Shopper guilty in tackling of man with gun at Walmart

[DetlefK]

128. Last post here.

I don't know where this reply would fit best, so I just put it here.



I believe that the community exists because humans living together is not a zero-sum game but creates synergy.
When joining a community, a human gives up freedoms but gets the security and resources a community of humans provides. The net-result is positive to the individual human.
It is my opinion, that one of those freedoms given up is the freedom to dispense lethality at personal discretion.
It is my opinion, that the freedom to dispense lethality at personal discretion is replaced with the role of the community to regulate and authorize lethality. You no longer have the personal authority to make the decision whether to kill somebody or not. The authority to make that decision does not lie with you personally, but with the community as a whole.
This is why I'm against freely dispensing tools which sole purpose is lethality against humans.
I have no problem with hunting-rifles, because lethality against humans is neither the intended purpose nor the main application.
I have no problems with sharpened sticks, rocks, knives because, while they are lethal, reaching lethality with these tools requires more effort and more luck on the side of the perpetrator, up to the point where the victim has a realistic chance at survival even if unarmed.
I have no problem with weaponization as a means of self-defense, provided said weapon doesn't provide an autonomy to the wielder that excludes the community from his decisions about lethality.



I am not against self-defense. I am against lethal weapons for self-defense because they can be abused most easily as tools of lethal offense. And that's why the problem of a "bad guy with a gun" hiding in the midst of "good guys with a gun" cannot be solved with more guns. If you add more lethal weapons to a population, you automatically create more "bad guys with a lethal weapon".
If a "good guy with a gun" kills a "bad guy with a gun", he will in general do so after the "bad guy with a gun" has already killed someone.
"Good guys with guns" prevent an escalation, but for the victim that has already been shot there is no difference. Dead is dead.

"Good guys with guns" are a stop-gap measure, not a solution to gun-violence.
"Bad guys with guns" and their victims are the price you pay for having the freedom to own a gun.
I am willing to trade my personal freedom to own a gun against a level of security within the community that makes personally owning a gun unnecessary. You obviously value personal freedom as more important than security.