Those are excellent points you raise and have triggered some thoughts on my part concerning what may be considered the criteria for reasonable self-defense. While the randomness factor introduces something I had not considered, it also begs the question of ultimate authority to make that decision.
One problem is that I do not have a specific target in mind. A rogue government is fairly broad in its capabilities and we don’t know what would constitute adequate self-defense. Take Waco as an example. Short of anti-tank weapons and phalanx or metal-storm type systems, how could those folks defends themselves against a deliberately provocative move by government? Of course, we are now talking about illegal deprivation of liberty a not exclusively defense of life.
Thanks much for that response. Good things to think about.
There is a natural limit: how much money I am willing to spend.