Guns should be legal for home defense in the U.S.

There is a fundamental right to self-defense Con agreed with my contention but argued, citing Mill, that it better justified by the principle of liberty. For the purpose of the debate it doesn't matter how the contention is affirmed, it is enough that we agree that there is such a right. Mill's claim “[T]he sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection.” supports my contention. But I'm not sure that Mill even disputes the origin of the right. If the right of self-defense derives from the principle of liberty, we then ask why the principle of liberty ought to be valued. I think there is no answer other than that it derives from the nature of mankind. For example, If bees somehow became intelligent, they could not honor a principle of liberty. That's because no bee can survive without the community of the hive. Humans have moral obligations to self, to family, and to community and that make human morality subject to conflicts. Con challenges the right of self-defense by posing a conflict between survival of the self and survival of the family. Con is correct that a conflict may exist. With some sci-fi imagination, one can hypothesize a conflict between the right of self-defense and the survival of the entire world. We don't have to resolve these extreme moral conflicts because, for this debate, we are only considering the case of self-defense in the home. The question is whether a person has a right to defend himself and his family against intruders, and Con's objections do not undermine the fundamental right to defense in that situation. Con poses situations wherein lethal force is not justified because the offense against the person is trivial. Indeed, you cannot shoot a girl who threatens to throw an egg at you. But you also cannot strangle her, club her to death, or run her through with a sword. Laws vary by state, but lethal force cannot be used unless a reasonable person in that situation would believe he was in imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. [16. http://www.cnn.com...] There is nothing special about guns in those situations, the law always applies to the legitimacy of self-defense. Many states make a special case for home protection called the “castle doctrine.” The Florida statute, for example, says that it is reasonable to fear great bodily harm if: The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, ... [17. http://www.leg.state.fl.us...] But again, it doesn't matter whether the weapon is a gun or sword or a baseball bat. A castle doctrine puts more fear into criminals because they know that a homeowner can shoot them without having to argue whether they felt in imminent danger. Many states passed castle doctrine laws after 2000. The effect was that property crimes and burglary rates decreased, and violent crime overall decreased as well. [14. op cit p332] Background checks are consistent with a right of self defense Con references a claim made by “Poetaster” that implies background checks are those in the Brady law. However, I made no reference to the Brady law. I only said that firearms should be subject to reasonable background checks and training requirements. I agree with Con that the Brady background checks are excessive. The check on mental competence should be limited to whether the person has been judged by a qualified profession to be unstable to the point of posing a threat to himself or others. A person may have a serious mental condition that poses no threat. Persons convicted of felony are reasonable restricted because recidivism rates are very high, as high as 80%. The reason for denying convicted drug addicts is not that, in most cases, the drug directly causes mental instability. It is because disputes between addicts and illegal drug dealers often turn violent, and because addicts often support their habit through crime. If a particular drug does not pose such dangers, then there should be no restriction as a consequence of it. Prohibiting these classes of people from buying guns will have little effect on them actually getting a gun if they want one, because guns will always be available illegally. What it accomplishes is that it enables a person with a violent mental condition or other cause to be arrested if they are found in possession of a gun. That's a reasonable protection for society against future crimes. I also called for a gun safety training requirement. Many localities allow online courses like the one for the District of Columbia. [18. https://dcfst.mpdconline.com...] That is suitable. They cover the basics. Rep. Nancy Pelosi showed and AR-15 to her colleagues by pointing the gun at people with her finger on the trigger. Basic safety is that you don't do that even if you are sure the gun is not loaded. Con argues that my position is incoherent because I am arguing that self-defense is a fundamental right, but that it is acceptable to limit the availability of guns to the mentally unstable, convicted felons, and those who buy illegal drugs. I agree that there is no unlimited right, but that's true of all rights. We have a right to free speech, but we still have laws against fraud. What it means to be a fundamental right is that the restrictions ought to be as few as reasonably possible, and that the prejudice in evaluating restrictions ought to be in favor of supporting the right. Law-abiding citizens are careful Con set up the example “Consider: you are sitting outside your house with a gun, as I imagine you Americans enjoy doing, and a little girl approaches you holding an egg...“, and he asked, “How many eggs must be thrown before you can shoot her, Roy?” The strait answer, of course, is that lethal force cannot be used unless it is reasonable to expect death or great bodily harm. Still, Con is implying that Americans are casual about shooting people. That's reflecting a James Bond stereotype of having a license to kill and using it promiscuously. Oh wait, Bond is British. But you get my point. The background checks for concealed carry permits are generally slightly more stringent than I have proposed, but they are comparable on average. About five million Americans have concealed carry permits. Lott [14. op cit p 332] summarizes: From 1990 through July 2008, [Lott] found twenty-three cases where a permit holder committed murder with a gun (twenty of those cases resulted in convictions, and in the other three murderers died at the scene). … [This] amount[s] to slightly more than one murder per year. Permit holders committed murder at 1/182nd the rate of the general public. Michigan has more violence than average, so it is an interesting case. Six years after new rules made it much easier to get a license to carry concealed weapons, the number of Michiganders legally packing heat has increased more than six-fold. But ... The incidence of violent crime in Michigan in the six years since the law went into effect has been, on average, below the rate of the previous six years. The overall incidence of death from firearms, including suicide and accidents, also has declined. [14. op cit p 234, quoting an article in the Detroit Free Press] A concealed carry permit allows the gun owner to be in many situations more difficult to evaluate than when a criminal is breaking into a home. The supposedly gun-happy citizens show remarkable restraint even in those cases. The US has a significant criminal class that use guns as part of their crimes. Criminals are not affected by gun laws and don't worry about legal requirements to buy a gun. A legal prohibition only suppresses the ability of honest people to defend themselves.