The author agrees with LaFollette when he insists that policy choices with respect to guns are more nuanced than people commonly suppose, since "our choice is not merely to support or oppose gun control but to decide who can own which guns under what conditions." The author further agrees with LaFollette when he argues that defenders of a serious right to bear arms must ground their argument in an account of fundamental human interests. The author, however, disagrees with LaFollette when he states, "I see no compelling reason to think that owning a gun is a fundamental interest." The author notes that Hobbes emphasized that all human beings are susceptible to intentionally inflicted, crippling injury and violent death. Exploitation of this vulnerability by credible threat or actual attack jeopardizes all we care about; therefore, everyone has a fundamental interest in avoiding these harms. It follows that the right to self-defense must be fundamental on LaFollette's account, because it protects a fundamental interest. A gun is an "equalizer" for citizens who have no other sufficient means for self-defense against threats that would exploit their vulnerability. 24 notes