I'm not implying anything. I'm trying to get you to realize that we often have the right to defend ourselves from someone who is putting us in harms way, and putting others in harms way as well. Pointing a gun at your head by no means makes it certain the gunman will pull the trigger, it just drastically raises the chance of it happening. So you're trying to live in this grey area where you narrow down the point at which you can defend yourself on various criteria, while failing to realize that this is exactly what laws do.

Drunk driving is illegal because it substantially raises the possibility of killing another person. Pointing a gun at someone is illegal for the same reason. Laws aren't there just to randomly mess with you, they are there to protect others from y our actions regardless of whether they are intentional harm or not.

For instance, a man might own a factory in another state and therefore be willing to reduce costs by not controlling pollution. Everyone in the vicinity of the factory gets sick, some people die, etc... but no one had a chance to defend themselves, and the factory owner didn't intend for people to die. He just wanted cheaper manufacturing.

So can you defend yourself against a person callously spewing harmful gasses into the air because it hurts people? If I can defend myself against that, then can't I delegate that to other people? And if so, why can't delegate a requirement to prevent people from getting sick and dying? Especially one that results in everyone getting to continue on as before... that is the manufacturer can still have a factory, the people can still have non-poisoned air and no one has lost their property or their lives.

That is why we have laws and government. And why it is justified. Any just law is by proxy a defense of other people from harm.