Here is an interesting piece of ethical gymnastics: Self-defence is justified, but self-defence with a gun is not.

I am a proponent of gun ownership, firearm safety, and the right to self-defence. If a person is willing and able, they should responsibly own a gun, know how to shoot it, and use it to defend themselves and their family in the unlikely event that the need arises. If a person is put in that position, they should use the most effective tool available.

While this is my position, I can understand if someone makes the argument that we should not defend ourselves, but hope for the police to arrive in time to defend us. This, in my opinion, is stupid beyond reason; but I will allow that a consistent person might make such an argument.

Then there is an intermediate position. Self-defence is fine, so long as you use an object not solely designed for that purpose. Steak knife: valid defensive implement. Katana: not valid. Shot-put: valid defensive implement. Shotgun: not valid. Crowbar: valid defensive implement. Morning-star: not valid.

What is needed here is simplification. Either I am justified in defending myself and my family, or I am not. If I am, then let me worry about the appropriate tool for the job. 😉