More armed citizens isn't the ultimate solution (people need mental and financial help) but it's better than the current situation.
[edit] A better situation would be if they cleaned this disaster zone up.
Getting a CCW is something you as a citizen can do now. Personally, I'm in favor of having an option other than being a victim.
Just because the city won't do the right thing - doesn't mean you doing the wrong thing makes the situation any better.
It just makes it different.
[1] https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/do-guns-m...
[2] https://www.thetrace.org/2020/04/gun-safety-research-coronav...
[3] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-...
[4] https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-thr...
> Results. After adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P < .05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P < .05).
Do you carry pepper gel or spray? A taser?
How does that work at locations like post offices or the VA, where it's illegal to carry just in the parking lot?
I think you may be replying to someone else, because I said no such thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
If the governments would do their basic job, the vast majority of law-abiding citizens would not need guns for self-defense. But our current governments are sadly unwilling to do their basic job.
If the government not only is not willing to do its duty to enforce the laws against crime, but even has the gall to claim that that's not the government's job, then all the more reason why law-abiding citizens will be motivated to exercise their right to keep and bear arms.
Except that stand-your-ground laws and easy concealed-carry look to make things worse:
Also, the pages talk about "homicide", but that term, at least as it's usually used in such general studies, includes justified self-defense homicides. So if total homicides do in fact go up as a result of these laws, that could be because criminals who would have gotten away with their crimes before the laws were passed were instead killed by their intended victims in self defense. That's not a problem, it's exactly what the laws are for.
No. We should eliminate the cops (who have actively contributed to the current problem as a political protest to lobby for more control) and rebuild SF law enforcement as a non-monolithic function distributed in domain-specific units throughout local government (that component of the solution is not specific to SF, but SF is more accutely problematic than most places.)
Probably less of the total manpower directed to enforcing the law should be armed with firearms, an armed paramilitary force is not a universal solution, but there still should be armed enforcement.
Regardless of what happens with the police, again, law abiding citizens should have the option to defend themselves, especially since the police have no obligation to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
No, that's not their duty, either.
They are a paramilitary force lacking the civilian supreme command that, in the US, the actual military has, empowered by but not obligated to act to enforce the law, an independent and centralized power center.
If the cops have a choice of stopping 2 crimes or the crime happening to you, they're going to choose the 2 crimes. Presumably you and definitely I would choose to prevent the crimes happening to ourselves. Thus, self defense.