I think I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek when I pointed out that there were no legal rights to self defense, let alone armed self defense. But we’ve had a lot of thought put into what constitutes human dignity and what we have to do to protect it, and people shooting other people doesn’t enter into it.
I’m not a Quaker, and I support the existence of legal defenses against certain criminal charges based on self-defense. Acting in self defense, under narrow circumstances, absolves you of your criminal responsibility for hurting or killing someone else. But self defense is just another application of “might makes right” with, “but they started it!” thrown in. It isn’t righteous and it isn’t right, and saying it is “a right” is implying a lot of things that aren’t true under an international framework of rights. Self defense means there was a fight and you won.
This is an extreme viewpoint if you mean it as applying to all self-defense situations. Have to point it out. Self defense also includes protecting others who cannot protect themselves. While you may not agree with castle doctrine, the fact remains that if there is an intruder in my house and I have the ability to eject, immobilize, or even kill that intruder in order to protect my family from a threat, then I will do so. Nobody is winning and losing. It’s not black and white like that. Home invasions are an everybody loses situation, if it must be labeled.
Many states have recognized this basic right and enshrined it in castle law. And some states, as we’ve seen in the news, have taken these laws to the logical other extreme such as exonerating the murderer who shot Trayvon Martin in the street. In that one variety of questionable circumstance, I think your statement fits. But it does not fit all self-defense situations as a blanket truth. Aggressor and defender are not on even ground. Aggressor has the upper hand and sometimes the aggressor isn’t which one it seems like it is on face-value.
The truth is that defensive situations come in a range of sizes and shapes and there is no single statement to summarize the morality of acting in one’s own defense.
I hope that when I said, “There was a fight and you won,” it was clear from surrounding statements like “It sin’t righteous and it isn’t right” that I didn’t think it was good thing. Violence is a bad thing for everyone involved in violence. Winning a fight doesn’t mean “winning” in a Charlie Sheen sense, it means you came out less physically harmed than the other person.
That’s why laws that encourage people to escalate violence for the purpose of self defense are bad. We don’t know which way the balance of power sits when violence begins, but if one party ends up dead then we know which way it sits when the violence is over. Trayvon Martin didn’t get to say what happened that night.
Well, my point was that it doesn’t make sense to talk about a “right” to self defense. It seems from this that we basically agree.
Mine was built in 1953. It doesn’t meat modern codes.
But is there really no regulation on the production of guns? Can I start selling plastic guns that jam and explode after the first few rounds? Call them disposable guns.
Most victims of gun violence are men 18-24 and the majority of that group are people of color. Why should we write a law designed to save white toddlers?
Also, To answer my own question. Guns are regulated through sale. they all have a serial number that has to be recorded on a form that is submitted to the ATF, several types of guns are banned from sale. Some alterations like shortening barrels is banned after sale. Most states require a licence to carry it in public spaces or shoot an animal with it. Enforcing gun regulations is like 1/3 if the ATF does.
Laws on paper are only really important to the uppermost economic classes. When either criminals or cops come to my house, the last thing on their minds is what somebody in Washington thinks is moral or ethical. In the case of the criminals, they are looking to make a profit, and in the case of the cops, they are looking for an excuse to coerce someone (hopefully a Bad Guy™ who will resist, so they can get that jolt of adrenaline they signed up for).
The natural law that vertebrates fight back when attacked, that’s a law for all classes except the uppermost economic classes, who (knowingly or not) are relying on armed bullies to do it for them.
@daneel THAT IS NOT FLYING! That is Bouncing With Style.
Well, or run away, or even freeze and do nothing - three basic responses to threat (and it’s not just vertebrates). Escaping is always the best way to deal with violence if it is possible. The majority of crime from strangers is going to be economically motivated, so freezing is going to keep you safer than fighting is as well.
Like I said, I agree with laws that say that in a situation involving immediate danger it is okay to respond with reasonable force. But laws like stand your ground seem to encourage people to escalate situations that would not have been fatal otherwise, and to respond with disproportionate force. I don’t think “they were in my house” or “they punched me” are reasons that someone needs to die. I understand that those situations are dangerous and can escalate quickly, but we don’t need to encourage that outcome.
In Toronto we had a police officer charged for shooting a clearly disturbed person who was threatening them with a knife (if this sounds wrong, check out the Sammy Yatim case, that officer definitely deserved to be charged - and not to suggest we don’t have our own problems with police accountability). It’s so remarkable to contrast that to the stories from America where ordinary people (let alone police) seem to be able to get away with shooting someone so long as there is they can make an implication that the victim was dangerous or threatening.
Killing in self-defense should be regarded as a tragedy, and it should be scrutinized very closely since it is usually a one-sided story.
