income range are having a very tough time. They are also most impacted by inflation.

Health care and health insurance are unreasonably expensive. My wife and I would have to pay $2000/month without the ACA subsidy.

to protect yourself from other people is either an indictment of you or your society. In other words carrying a gun is just replacing the fuse instead of pushing to fix society or yourself if that is the problem.

'The court has held that an individual has no right to expect individual protection from the police. Police are only responsible for society at large. Awful, but those are the facts. That means a person is ultimately responsible for their own safety.


"Though alarming, we simply have no affirmative right to police aid, even when a person, including a helpless child, faces imminent danger. We are all responsible for our own personal safety, whether we like it or not."


https://www.barneslawllp.com/blog/police-not-required-protect

Not going to open that one here.

since the beginning of time. Just the type of defensive weapon has changed. From sharp stick, to a firearm. "Society" isn't necessarily the problem, just the individual who wants something for nothing, and intends for you to supply the something.

patrol the "highways" to keep the peace. Does it work all of the time? Does anything? The opposite is for all of us to go to the lowest common denominator and all have guns. Empirical evidence all over the world show that doesn't work.

The saying, "When all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail." comes to mind. I don't fault those who do for preparing for the worst case but I believe preparing for only the worst case is short sighted. I think we could all benefit from more frequent risk and safety assessments.

I've said before, #26: "Your number one Option for Personal Security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation." Often it is best to harden the structure, present a less attractive and more formidable target or avoid that part of town. My unwritten rule is to always have an option. A lack of options leads to more desperate choices and those are never the best situation. That said, having a gun for self-defense isn't always a bad choice, it's just that the options between nothing and a gun shouldn't be neglected.

Not long after getting my guns I became involved in a situation that did quite a bit of damage to my house and could have led to possible injury or the loss of life. The other person involved was clearly on drugs. In a split second my mind considered if I should arm myself, thankfully I chose no and de-escalated the situation until the police and fire department could arrive. It would be easy to fall into that hammer-nail situation and choose wrong, the human mind does not work well at all in fight or flight situations and can easily perceive that there is more danger than there really is. Thanks for piping in discntnt, appreciate the conversation.
Eko.

...and can easily perceive that there is more danger than there really is."

Or that there is less danger. Either situation can be a big problem.

I don't have time for the kind of training that would have me practiced enough and develop the quick judgement needed for all that. I do still maintain that this is an individual decision that each should consider. But self-assessment is one of the real keys.

To know what you know and know what you don't know is the mark of one who knows. - Wise person that I can't remember.

IMO, Fukushima happened due to an incomplete assessment and poor planning.

No. Neither does going armed all the time. Nor does you paying attention to your whereabouts 100% of the time. Nor does "talking the guy down". NOTHING works ALL of the time. But I can't see denying someone's right to protect themselves to the best of their ability by banning a TOOL that they can use. If tool A is banned, and people turn to something else that could be deadly, then that's banned, etc. etc. etc...