There is a tension between the need to level the playing field and the need to minimize the harm potential.

For example, land mines, machine gun emplacements, and chemical weapons can be effective forms of home defense. An intruder would have access to the same equipment, but at least the playing field is level, right? However, an attacker would also be able to inflict astounding mass casualties in moments with this equipment.

On the other side, if the most effective self defense weapon available is a kitchen knife, the playing field is not very level, and a weak victim can be overpowered by an attacker or intruder. However, the ability to inflict mass casualty is greatly limited.

So, I don’t have a specific level to prescribe, but I would start the discussion by framing the decision as a balance between these two elements.

I appreciate the thought you've put into this, and I tend to agree. Ideally, a weaker person would be able to use a tool to provide self defense in the most limited way possible without causing harm or damage to anyone other than the attacker.

Unfortunately the tools we have currently aren't great at that.

> Ideally, a weaker person would be able to use a tool to provide self defense in the most limited way possible without causing harm or damage to anyone other than the attacker.

Landmines in the garden it is then. Hard to use offensively.

A shame if a child that accidentally threw a ball in your garden steps on them, or even just the overweight neighbours cat. Or a visitor stumbles on them duling a bbq. But such casualties are apparently a small price to pay for feeling safe.

Perfect use case for IoT mines and AI object/face recognition

Why would a hypothetical attacker wander through the garden anyway, instead of walking the normal path to the front door like a normal person? That face recognition will surely blow up the first pizza delivery person that has the misfortune of delivering to your house. I hope you tip well.