“Should a human being have the right to defend his/her life? “

If you say “no” you’re either joking or so completely misguided that reading any further, let alone posting a reply with be a waste of all our times.

If you answered “Yes” then I encourage you to think about it from the perspective of the weakest of us, and answer the next question:

“What would you deem to be an acceptable item for someone to defend his/her life with?

A knife? A baseball bat? A stick with a nail in it? A rock, perhaps? When it comes down to life and death, the practical answer is “anything you can get your hands on that might do the trick.” And in many countries, some of the items I just listed might be your only legal options.

Fortunately, technology has created one item that stands above all others as a great “equalizer” and that is the gun. Handguns in particular, as they can be more easily carried and deployed in “surprise” situations.

Even a 90 year old lady with a .22 revolver has a chance to save her bacon, as we have seen demonstrated many times before.

Same old lady with a knife, bat, stick or rock stands no chance at all against most attackers.

Unfortunately criminal people aren’t going away, so EVEN IF we could somehow magically make all guns and the knowledge of how to make them disappear forever, there would still be deranged people out there who have a lot more practice at caving in skulls, ready to break into your house to do the unthinkable to you and/or your loved ones. I need not post proof of this as we all know it’s true.

So where would the above scenario leave most of us?

In “survival of the fittest” mode. Many of you reading this are all ready there.

Is that acceptable, is that fair, again thinking it from the perspective of the weakest of us?

I honestly believe that not many people, pro-and anti-gun alike, think about it in these most primal of terms.

We're too busy defending our freedom from tyrannical governments, or fuming about the evilness of those terrible killing machines.

It is truly sad that guns are too often used to commit atrocious acts, and I wish with all my heart that it was never the case, but even more often they are used to protect innocent lives.

We’re being conditioned to think about “the gun” and not “the nature of man”. Fear “the gun” as if it was the cause of violence, but pay no attention to the man behind the gun. It’s the guns fault.

“Why” we are being conditioned to think this way is a different matter, THIS discussion poses the question:

“If not with a gun, then what?”

Thanks in advance for your courtesy.

reply to post by tjack


I have had to defend myself on several occasions and in several incidents it resulted in loss of life. Yes I was in the military and as a former police officer. I say this with a heavey heart, although each incident was justified it still at certain moments in time reflect that I have taken another humans life. I feel the world in general has put too little value on life, my feelings as an american makes me a little less proud each day as we take the lead as the worlds most violent and incarcerated nation.

Faced with similair situations, the protection of my family or a perfect stranger, I would do the same. We put too much glamour in war, violence and thuggery, for the love of God we have a new hit TV show "Amish Mafia" what is oour culture coming down to.

My heart goes out to all of those young men and women who have served in combat roles around the world, you will be forever scared. Most I think will faint and run, be paralysed with fear should they be confronted in an actual life a nd death situation. My hope is we put more effort into the postive aspects of life and hold those people in high standings than make celebrities out of violent rappers and mass murderers, but then again the average good guy will never be seen on TV or get an endorsement. Sorry for rambling.

reply to post by tjack


Absolutely in every circumstance one has the right to defend his/her life. Depending on the context, this may even include taking a life. I cannot think of any situation where one should not defend his/her life with whatever force necessary.

I couldn't agree with your premise more, OP. To cite a phrase here, 'God created punks....Sam Colt created the peacemaker. It's successors been helping keep the peace ever since.'

In a real sense, I do thank you for your point here. I'm one of those CCW people who carry because I CHOOSE not to ever be in a physical confrontation with someone looking to seriously inure or kill me. It's not that I couldn't stand and likely give a good accounting for myself. I may win..I may lose...and if I lose, I'm dead. In current criminal approaches? That's a reasonable assumption.

On the other hand...My wife has been hit so hard by diabetes and complications from it that she can barely walk now. It's a Walker or a Chair almost always..even across her own home. Some may wonder why I never seem to be anywhere ELSE...when I'm not at college? Yeah....we all have different levels of physical ability and some of us can't even be said to live without needing another capable adult close enough to help when falls happen.

So, Indeed..... If my wife is out one night, making her way back to the 4x4 with her scooter and our Son helping (..whatever reason, I'm not there)..Just what DOES she do if a mugger or rapist attacks her? This DOES HAPPEN in this city on a regular basis. I have a little scanner AP I wrote and listen to when I'm bored to hear how much violent crime DOES happen in a city I'd have thought was pretty peaceful before listening to it.


Thanks to the anti-gun freak crowd....if they have their way....my wife will have NO means to stop her own rape or robbery...and damn them all for what they'd see done to my kid. After all, a rapist isn't going to juggle two people...ONE of them is going down HARD right out the gate, and my 12yr old Autistic son is who I'd guess would be dropped before he even realized an attack had begun.

No gun? This crime ends with my wife's battered body or it ends with her mind in tatters for the experience...where today? She'll just shoot the bastard on the spot and end it right there.

reply to post by DOLCOTT


Fine words and valuable advise.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Wrabbit I couldn't agree with you more.
I'm in a similar situation except it's me that has the diabetes & mobility impairment while the wife works.
I'd be toast in a physical altercation - as would my wife - without an Mr. Colt's "equalizer" (I prefer the 1911).
Fortunately, it is very rare we don't travel together, so I have few worries about her safety.

ganjoa

Being prior military and prior LE I have had to utilize a firearm in defense of my life and others. I didn't like it and I've never forgotten it. EVERY person should be afforded the right to defend themselves. And for some, age, physical ability, illness/injury, ect a firearm may be the only option against a larger/stronger or multiple attackers. Now some may choose not to exercise this option and leave their well being to others (police) and that too is their right. But no one have the right to deny others self defense.

What the OP mentions, and I think rightly, is that we cannot blame and cannot not blame the guns; for although they as a tool offer the quickest and most powerful way to end an altercation, when in the wrong hands they can prove deadly.

If someone was to attack me physically without a weapon, I am strong and confident enough that I would engage in the same manner, even if I had a firearm on my person. But others, who may be of weaker physical ability, yet not likely to lose their life in a physical fight, may pull their weapon too early, and end the life of the aggressor even if the aggressor had no intention of killing anyone.

This poses a difficult moral question: should one use lethal force even if it is likely lethal force wouldn't be used against him? When should one pull his gun and fire?

Yes and it is a God-given right, inalieanable, and not subject to government approval.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

That is the crux of the Travon Martin case. George Zimmerman was getting his butt kicked and it could have resulted in a serious head injury but it probably would not have been a fatal attack unless the account of Martin reaching for his gun is true.

Better Question

Do I give a damn if anyone has "assigned" me this right or not

Answer NO

All having the right to defend yourself determines is if you dispose of the body of your attacker yourself or if the authorities do.

Not to try to sound ll bad boy or anything lol but if i'm gonna die why give a crap about the law... One way your doom is certain the other if your smart you'll likely get away with it particularly if a home intruder....

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
What the OP mentions, and I think rightly, is that we cannot blame and cannot not blame the guns; for although they as a tool offer the quickest and most powerful way to end an altercation, when in the wrong hands they can prove deadly.

If someone was to attack me physically without a weapon, I am strong and confident enough that I would engage in the same manner, even if I had a firearm on my person. But others, who may be of weaker physical ability, yet not likely to lose their life in a physical fight, may pull their weapon too early, and end the life of the aggressor even if the aggressor had no intention of killing anyone.

This poses a difficult moral question: should one use lethal force even if it is likely lethal force wouldn't be used against him? When should one pull his gun and fire?

To have the legal right to use deadly force, what I've been taught in multiple training classes is to remember this this: A. O. J.

Ability, Your attacker has the ability to cause you lethal harm. He's big, mean, and swinging a fencepost.

Opportunity, Your attacker has the opportunity to cause you lethal harm. There's nothing "in the way" preventing the attack.

Jeopardy, You believe and can communicate as to why (to a jury of your peers) that your life is in jeopardy. He was screaming "I'm gonna kill you sucka", you're not legally required to presume otherwise, whether he was "really" going to or not.

250 lb bad guy rushing you with a bat or knife screaming "I'm going to f-ing KILL you", but there's a 10' chain link fence between the two of you, "ability and jeopardy" are satisfied, but the fence limits his "opportunity", at least for the moment. Can't pop him. Same situation, but only a jersey barrier between you which he easily hurdles, you're good to go.

That's the classroom/legal definition, more or less, of when it's allowable.


That said, the wise and experienced person teaching the class, (Chuck Taylor, pretty much wrote the book on modern gun fighting, feel free to look up his credentials) who has been in many of these situations himself, says you don't have to over-thinkt it TOO much. He likened it to walking in the woods and coming across a rattlesnake. You may have never even seen a rattlesnake before, much less encountered one face to face, but you KNOW when you happen across one that it is in fact a rattlesnake.

That was the "legal" when...

Morally is a different story, and as we've read earlier in this thread, even when justified it can scar you and leave you to forever question your actions and their outcomes.

I sincerely pray to God I'm never put in that kind of position. Gung-Ho, I am not. Prepared for the worst? I like to think so, but do we ever really know? Not until we're faced with it.

That's why it's important to train.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

That is the problem that I believe is relatively new to our society. As the LEO's know for them all they have to say is they feared for their life. For a citizen it has become a problem caused by people who have never had to defend themselves. This they can not understand. It does not matter what a jury of your peers says if you are 6ft under.

When you deal with violent men or women, and believe me women are more vicious then men, there IS NO WAY YOU CAN KNOW IF THE THREAT IS OVER unless your oponnent is dead. Even then do not be so sure for he might not be dead, just appear that way. There was a self defense expert that had a TV show to teach people how to defend himself. It went for about 4 shows before he screwed up and told the truth. The first three shows he basically said take them down and run. On the fourth he reccomended stomping on their throat to kill them rather then running as you can not know how long he will be down or if he is a faster runner then you. For that he was kicked off the air.

I do not carry but I regularly practice with various weapons. This is not because I am against other people carrying but because of a temper I had over 40yrs ago. There is a phrase. "I saw red." It is a true phrase and you have no memory of what happened when that occurs. I am 60 now and it has not happened to me since I was 25 caught in the Bosque riots in Barcalona. Being at that age I am considering going ccw simply because I am no longer sure I can defend myself properly.

reply to post by Jerk_Idiot


It is a shame when a 60 year old person needs to be concerned about their safety, the world needs a moral reset.

Originally posted by DOLCOTT
reply to post by Jerk_Idiot

 

It is a shame when a 60 year old person needs to be concerned about their safety, the world needs a moral reset.

Absolutely true! (The moral reset part)

And since that's a pipe dream, it would be an even bigger shame if someone else decided that the 60 year old no longer is allowed "the best" tool for the job but must rely solely on his/her strength, speed, agility and luck.

But shouldn't everybody always be concerned about their safety?

People often confuse "Living in fear" with "Being prepared for the worst".

Because we've installed smoke alarms and fire extinguishers, does that mean we live in fear of fire? No.

It means we've taken wise steps to mitigate the risk posed by fire. Arming oneself, with whatever tool, is no different.

If I ever felt that my life, the life of a family member, or even a friend's life was in danger at the hands of another person, I would kill him/her, no hesitation, no remorse. One person out of 7 billion wouldn't make me lose any sleep.

Great post, goes in a bit deeper on the "Guns don't kill people, people kill people". And I wholeheartedly agree that a human should be able to defend itself. It made me think though.

Humans are well to be known to use tools both constructive and destructively. You said that some of us are bloodthirsty creatures. The stupid (ignorant) far outnumber the wise. Guns escalate any situation that it could be used for, because of it's power. The sum of these notions arrives at death, and an eye for an eye, the world goes blind.

This next bit is too idealistic (but not too ambitious), but I think the answer to your question is education and a loving/understanding environment/time to grow up in. This to affect the individual inclined to violate the rights of another.
This in part is part of society as a whole, but is not society a sum of individual upon individual? Nobody wins from killing eachother.