Bill Bartlett wrote:
> The very definition of the state in modern times is its monopoly
> on the use of force. A state which cannot achieve such a monopoly
> is pretty much a failed state.
In Switzerland, an armed populace is the standing army. There are other exceptions to your proposed maxim.
> Not sure how to deal with anyone who doesn't accept that.
Sit up and take notes? Examine those parts of the world you've blinkered yourself to? Correct your opinion on what constitutes a successful state?
> Perhaps you believe that individuals should have the right to
> possess nuclear weapons as well?
Historically, such things were decided by the ability to afford, that is the hardline position. A more contemporary position is to distinguish between individual weapons and crew-served weapons. Ultimately, you're asking the nuclear question in all senses of the word, there are ludicrous extremes at the other end of the spectrum as well. Are you familiar with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and how they have historically treated the right to self-defense?
> ...But it can be said that every person naturally has the private
> right to resist violent attack on their person using violence as
> a last resort.
>
> But of course such a right (even for those who have the means
> to exercise the theoretical right) is very much a last resort.
> Legally, the private citizen only has the right to use violence
> to resist violence if there is not other way to avoid harm.
Many outside of the USA do not have that right. Some inside of the USA do not have that right either, people have been prosecuted for exercising that right instead of retreating even where "retreating" meant some elderly person crawling out of a window of their own home.
> The more valuable right is the right to be safe from violent attack.
That is a classically liberal expectation. Put it on the chalkboard, right next to the right to not get hit by lightning and the right to always be a winner, never be a loser. You said something about myths and fantasies in your response to Shane Mage?
Andy wrote:
>> Imagine if the government did produce and promote PSAs on [safe
>> firearms handling and storage] the way it does for drunk driving.
>
>
> Ok, I am. What's supposed to happen now?
Is your imagination on the blink?
Jordan Hayes wrote:
> Just imagine if they had more difficult to get drivers licenses,
> backed up with enforcement and ongoing testing, say every 2 years?
> What if there was a mandatory 150 hour driving instruction that
> wasn't available until you turned 21?
>
> Is that the goal here? Reducing preventable death?
Reducing preventable death is the stated goal of those who would impose background checks, waiting periods, magazine capacity limits, and more. That goal doesn't pass the smell test when its advocates are quizzed on preventable medical errors and applying some of their proposed solutions for firearms to drinking and driving. Oh, there is some handwave about weighing the risks and what constitutes the acceptable versus the unacceptable that all sounds good and looks on paper, the problem with it is that it draws on the same emotionally driven, magical thinking that leads some to think that Utopia is achievable. Meanwhile in the real world, the ruling class isn't threatened by drunk drivers and bad health care providers the same way it feels threatened by an armed & discontented underclass, so that's why it co-opts some movements and implants poisoned memes in others.
Andy wrote:
> I agree that policy shouldn't be guided by irrational public risk
> perception. But one difference between guns and automobiles is that
> widespread auto use -- even if it's not private cars -- seems
> necessary for an industrial consumer economy.
Do we want to perpetuate an industrial consumer economy? That is a different discussion and not one I'm prepared to have right now, but I can think of better economies for us than post-industrial or industrial consumer.
> There's another problem with the comparison between the societal
> costs of automobiles and guns: there's a whole lot more exposure
> to the former for the two of them to be causing comparable numbers
> of deaths.
Your numbers need updating. At current estimates, in the Unites States there are ~290 million privately owned firearms, ~315 million people but only ~205 million licensed drivers and ~240 million licensed vehicles.
The better question is, why is the conveyance that is not designed to be lethal, more lethal than a purpose-built lethal tool.
I'm taking this opportunity to withdraw the original question (Is there a left argument for gun rights) that I might propose a new one: If the left is unwilling to openly take up a pro-gun-rights position and repair the damage done to it by liberals who support the ruling class's desires to disarm the unwashed masses, why should it expect any of the rest of its platform to resonate with a population where two thirds support the second amendment and only a minority support increased gun control? Yes, support for gun control has fallen and is no longer supported by a narrow majority, the gun controllers are in the minority now.