Colion Noir is IMO one of the smartest 2A advocates out there. Check out this video where he pretty much sums up the argument for armed self-defense by citizens.
Of course you are -- you are the only person you know will be there when you need to defend yourself.. Plan accordingly.
I can see where he's coming from, especially in the context of that specific crime, but I'm not convinced he's presenting the slam-dunk answer to the problem (I don't think there is one). While gun laws certainly don't guarantee to prevent criminals getting guns, they're generally going to make it more difficult and less common. Also, guns used in crime can often be legally owned and carried (right up to the point they're actually used illegally, intentionally or not). More relaxed gun laws may well given innocent people more access to weapons for self defence but it could also make it more likely that they'd need it. Another issue is escalation. As the video rightly points out, these criminals used those weapons (despite the additional legal risks of doing so) because it would give them an advantage over their victims. If they expected or knew the victims would be armed, the criminals could just escalate further, carrying more powerful weapons and being more willing and prepared to actually fire them sooner. The video also points out that some people are incapable of fighting off attackers or even running away but some people are also incapable of carrying or using firearms too. I don't know how much relaxation of the laws are being proposed here, but there are all sorts of categories of people who aren't permitted to own or carry a gun (felons, the mental ill, children etc.), some of whom probably should remain so. There is also a big question of legitimate non-citizens, particularly short-term visitors. As I say, I totally see where the video is coming from and he raises some valid issues but I'm not sure there is any easy answer to this issue (that'd be why it's such a long running one). Also, I can't help wondering if Americans have any concerns that they're apparently in the situation where it is a relatively reasonable suggestion that every citizen needs a firearm to defend themselves from criminals?
If only someone had written several paragraphs explaining why gun laws aren't the be-all and end-all either way and that reality is too complex to be addressed with either of the simplistic "No guns!" or "More guns!" positions.
