I like books as much as the next guy, but some people are seriously lacking in perspective.
Miguel at Gun Free Zone brings our attention to a book review by a pair of academics that makes my hair stand on end.
Leverick claims the victim has a right to life and therefore has a right to use lethal force to defend it. Of course, this does not necessarily follow. Sally might have a right to a book, but she may not be able to use force to defend that book, much less deadly force to defend the book. Leverick is not entitled to assume that a right to something entails that one has the right to use as much force as is necessary to prevent the violation of that right
That’s right. Fighting to protect yourself from being maimed, tortured, enslaved, or murdered is the moral equivalent to killing a man for stealing your newspaper. Here is the part that is the litmus test: if any of that seems reasonable to you, seek psychiatric help.