> The right to effective self defence is a natural right
I don't see how that's correct, defending oneself with something natural sounds OK though.
I don't see how that's correct, defending oneself with something natural sounds OK though.
Same situation. You are home. Should you be forced to engage the criminal with your bare hands knowing that if you lose the fight your kids will be murdered?
The context here is owning something to provide "effective self defense" - so where do we draw the line? Can I decide that only owning a gun is not enough against the other gun owners so I need something more effective?
GP's claim is this right justifies owning a weapon that can easily kill. That's far beyond "effective" in my view.
I think that's the definition of effective. Someone breaks into my home high on pcp, the most effective way to stop them hurting my family is killing them. Is that not a true statement? What is a more effective way to do it, knowing that failure potentially means the death of your kids? I'm not going to engage them with a tazer, there's the chance they will walk right through it, then what?
Anthony Smith, the current #5 ranked light heavyweight in the UFC is 6'4 and probably walks around at 230lbs. A guy on drugs broke into his house and Smith fought him and could not put him down. This is a guy that could defeat 99% of people on earth in a fight. I'm a big strong guy, Smith would absolutely murder me. Why would a normal civilian choose to fight a home invader with their fists when a more effective option is available? What if 2 people break in?
"Can I decide that only owning a gun is not enough against the other gun owners so I need something more effective?" I don't think firing a rocket launcher at someone in your house is going to be as effective as a firearm due to the potential for collateral damage. Also tanks play hell with my new wooden floors. Claymore mines are always a risk when stumbling around in the dark when the dog has to go outside. There is no other rational more effective choice than a firearm for someone defending their home provided they know how to use it.
If you're real argument is that no one should be able to kill someone else even if they are a home invader here to murder your family then Im not sure what to say. I guess I would like to know what you would do in that situation knowing what losing means.
It's fine to like and defend liberties often labeled "natural rights", but justifying them on the basis of their being "natural" doesn't tend to be a strong line of argument—while it does open up room for making jokes by intentionally confusing two senses of "natural", which one may as well since the word doesn't carry much meaning in the phrase "natural rights" anyway.