The United States was founded with the principle that (from a legal sense) the primacy of power and responsibility belonged to individuals, not government. The lack of connectivity between different societal groups allowed relatively peaceful interactions between groups, (unless you were a Native American or a slave, sadly).
From this framework, people (men, largely) were expected to provide for themselves and their families. Food, shelter, “retirement” (or putting provisions in place for old age), and yes, personal security from threats, both from other individuals and from any future possible oppressive government, as well as being responsible for being personally armed to repel foreign invaders.
In modern times, being armed either in or outside the home (or place of business) gives us a few things. It continues the principle of being responsible for one’s own personal security, rather than relying on societal pressures for bad behavior (!) or dependence on the timely and enthusiastic response of local law enforcement.
I think we would agree that part of the responsibility for firearms ownership is safe storage, mental and legal preparation for an event, and continuous training. With rights come responsibilities. Not everyone will choose to own a firearm, and that’s ok, each person should be allowed to make their own decisions.
Law enforcement efforts are reactionary, not proactive, the negative effects of which are exacerbated by out failed criminal justice system, the full fruits of which have been on display since the 80s, depending on who you believe.
Simple possession of a firearm does not make every (legal) defensive use a quick draw contest or result in a hail of bullets. There is a deterrence affect in locales where lawful weapons carry is legal. FBI statistics, depending on year, will tell us that “civilian” display of a weapon will stop a threat upwards of 93% of the time, without any shots fired. When the “civilian” fires a weapon in self defense, the average number of shots remains less than 3 (although trending upwards..) Law enforcement fires far more rounds per encounter, with the resultant display of (excessive?) force and possibility of downrange consequences.
There are people who would rather draw their weapon to defend themselves and / or their family than depend on the rationality of a person threatening them, who is statistically likely to be in an altered state of mind, mentally ill, or has been released from the criminal justice system un-rehabilitated (or any combination of these).
In a country that can’t even keep drugs out of prisons, as well as other failures to enforce public safety, trying to restrict firearms from being possessed by anyone is not a reality.
As the public failures to enforce existing laws continue to be documented and published, most citizens develop a jaundiced view of the law in general. I think it was societal and family expectations that reinforced morality, not laws, and substituting laws for morality is folly also, given who writes and influences the laws, as well as the tyranny possible by governments selectively enforcing laws.
As you say, everyone being armed does up the stakes, but it ups the stakes for the right group of people - those people who would prey on others.
I had a mantra I used to use, I would say with emphasis “And I would know this how?” But, communication depended on word of mouth trickle down, which was horrible, and I refused to accept responsibility for things I was not made aware of.
I am against digital implants for a variety of reasons, including privacy, but… The only valid case that I could agree to would be my complete health record, ESPECIALLY when my health record would no longer be stored in a data retrieval system. Can’t steal or spy on what’s not in the system.
Where I worked, the insurance companies that had payer agreements with the provider (clinic) had a contract that specifically called out which codes they would pay, and how much they would pay for it. Codes submitted to insurance for payment on claims that were NOT in the contract were denied, and then the ball rests in the providers court to deal with it.
I just bought my .net domain name from namecheap and setup protonmail. It's been a year but I'm still surprised that people think it's cool to have an email like [email protected]. It's like I'm a big deal or something.
I like protonmail enough to buy their first tier email hosting, which gives this ability.
And, if I find a better email hosting service, or roll my own, my email doesn't change, of course.
From this framework, people (men, largely) were expected to provide for themselves and their families. Food, shelter, “retirement” (or putting provisions in place for old age), and yes, personal security from threats, both from other individuals and from any future possible oppressive government, as well as being responsible for being personally armed to repel foreign invaders.
In modern times, being armed either in or outside the home (or place of business) gives us a few things. It continues the principle of being responsible for one’s own personal security, rather than relying on societal pressures for bad behavior (!) or dependence on the timely and enthusiastic response of local law enforcement.
I think we would agree that part of the responsibility for firearms ownership is safe storage, mental and legal preparation for an event, and continuous training. With rights come responsibilities. Not everyone will choose to own a firearm, and that’s ok, each person should be allowed to make their own decisions.
Law enforcement efforts are reactionary, not proactive, the negative effects of which are exacerbated by out failed criminal justice system, the full fruits of which have been on display since the 80s, depending on who you believe.
Simple possession of a firearm does not make every (legal) defensive use a quick draw contest or result in a hail of bullets. There is a deterrence affect in locales where lawful weapons carry is legal. FBI statistics, depending on year, will tell us that “civilian” display of a weapon will stop a threat upwards of 93% of the time, without any shots fired. When the “civilian” fires a weapon in self defense, the average number of shots remains less than 3 (although trending upwards..) Law enforcement fires far more rounds per encounter, with the resultant display of (excessive?) force and possibility of downrange consequences.
There are people who would rather draw their weapon to defend themselves and / or their family than depend on the rationality of a person threatening them, who is statistically likely to be in an altered state of mind, mentally ill, or has been released from the criminal justice system un-rehabilitated (or any combination of these).
In a country that can’t even keep drugs out of prisons, as well as other failures to enforce public safety, trying to restrict firearms from being possessed by anyone is not a reality.
As the public failures to enforce existing laws continue to be documented and published, most citizens develop a jaundiced view of the law in general. I think it was societal and family expectations that reinforced morality, not laws, and substituting laws for morality is folly also, given who writes and influences the laws, as well as the tyranny possible by governments selectively enforcing laws.
As you say, everyone being armed does up the stakes, but it ups the stakes for the right group of people - those people who would prey on others.