If you live in an actually civilized area, you shouldn't have to shoot people (or even brandish a gun at someone, or fire warning shots) in order to walk down the street without being harmed. That's pretty much the baseline threshold for living in a civilized area versus some kind of wild-west scenario where you barricade the windows and don't dare leave your home unarmed.

I can see that it'd be prudent to be able to engage in some self-defense in rare scenarios, but in a civilized area they really should be extremely rare scenarios. A functioning government and civil society to the extent that people aren't being regularly assaulted in the street isn't that high a degree of public order! I live in a large European city, and I certainly feel safe here without carrying guns (safer than I feel in most American cities).

It's a first world notion because that's part of being a first world country. We invest in infrastructure that provides protection. Self-defense has shifted to the much more efficient system where by individuals don't walk around armed because we pay into a system of government that provides both police forces and military defense.

The absurd idea that we all each take self defense into our own hands is just ridiculous, just as you don't build your own water supply, or generate your own electricity, or train to be a doctor just in case you get sick.

I can't imagine a more dangerous society where we all take self-defense into our own hands. It wouldn't be the first world if we did that. Let's not start spouting the gun toting nonsense here, the audience on hn is too smart to buy that.

Police are not there to protect you. Their job is to bring perpetrators to justice. If they are nearby, they may or may not attempt to stop a crime in progress, but they are not required to do so, and that does nothing to stop personal assaults that might occur. In the best case, they are purely reactionary, not preventative. In the worst case they are useless.

The military is not there to protect you either. Their job is to enforce national policy abroad, put down rebellions and repel invasions.

I agree that police and the military make us safer overall, on average. But they do not protect you personally. You can either pay a private security firm to defend you if you are rich, or you can defend yourself. There literally are no other choices.

In suburban and rural areas where they only show up in response to phone calls, I agree as far as police being reactive. But in urban areas police serve a preventative and direct-intervention role, which is one of the classic functions of "walking the beat". They're physically present at major squares and landmarks, and intermittently present through much of the rest of the city. I pass police officers pretty regularly when I walk to and from work, and I would guess most of the time (barring when I'm in a more remote area), I could get a quite timely response if I yelled for help.

The important part is:

> to come if you call them

That is very nice in the situation you described (e.g. someone is shouting threats at you, especially in the comfort of your house), but pretty useless in most other situations. Unless you have a police officer walking with you 24/7/365, when you find yourself in front of attacker, you may or may not be able to even call the police and when they arrive, they would only collect evidence around your dead body.

Yes, the attacker would be then removed from the society (usually only temporarily and only if they are found) and some possible new attackers would be deterred by the idea of being found. But before someone like that is convicted, they must perform or try to perform their first crime. Is this some kind of duty, if someone happen to be that first victim, to remain defenseless and sacrifice themselves? Also there are incidents such as road rage or crime of passion, when the attacker has no previous history.

PS: Even in the situation you described (guy making threats outside your home), the police may be, and often is, late, when the guy (or more of them) decide to get into the house. Calling the police and waiting for their arrival takes at least minutes. Unless you have a fortress, making a way into your house takes seconds. Recall the woman who had to shoot two robbers while still talking to 911 operator.

'Gun Toting Nonsense'? God this is absurd elitist bull - the type of drivel spouted from the mouths of people who assume the argument is already won by virtue of their 'superior minds'.

I'm guessing you live in a wonderful neighborhood with great police protection, low crime, and are not part of the demographic that is often targeted for assault. I'm happy you get to live your wonderfully enlightened progressive existence.

The rest of us will just become one of those statistics that happen when you 'offload' your rights, yes?

Of course you don't take your self defense completely in to your own hands - we live in a civilization so that we can organize and protect each other. But, ultimately, you are the only one who can ensure you stay alive. To think otherwise is pretty naive, or comes from a position of entitlement.

For the interest of full disclosure, I keep a firearm in my vehicle and one at home. My wife concealed carries. We live in a neighborhood with fairly regular home invasions, and even a few murders over the last few years. We plan on leaving as soon as student loans get paid and we can.

> The absurd idea that we all each take self defense into our own hands is just ridiculous

When seconds count, the police are minutes away. Unless you have your own private bodyguard, being prepared to defend yourself isn't ridiculous.

>The absurd idea that we all each take self defense into our own hands is just ridiculous, just as you don't build your own water supply, or generate your own electricity, or train to be a doctor just in case you get sick.

Then I suppose you also shun the idea of CPR or the first aid in general. That's what first world society has doctors for...

I find the mentality puzzling as well. It seems to confuse idealism for reality.

"X does not happen under ideal conditions, therefore, it is wrong/foolish to prepare for X."

I think the foolish part is advocating that as a solution, like people are doing here, by presenting them as alternatives to this governmental initiative.

As an individual, I should protect myself. But I expect my government not to rely on me, or my grandmother, having to learn how to shoot.