Right to Use a Gun for Self Defense ?

[RicInOR]

Self-defense is a questionable argument for owning a gun

"So it is questionable whether we have not only a right to forceful protective measures but also a right to take those measures ourselves. If the right to do so has been delegated to the police and, in case of foreign invasion, to the military, then our right to self-defense is further qualified. We have, in fact, partly delegated the job of protecting our security to the police and military in the interest of a well-ordered society."

"Self-defense is therefore a shaky basis for gun ownership rights. No wonder so few developed nations have acknowledged them."

Read More

 

[Joe13]

Where's the police when you need protection in under 10 seconds?

They are underfunded and understaffed...

 

[Larrytpdx]

My mind and intellect switched off immediately when I saw which rag was publishing this "story".
I wouldn't even use the Sun to house train a litter of puppies with diarrhea.

 

[CountryGent]

Funny, I remember something about "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness". The RKBA protects life, ensures liberty, and can provide a lot of happiness.

 

[Libertas7]

I would say not using the best means possible to defend yourself or others is wrong.

 

[Libertas7]

When others threaten your security or rights, certain measures may be necessary to protect you. But it doesn't follow that you may take those measures if another party has assumed responsibility for taking them on your behalf. As Thomas Hobbes argued centuries ago, when we leave a "state of nature" and enter civil society — which features the rule of law rather than anarchy and vigilantism — we transfer some rights to a government whose job description includes protecting us from various common threats. For example, the police, an arm of the government, are permitted to pursue criminals, forcibly apprehend them and bring them to justice. As private citizens, we generally lack the authority to perform these actions.

I seem to remember a court case where some people tried suing the police after they failed to respond to a break in/rape. The people lost because the police are not obliged to protect, only to uphold the law. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong in this.

 

[jrd541280]

Maybe I missed something here, but, how dare a professer from "george washington" university question whether it is appropiate to use a firearm to protect oneself or their families or their neighbors from anything?

 

[jrd541280]

If george had waited, we probably wouldn't be able to have these discussions today.

 

[PotshotJim]

I know, we could just quarter troops in our homes for "protection".

Wait...

 

[PaulB47]

We have, in fact, partly delegated the job of protecting our security to the police and military in the interest of a well-ordered society."

What's this "we"? It was the 19th Century (about 1850) ruling class that introduced police to this country from England. That's not "we", it is "them".

But he's right in one respect. Gun control depends crucially on the institution of police. If there were no police, there would be no gun control.

"Self-defense is therefore a shaky basis for gun ownership rights. No wonder so few developed nations have acknowledged them."

More rights stuff, we're in la-la land now. A simpler explanation is that rulers don't like armed peasants. Being disarmed makes us easier to exploit. It's tough in America because we got armed before they could do anything about it. Now it is impossible to disarm us.

There is no "right" to own or use a gun for self defense or any other reason, because rights don't exist. There is only our determination to remain armed, for our own purposes (mainly because we don't trust the bastards to look out for our interests). Those purposes may be defense (against either free lance criminals, or the government gang), or collecting, or historical, or because guns are fun. It doesn't matter why; it only matters that we refuse to submit. We don't have to justify it to anybody. It's not even a matter for debate, to get down to brass tacks.

 

[Koda]

Self-defense is a questionable argument for owning a gun

"So it is questionable whether we have not only a right to forceful protective measures but also a right to take those measures ourselves. If the right to do so has been delegated to the police and, in case of foreign invasion, to the military, then our right to self-defense is further qualified. We have, in fact, partly delegated the job of protecting our security to the police and military in the interest of a well-ordered society."

"Self-defense is therefore a shaky basis for gun ownership rights. No wonder so few developed nations have acknowledged them."

this argument isnt uncommon at all.... In California self defense is not a usable reason to ask permission to acquire a California license to carry. likewise in many other modern countries that offer the privilege of concealed carry licenses, self defense is not one of the reasons you can use...


then recently right here in Portland, self defense is currently on trial in the courts against a man who was assaulted and drew his handgun in self defense and is now facing felony charges... even though he never fired a shot.