I'm not the person you're replying to, but: there are defense tools that are simultaneously less lethal than firearms, while actually more effective than firearms for self defense.

Probably not shoot them in the back, I'd imagine? If I hit them, then that's some poor fucker who might be dead cause of me, and if they're robbing me I'd expect them to not have medical coverage so secondary effects might also fuck them over even harder. It's easier for me to just take the L on my phone, wallet, or, I guess car? But I'm kinda not seeing carjacking that I might notice as much. In any case, it's easier for me to just use my car insurance, if they happen to destroy my car or it becomes unrecoverable, goes to a chop shop, what have you, it's easier for me to get a new government ID, and freeze my credit card and get a new one, and buy a new cheap-ass phone. And maybe be out the 20 bucks in my wallet, which is why you shouldn't carry large amounts of cash.

It's much easier for me to just, confront the problem through these secondary inconveniences that it causes me, rather than trying to like, "pull a hero", and shoot someone in the back. I'm not particularly educated on the intricacies of state-by-state self defense law, either, right, but I also wouldn't be surprised if it was unjustified to shoot someone in the back.

I'm also not totally unconvinced of the idea of armed self-defense, right, it can be totally viable in certain situations.

Say, someone is robbing a store with a gun, and their attention is on the cashier, and not on you, or, say, you're outside, right. Now you're totally free to pull your firearm and engage your off-duty brazilian police officer fantasy, for sure. That's, debatably, a useful scenario for a gun. Maybe a more useful scenario might be an in-progress rape, or assault, or something to that effect, though I'd imagine that most gun owners would not be proficient enough with their weapon to cleanly hit one person wrestling or engaged with another person at any more significant distance, and maybe at close distances depending on the shooter and how engaged the two people are. That's on the shooter, though, that's why regular training is necessary (even better if it's baked in as a requirement of ownership, as I said). I think in these cases it's probably somewhat likely that even the presence of the gun itself could serve to dissuade further engagement, which is a valuable function for it to serve beyond shooting.

So basically, for property crime, it's easier to just deal with the property crime as it has occurred, since usually nobody's been hurt. With interpersonal violent crime, it's still a very highly contextually dependent solution, rather than a kind of, one-size-fits-all solution that everyone makes it out to be.

I would say, if people are super concerned about self-defense, they'd probably want to take some first aid classes, they'd probably want good cardio, they'd probably want to carry pepper spray and maybe more easily know where medical supplies are located, or otherwise have some easily accessible to them within about a minute. They also might want to take some sort of martial arts class, which might also be good for their cardio, and good for fitness in general. Knives are not a good idea, since they remain dangerous and unpredictable, even with training, and guns aren't all that useful in a grappling scenario (and could also potentially injure you), or when you've not seen them coming. I could be persuaded on the position of a taser.

I'm also not going to discount the idea that someone might get a gun and still brandish it as a form of intimidation, illegally, in order to accomplish other goals, right, the law isn't, total morality, it's just not a good idea to do for the vast majority of people. I think the black panthers standing outside the california state capitol is an effective form of protest, and is especially effective given their smaller numbers. It's more efficient, in some ways, than a mass march.

I can also imagine scenarios where people live in circumstances where the police and law won't help them (lots of people), and would probably find it necessary to stay strapped up, if for nothing else than the fact that it's kind of just another minor tool at their disposal. I dunno, there's maybe something to be said there of possession of a gun, again, marking you as a threat, not only to criminals, but to police, but I've also seen lots of body cam footage where police just shoot a guy regardless. Because of an acorn, maybe. So, I'm not sure it matters too much.

Basically my problem with guns is that they rely too much on the ability of the end user to correctly discern the situation at hand before they begin to use them. Oh, is this person about to stab me, pull a gun on me, whatever? It's usually pretty much impossible to know. If it's impossible to know, it's usually not a good idea to pull a gun on someone, and it's usually a much, much worse idea to shoot someone. You've just shortcutted the logical chain of events, there, right? Like the guy in the video says, there are plenty of instances where crazy drugged up homeless people on the new york subway walk around screaming obscenities, even saying stuff like "you're going to die", and shit like that, and they never do anything at all. Certainly, me personally, I find it to be a more moral position, getting stabbed to death, or getting hospitalized and treated by my shitty medical provider, rather than choke, maybe more probably, strangle, someone to death, because they were making a ruckus.