Some weapons are so good that having them is bad.

Let me rephrase that more precisely.

Some weapons are so effective at causing harm that possessing them is a liability to oneself.

The obvious low-hanging fruit here would be guns, right?

Even though they are the most effective

personal defense tool, due to a variety of factors, owning a gun makes a person statistically

more likely to die of violent death. But this isn't a gun thing. This fact of self-danger is true

of other weaponry, too. If you dial back the historical clock and look at swords

and other bladed weapons, you'll see that it wasn't entirely infrequent for someone to accidentally

maim or kill themselves using their own sword, while practicing or even while fighting someone else.

I mean, this might surprise you, but if it does, try swinging around a broomstick for five minutes.

Eventually, you'll tap yourself with it by accident, for sure, and if that were a five-pound, four-and-a-half-foot-long claymore,

well, that would be a trip to the ER at best.

This isn't an anti-sword or anti-gun rant.

I'm just acknowledging the rather counterintuitive fact that two of the most effective, most long-standing personal defense items are so effective that they are a threat to their own owners.

If the weapon you own is dangerous enough, your proximity to it is statistically bad for you,

even if in a dire enough moment it would be absolutely necessary for you to have it.

And this is true in nature, too.

Porcupines look like they're in a great spot self-defense-wise, but really imagine this for a second. Really think about the implications

of their chosen self-defense strategy. Imagine if I showed up to your house and gifted your dog a jacket covered in

lethally sharp needles to protect your dog against coyotes while they're in your backyard.

Weird hypothetical. I know your first thoughts would be, why is the species podcast guy doing this

...