re: #49 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

Self-defense needs a lot of words to be clear. For example, does self-defense mean that you can respond to threats with lethal force? Does it mean that you should respond with a similar level of force? Can you be pro-active in self-defense and strike first against someone who is threatening you? Are there any restrictions on weapons permissible for self defense?

In my view self defense or defense of another (perhaps family member etc) is all about saving the health or life of a person. I don’t accept more than very mild force to defend property. Certainly not deadly force. And you will get no “Rumsfeldian” preemptive strikes justified from me. The weapons permissible must be appropriate to the task. Small arms at worst, I don’r expect to toss a grenade down my stairs or fire 100 full auto shots at a burglar LOL.

My definition is a conservative strict definition of self defense. Now you should define threat for me. Verbal? Pffft. Implied. Puhlease. Nothing worth mentioning.

Imminent and close physical harm as in bad guy with a knife coming in the locked bedroom door despite warnings? That’s very serious at that point. if I confront a bad guy with a gun in my hand and he turns and runs he will get away from me without a shot fired. I won’t chase anyone. If I ever kill someone I will be in need of help at length to deal with it as human with empathy. Even if it saves my own life as legit as can be found.

A decision to have a gun for protection need not be tied to specific statistics. I say that because I am of the opinion we are permitted to protect ourselves against events that are common in general but rare at a particular address. This goes with a critical caveat-Steps are always taken to avoid those things that can go wrong with a gun. But that right of access to an effective defense against an assault should not be denied IMO over accident or suicide statistics.