Read this horrifying account of a mob attack in the Port Richmond part of Philadelphia. A good Samaritan took the two intended teenage victims into his home and protected them until the police got there. Unfortunately, the good Samaritan did not have a firearm to protect himself, and nearly got shot by one the yobs. Fortunately for him, the police arrived before it could get really ugly.
Our opponents like to pretend that there’s never any reason to own a gun. They would also probably argue that it was a good thing no one was hurt. The difference between them and us is that I think it would have been a net social good if each of these yobs had been shot dead as they entered this man’s home.
The police in Philadelphia pretty clearly have lost control of the streets. Hardly surprising given police are one of the first places the incompetent boobs who run that city cut when the going gets tough. The only thing that’s going to put a stop to this behavior is if private citizens raise the cost of doing it. At the very least, if this man had a gun, the City would possibly have reduced the population of people willing to chase and beat other human beings by a few members, in which case it’s hard for me to see why that would be a net social negative. Not all gun violence is a bad thing. Our opponents have long failed to understand the difference between predatory and protective violence.