Guns are certainly not intended to defend, that is anthropomophizing guns which you didnt do with the cars, false equivalence. Guns are for neither offense or defense- in fact its non-sensical to state they are soley for defense as you cannot have defense without offense, the terms inhere in one another, offense haunts defense as it were. Guns are weapons- both offense and defense, they are violent instruments by the very definition.
The use of force is justified in many instances, there is no peace without violence nor the inverse, however, the idea that guns are needed in the manner in which they are currently manifested in the states is not in line with that. There is obviously a spectrum here.
If guns were ensuring safety, surely the crimes rates would reflect this? that would be one variable.
There is a point where saturation occurs and instead of providing safety they produce the opposite. Look at capitalism- it is a method for wealth accumulation however, unchecked capitalism turns into extractivism that removes resources from the environment and collects that "wealth" in the hands of the few while conditions for the lower classes continues to deteriorate- its the inherent design of capitalism. Guns do the same thing and I think the stats bare this out quite clearly.
The other issue with your rape scenario is that the weapon is meant to level the playing field- ie the man is no longer stronger than the woman per se- however, if the man has the gun also, this levels that out and then rape becomes subject to opportunity and chance. The woman would have to be hypervigilant, always ready etc...
I don't deny some form of defense is warranted I just think free and unfettered access is culminating in some dangerous situations. What is to stop a lunatic right winger from retaliating now? shouldn't law enforcement be up to the police?
Nothing is perfect so and this is a complex system so the results should be the dictate.
There's some confusion here (perhaps due to my wording) that I'll try to address, along with acknowledging the points of yours that I agree on.
First point being, I am not anthropomorphizing guns. I am not assigning any human qualities to them. They are
tools which serve a function, as are cars. I said that guns defend us (and cars transport us), not that their sole use is to defend.
I agree with you that they are violent instruments which can be used offensively and defensively, but my point is that a gun being a weapon by definition, and the intended use of one being to cause harm, does not undermine its utility in society when there's a legitimacy to violence in defense of rights. In other words, the fact that it is a weapon is not a flaw but the reason it has value.
On your other points I largely agree, in that I do not deny that free and unfettered access is culminating in some dangerous situations, and that there are very real and significant trade-offs that come with an armed citizenry. This is what I mean by it warrants careful consideration.
To your counterpoint about the hypothetical rape situation, it's not that self-defense rights
guarantee an opportunity to resist, of course they don't, but it increases the
possibility of resisting. Vulnerable people already live in a state of hypervigilance. A woman being armed in this situation means that she's hypervigilant with an option, at least. Yes, the man could also be armed, but the woman's access to a weapon means that the outcome is not a foregone conclusion as it would be if she were unarmed.
I initially approached this from a different point of view when I was younger, and I too am irritated by the gung-ho Coach types who make gun ownership a core aspect of their identity and have grand fantasies of taking on a tyrannical leftist government. On the question of one's inherent right to self defense and the fact that this is often only realized by being armed, however, I cannot easily move past this.
