Feminist Betty Friedan is cited as denouncing the trend of women to arm themselves for self defense as, "...a horrifying, obscene perversion of feminism...." Her ridiculous notion that , "...lethal violence even in self defense only engenders more violence and that gun control should override any personal need for safety...." is probably widely held in some circles. Indeed, according to Kleck and Kates, Mario Cuomo avowed that Bernie Goetz was morally wrong in shooting even if it was clearly necessary to resist felonious attack.
Kleck and Kates also report that an article was published by the Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist Church condemning defensive gun ownership. In the article, Rev. Allen Brockway, editor of the board's magazine, advised women that it was their Christian duty to submit to rape rather than do anything that might imperil the attacker's life.
Kleck and Kates also note that the Presbyterian Church (U. S. A.) has taken a strict anti-self defense view. Rev. Kathy Young testified as a representative of that group before a Congressional Panel in 1972 in support of handgun control that the Presbyterian Church (U. S. A.) opposes the killing of anyone, anywhere for any reason (including, in the context of the testimony, self defense)
With due respect to Ms. Friedan, Mr. Cuomo and Rev Brockway, they have obviously never been the victim of a violent crime with an accompanying death threat if it was disclosed. (I don't want to go into the details. Even 50+ years later, it is immensely painful.)
From my experience, the victim's life, even if they survive, is essentially over. The way the victim interacts with the world is forever, negatively changed. Experiencing joy in the simple of things of life (a child's smile and laugh, a walk with my wife, etc) is haunted by the realization of how quickly things can go bad. (The perniciousness of this is beyond the scope of this forum. Just be open to the concept that it is more severe than you realize.)
And the evil-doers will continue to do those acts to others, especially if they can do so with impunity.
While I live my life mostly in fear of what may happen, I realize my part is to enjoy life as I can and to not have my fear hamper my family's ability to enjoy life. (I do have an excellent doctor who helps me.) Twice since that event, I have been confronted by others with criminal intent. It was my willingness to resort to the force necessary that stopped those approaches from being full-fledged crimes. (A gas pump pointed at somebody trying to close the distance and my hand on my CCW, without drawing, were sufficient in those instances.) The point of self-defense is to protect the life and/or prevent grave bodily injury of the innocent.
From this victim's perspective, those who would weaken or delete the Castle Doctrine and/or SYG elevate the criminal above the victim and do so from the safety of not being the victim themselves. They would empower the criminal and place an additional burden on the victim. They are morally wrong. The victim has a natural right to appropriately protect themselves.
To protect the victim's right of self-protection, I do watch carefully for whom I vote, I do express my concerns at appropriate times to elected representatives and I do civilly discuss and promote gun ownership and the appropriate use thereof. I am open to learning if there is more that I can do for victim's and prevention.
Thank you for starting this discussion.