I would like to have some insight into your thinking. The above wording is particularly alien to me.
Nearly all crimes of violence occur "before the cops arrive", so using it as a qualifier makes no sense to me. Please explain.
"Justify their actions in court, if caught" seems to imply that people who defend themselves would attempt to evade the police. This is exactly opposite to the American experience, where non criminals involved in a deadly force incident nearly always immediate call police. In fact, in a large number of the cases, the police have already been called and are on their way when the individual is forced to use a firearm to defend themselves or others.
It is true, that when the mere presence of the firearm defuses the situation, the criminal runs away, and no shots are fired, many citizens do not bother to report the situation to the police.
In the United States, there is a saying "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away".
"before the cops arrive, and then justify their actions in court, if caught?"
I would like to have some insight into your thinking. The above wording is particularly alien to me.
Nearly all crimes of violence occur "before the cops arrive", so using it as a qualifier makes no sense to me. Please explain. _________________________________________
"before the cops arrive, and then justify their actions in court, if caught?" - It means that in most western countries, self-defense & self-protection are Not denied, when attacked.
But, in most Western countries, the "right" to take the law into their hands by being armed is not a given.
IOW, in most western countries, unlike the US, it is not pre-empted that people should have the "right" to own guns to possibly defend or protect themselves in the case of an attack. Nor, more specifically, to own & use guns as a deterrent against potential criminals.