The problem with Anti Gun idiots is that they are willing to bet
everybody else’s life and assorted body parts on their failed Gun
Miguel – Shoot First, Ask Questions Later? Damn Skippy!
May 11th, 2012
[The criminal occupational hazard reduction organizations seem to think that by allowing those who desire to exercise their right to carry it some how forces everyone to carry. I’ve never quite understood this. What I do understand quite well is that their wants and desires affect everyone’s choices for self defense.
Their desire to limit the ability to fight back affects everyone, not just themselves. Currently there is a running theme that we must be able to fully know the intent of an attacker before we defend ourselves.
Umm, I don’t think so sparky. If someone is threatening myself or my family I am no longer required to exercise restraint. I don’t care if it ends up he just wants my wallet, there is no magic filter to separate a process criminal and a resource criminal. I cannot magically separate by immediate behavior who just wants my wallet and who after taking my wallet wants me dead. The criminal could quite easily retain his life by doing one of two things.
- Pick a different victim. See if he picks one of those anti-gunners who doesn’t believe in defending themselves it’s much safer for the criminal.
- No longer participate in a life of crime. If he wasn’t robbing and threatening peaceable citizens he wouldn’t have to worry about being shot when they defended themselves now would they?
I know there are many people who would blame the person for defending themselves for the death of the criminal. Except that isn’t true now is it? There were numerous decisions the criminal made which forced the victim into defending themselves. The criminal made the choices which ultimately resulted in their own death.
If someone threatens me and mine do you think I’m going to take the time to run him through a psychological profile to determine if I should be less afraid?
Hell no, I have already made the decision. I will fight and I will win at any cost to those who threaten or use force against myself or my family. The criminal made the decision to jump in the pit with the tiger. I have no duty to try and determine if he’s just bluffing. Shoot first, you bet. If my telling them to stop didn’t work, the universal hand signal for go away will. Even if it most assuredly reduces his recidivism rate to 0.
Besides even if the attacker actually shoots first our opponents will claim I did if my body isn’t cooling to room temperature by the actions of their main supporters.
A criminal who attacks someone else has no rights during the attack. He surrendered them in perpetrating the attack. He made that choice, not me. -B]
TMM is the owner, editor, and principal author at The Minuteman, a competitive shooter, and staff member for Boomershoot. Even in his free time he’s merging his love and knowledge of computers and technology with his love of firearms.
Many know his private name and information however due to the current political climate, many are distancing themselves due to the abandonment of Due Process.
Well said, we don’t have TIME in that situation to figure out if (s)he really means to rob or kill us… And I’m NOT going to try to figure that out. Threaten me, I will react!
Yup, it doesn’t fall on me to risk life and limb to try and save the life of someone who at this present time is presenting a threat to myself.
It astonishes me though that there are people who think that is the case. He was a choir boy who just fell off the good path.
Well sorry there sport, but he didn’t just slip off the path if he was threatening and attacking people. If he was such a good kid, he wouldn’t have done something that caused someone to fear for their life. Even if he didn’t mean to cause them to fear for their life, actions speak louder than anything else.
Maybe Timmy should have learned that it’s better to go work for a living that try and steal someone else’s living if that’s all he wanted.
Can we tell this subject irritates me?
I waiting for a concealed carrier to respond to the old “Why did you kill him?” question with a paraphrase of Mal Reynolds. “I didn’t kill him, he killed himself. I just carried the bullet for a while.”
“A criminal who attacks someone else has no rights during the attack. ”
No, they retain ALL of their rights, however those rights may be disabled due to their violation of the law. This is an important distinction. Rights aren’t given or taken away – they exist, and in some cases, they are disabled.
In this case they are voluntarily surrendered by the attacker by his decision.
There is no right listed anywhere that a victim must remain complacent for his aggressor. As such that means the victim has a right to fight back. If they have a right to fight back, that means the aggressor no longer has a right to remain unharmed. Ergo he surrendered his right to remain unharmed voluntarily.
Right’s are disabled, they are surrendered by the person to whom they are entrusted. Once surrendered they no longer have the right.
The problem with that thinking is that rights are analogous to car keys, they can be given, lent, lost, stolen, surrendered, which means they are subject to the whim of anyone who thinks they can control the rights of others. Rights should be viewed more as an immutable non-exchangable inherent part of the individual, more akin say to ethnic ancestry.
(8) In other words, citizens have a right to keep and bear arms in those
places and situations where they have a right to be, unless such rights
are disabled by due process of law. Fundamental natural rights can never
be lost, as contractual rights can be, only the exercise of those rights
restricted or “disabled”, to use the legal term. The distinction is
very important. Natural rights are those which the individual brings with him
when he enters into the social contract, and reclaims if the social contract is
broken. The right to keep and bear arms is such a natural right, as is the right
of free speech, religious belief, and privacy. The alternative is a contractual
right created by a contract, such as the social contract. The right to vote or
to be judged by a jury of one’s peers are examples of rights created by the
social contract, albeit important ones that are also constitutionally protected.
Because they are constitutionally protected, it is only proper to speak of them
as disabled, rather than lost, so long as the subject remains a citizen or
natural person, depending on whether it is a right of citizenship or personhood.
In the case of conflict both parties retain all of their rights, but the rights of one party must supersede over the other. In the case of a criminal attack the criminal makes the rights of his victim supersede over his own.
Yes, I am quite aware of that and subscribe to the view of John Adams regarding natural rights and their ability to be legislated.
To view rights and immutable and non-exchangeable means that in fact the victim must violate the rights of the attacker. That is the wrong attitude to have. That implies guilt upon the innocent.
There is only one person who may surrender a right, that is the primary benefactor of the right. IE only I may make the decision to not carry arms for my own defense. It is not for someone else to make that decision and force it upon me.
The use of disabled in your instance is being used in the legal respect in an effort to work around limitations on rights. Such as the limitation of the right to keep and bear arms. Such limitations I do not feel are actually justifiable and the use of the term disabled is used to limit the implied impact of the situation.
Those who follow the law voluntarily surrender their rights. See the quote from John Adams. The could continue to exercise their rights however they would risk legal punishment for exercising what is fundamentally theirs to keep.
And thus by definition surrendered the right to remain free from harm to his victim. If he had not attacked the victim it would not have been surrendered.
The use of language is important here because through your method, there is still a violation of rights. Where as in my use of language no right exists with the attacker. If the right still exists that implies that there is legal recourse for the attacker. Even if the rights of the victim are at a higher plane it doesn’t matter. The attacker had rights which were violated.
The thing is, he doesn’t, he made the decision that he no longer wanted to retain those rights for the duration of the crime and that was his decision, and his decision alone. I am not using those terms in justification of the state, I am using those terms with regards to the individual and how he is free to treat the rights he has. An individual is free to surrender his own rights as he sees fit. Just the same others are free to respect him as if his rights are still there. But it is up to the individual to surrender rights, not the state.
Very interesting views, thanks for sharing them.
If you shoot a rapist dead, then you are guilty of shooting the rapist dead. Was it a crime? Nope. Was it a bloody act of violence? Yep. Your innocence of any criminal action doesn’t mean you are innocent of any violent action.
If rights belong to a person, how can they non-voluntarily surrender them? I think many if not most criminals want to do the crime AND keep their rights, and they do not voluntarily surrender them. So far as I can tell it is you and not them determining that they have surrendered their rights – and that violates what you said about someone else not making that decision for you.
I disagree that those who obey the law surrender their rights but that’s a long story. Short version: the law is simply “no stealing”. That’s the natural law or God’s law. If you kill an attacker in self defense, you are stealing their life. Is that unlawful? No, because it is actually in defense of the law. Is it stealing? Absolutely.
Eventually I hope to write up my views in a comprehensive and hopefully more comprehensible manner as they are not quite in line with the traditional schools of thought, thanks for sharing your own.
By their actions they have surrendered their rights until such time as the have ceased their actions. I.E. you can’t shoot a fleeing criminal in the back. You’re right, it is ultimately the victim making the final determination. The victim is the one who determines if his rights are being violated.
I appreciate you coming and sharing your thoughts. Ultimately I think our differences boil down to semantics in the end with a few minor differences. Mainly if I read your approach correctly it appears restraint is placed upon the victim with regards to retaliation. While for the most part this is true, it doesn’t always hold at an eye for an eye at the rights level.
For example if an attacker is merely trying to rape a woman, for the sake of argument there is an intent-o-meter, and he would leave the woman alive after. Does that mean she is not allowed to use lethal force to stop the attack? From your comparison above with theft, she could. However even with your statement that a victims rights supersede an attackers, you still have the victim making that decision. If you leave rights intact though it seems like the attacker or his family would have legal recourse for using lethal force. The thefts had a disparity and weren’t equal and the victims right to life wasn’t threatened by the attacker. Thus his right to life wasn’t disabled.
Whereas in my scenario, by his actions he has voluntarily surrendered his rights, up to and including life, in attacking the victim. The victim is free to defend themselves as they see fit, up to and including the taking of the attackers life.
Without any rights there is no legal argument that can be brought. The superseded argument I think could easily lead to a graduation game of who’s rights were superior at what time and which rights were effected. It implies an extra graduation and resolution where I don’t think one is necessary. Not only is it not necessary but it actually could be counter productive by causing excess restraint by victims whereby criminals are given further advantage.
Further the fact that it is implied that you would still be violating someone’s rights could deter many from effectively defending themselves. Instead of acting for the most simple means of stopping the assault, they may spend time taking the attackers rights into consideration. My contention is he has none by virtue of his attack and thus there is nothing to consider.
Thank you very much, that’s a valuable contribution to my thought process.
Thought experiment: Tom is trying to murder Harry. Joe comes along and sees Tom and decides to murder Tom, not in defense of Harry, but for the sole purpose of killing Tom, and if Tom wasn’t trying to murder Harry, he’d do the same thing (i.e. vendetta killing). Is that murder or is not murder? I would say it is is murder, as Tom has a right to live that Joe doesn’t have a right to violate. If Joe was completely honest about his motivations, that it was merely a coincidence that he saved Harry’s life – is it murder in your view?
I think I could agree if you were slightly more specific, i.e. you surrender your CLAIM to your rights. The rights themselves are non-transferable, non-givable, non-takeable. The matter is whether one has a lawful right to claim that right. i.e. you have the claim to your right to practice your right hook, but if I’m inside your your striking zone, then your claim to exercise the right is invalid. However you still have the right to practice punching, it hasn’t gone away. This is why if an violent criminal stops their attack they still have that right and they also again have a lawful claim to it.
I think this is very important as rights are an abstract concept, and I believe it is the notion that they are something non-inherent that makes them so easily violated.
Consider another example: you are a convenience store clerk in a bad part of town, armed goon comes in yelling “This is a robbery, give me your money or your lives”. He turns to the door to make sure no one is behind him, and his gun is not pointing at you or anyone else. Can you shoot lawfully? Yes, of course. Now let’s say you can push a button just as easily as you can draw your gun and that button immediately drops bullet proof plates protecting you and all innocent life (and locking the bad guy up). Can you shoot? I would say no, the guy still has a right to life and you have the means of enforcing the law without resorting to violence. I’d like to know what you think of this scenario, which I based on real life cases. The robber still poses an active threat in this situation, and barring any reasonable alternative of stopping him lethal force is justified, but if he has no right to life then there is no legal reason to not kill him even though it’s not necessary.
“Further the fact that it is implied that you would still be violating
someone’s rights could deter many from effectively defending
themselves. Instead of acting for the most simple means of stopping the
assault, they may spend time taking the attackers rights into
consideration. My contention is he has none by virtue of his attack and
thus there is nothing to consider.”
No offense intended here, seriously, but I think you are literally being ignorant, I mean you are ignore-it, you are ignoring his rights. This is why I am writing this – in your view the bad guy is no longer is legally a human being for the duration of their threat to another. This is the dangerous precedent I am so afraid of, and the sort of thinking that I think leads so many astray. Fortunately you are a good man so you are limiting your ignorance of human rights to scum bags who deserve to die…but that is the bit of corruption that most others can not check.
Your point about people worrying about the rights of their attackers is valid, but surely you agree that the proper time to figure out one’s tactical, strategic, practical, moral, philosophical, and legal reaction to violent crime is before you have to use defensive force?
If your view is correct, and an violent offender has no rights, then I don’t see why people would feel wrong or bad about defensive violence, however the natural reaction of the vast majority of human beings is to be nearly as sickened or even as sickened as if they had harmed an innocent person, and most people without training are actually no more able to defend themselves than they are able to attack an innocent.
I think defending and exercising ones right to self defense is a good, but violating the rights of the attacker is a wrong, and that is why people are sickened by lawful legitimate uses of defensive force. The legal and moral responsibility lies on the offender for creating the situation and for coercing the defender into defending themselves, but the pain and trauma and guilt lies on the defender for they are the one actually doing the wrong.
One last scenario: violent attacker lies dead in their own blood, their intended victim walks away. Is this scenario “right”? No, the “right” scenario would be the violent attacker restrains himself and respects the rights of the other person. The scenario in which the bad guy is dead is “wrong”, even though he is the one to blame for it, it is still “wrong”. It is not only his attempted crime that is wrong, but also the coercion into a violent act by the defender, and yes even the very act of defensive violence is wrong. It shouldn’t and doesn’t have to be that way, so it is the wrong way, not the right way.
I think this also explains why pacifism, as a personal choice, is right in one way – pacifism is the refusal to being forced into doing a wrong. Of course, it is wrong in another way, as it does not uphold the law and thus facilitates and encourages wrongs and disorder.
Thank you very much, reading your views and explaining my own has greatly clarified my own thoughts.
That right there I have never claimed anything but. As you said, the attacker surrenders his claim.
It is wrong that the victim was attacked. It is not wrong that the victim fought back or that the attacker is dead. The attacker made the choice himself. Many hold that view that self-defense carries with it guilt which I think is wrong. The guilt only lies with the attacker, not the defender.
As you said, you must plan ahead and think about this ahead of time, but the problem is every situation is different. All you can do is play hypothetical and come to conclusions that seem reasonable.
Why is it that a law enforcement officer can dispatch a violent criminal and not suffer a social stigma for doing so. Yet a private citizen suffers negatively for the decision to defend themselves?
I think the answer to that quiestion actually lies in the social structure as to what defines someone who retains guilt. We are imbued from childhood that killing is bad. Killing is something that should be avoided at all costs. One of the commandments says killing is bad. Except if you read the correct translation it says thou shall not murder.
Murder has a very specific context and implies cold blood where by it wouldn’t be justifiable. I know people who use that “commandment” of thou shall not kill as the crux of their refusal to carry arms and defend themselves. Their social and religious upbringing has cause them to see self-defense as being a sinful act. Others still react but that same social stigma weighs upon them. However for many when you suddenly represent the law, the killing was just and supported by the state. Since it was the state it was justified. Some law enforcement officers still have problems, many however do not.
It comes back around to how the issue is treated socially. If you stigmatize those who defend themselves they will naturally feel shame without anyone actually doing so. They are shamed because of the social perceptions that will now be applied to them.
It is that social construct which creates the perception of right and wrong.
I view the choice as wrong. There is no wrong in defending yourself, period. The idea that it is wrong is a farse. It is a farse because that implies that the criminal by virtue of the fact he’s willing to violate you, has more rights than you do. He has more rights because for you to defend yourself would be wrong.
As for criminals not being human, while in the act are they? If they were human and had humanity they wouldn’t be preying upon their fellow man correct?
They are human, in the literal sense of the word yes. In terms of their actions though they are not. They have descended into being an animal and attacking their fellow man. While doing so they have surrendered their Claim on their rights as you put it.
That is not to say I merely view them as an animal, but I will not imbue them with human qualities while reacting in the defense of myself or family. I will render aid if possible and necessary after all is said and done, but during the attack there is no requirement to do so.
Exactly. Why should the victim pay attention to the rights of his attacker who had no regards for his own rights? Why is the victim restrained past the point of attack? The attacker has already clearly indicated that he has no compunction about violating the rights of the victim so why should the victim concern himself with such things? The attacker himself in the act is “ignore-it” with regards to the victims’ rights.
This all ultimately comes back to a very simple philosophy, “The only unfair fight is the one you lose.”
I do not want the victim to be hamstrung by perceptions of the rights of his attacker. I want him to fight and win. The attacker made his choice, and his choice was to violate the rights of his fellow man who has done nothing to him.
As for your first scenario, knowing all that it is murder. In reality though how would you separate that from a third party actually rendering assistance? You can’t.
As for the scenario involving the bulletproof boxes you have a new problem. If you confined the criminal you’d be fine. Confining the innocent though has now restricted their movement and travel for the rights of the criminal.
The criminal is now also free to steal and rob the store without impediment. If you trapped the criminal that it wouldn’t be lawful to take his life. But as long as he was free, he would still be a threat. He’s a threat because what about after he leaves the store, does that magical system exist outside? What about the store owner who’s property was just stolen now without impediment or defense? Your bullet proof box prevented the store owner from defending his property. In fact by logical conclusion you guaranteed the criminals safety to commit the crime by boxing everyone up and leaving him free to do as he pleases.
If you just boxed up the criminal until the police come there is no issue. There is no reason to kill him, the criminal has been stopped by all definitions of the word. When it comes to self defense, that is all anyone is trying to do, stop the crime.
“It is wrong that the victim was attacked. It is not wrong that the
victim fought back or that the attacker is dead. The attacker made the
choice himself. Many hold that view that self-defense carries with it
guilt which I think is wrong. The guilt only lies with the attacker,
not the defender.”
I agree except I think it is wrong that anyone has to die. The right way is no one gets killed.
“Why is it that a law enforcement officer can dispatch a violent
criminal and not suffer a social stigma for doing so. Yet a private
citizen suffers negatively for the decision to defend themselves?”
Agents of the state are exempted from moral and legal codes. Why? A few thousand years of brainwashing.
“It comes back around to how the issue is treated socially. If you
stigmatize those who defend themselves they will naturally feel shame
without anyone actually doing so. They are shamed because of the social
perceptions that will now be applied to them.
It is that social construct which creates the perception of right and wrong.”
I think that is technically correct, but it is where our views diverge. While the social constructs creates the perception of right and wrong for most people, it is reality that creates right and wrong for all. And I don’t believe the opposition to killing is merely a result of a social construct. I think it is part of human nature – something lacking in psychopaths. Have you read “On Killing” by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman?
“I view the choice as wrong. There is no wrong in defending yourself,
period. The idea that it is wrong is a farse. It is a farse because
that implies that the criminal by virtue of the fact he’s willing to
violate you, has more rights than you do. He has more rights because
for you to defend yourself would be wrong.”
The way I see it is that once the offender acts to threaten or take someone’s life or limb, then the only possible outcome is someone is going to be wronged. Who should be wronged? Not the person who hasn’t done anything wrong – ideally it is the wrong doer that should be wronged.
“As for your first scenario, knowing all that it is murder. In
reality though how would you separate that from a third party actually
rendering assistance? You can’t.”
How can it be murder if Tom has no rights? And in reality, some people like to brag, a lot.
If you just boxed up the criminal until the police come there is no issue.”
Exactly. This happens, the door locks and the bad guys are caught. But if you can choose between trapping them and shooting them, and trapping them is a perfectly viable option – is it moral/legal to shoot them instead of trapping them? The real life cases I’ve seen the criminals are stuck by themselves until the cops show up.
“When it comes to self defense, that is all anyone is trying to do, stop the crime.”
On that we agree perfectly.
It ends up that in stopping the crime most often that means that someone is going to end up dead. That is the nature of the beast. Just because you shoot someone in the leg instead of center of mass doesn’t mean the live. Even if they do live, you still “wronged” them in your sense doing permanent disfigurement.
Wronged holds a very negative connotation. It implies that is something you should NOT do. Except self defense is something you should do. So how is your attacker wronged by you defending yourself other than not being a good little victim.
Wronged implies that absolutely an attacker, should he survive the defense provided by his victim would have legal recourse for compensation for being wronged. Should criminals be compensated for their bad decisions and willingness to prey upon their fellow man?
It changes the attitude and context greatly.
As for the first example, it is murder because there was malice a forethought, otherwise known as premeditated. The decision was made in advance to him surrendering his rights.
I have “On Killing” on my shelf and haven’t had a chance to read it yet. It still ultimately comes back to a social construct. How does society treat those who defend themselves vs those who don’t. Often those who don’t are idolized for the pacifism, while those who defend themselves are demonized.
It pays socially to not defend yourself. Even in the animal kingdom we see self-defense. The bottom line is odds are if someone is forced to the point where they must act to stop the crime, odds are someone is leaving in a body bag.
When it comes to self-defense you either know, realize, and accept that death is a probable result of stopping a threat, or it can come back to haunt you.
If someone attacks me or my family, he made all those decisions for me. It is not me that possibly kills him, he did this to himself by his choices. I didn’t wrong him, he wronged himself. A person should not retain guilt for an event created purely as the result of someone else’s decisions.
“Wronged holds a very negative connotation. It implies that is
something you should NOT do. Except self defense is something you
should do. So how is your attacker wronged by you defending yourself
other than not being a good little victim.”
Ah, but who is doing the wronging in a self defense case? The defender is not acting from free will, they are acting under coercion, so they are not morally or legally responsible. I think the offender murders himself via citizen.
“Wronged implies that absolutely an attacker, should he survive the
defense provided by his victim would have legal recourse for
compensation for being wronged. Should criminals be compensated for
their bad decisions and willingness to prey upon their fellow man?
It changes the attitude and context greatly.”
The language is tricky.
“I have “On Killing” on my shelf and haven’t had a chance to read it
yet. It still ultimately comes back to a social construct. How does
society treat those who defend themselves vs those who don’t. Often
those who don’t are idolized for the pacifism, while those who defend
themselves are demonized. ”
“On Killing” is incredible. It resensitized me to violence.
I find our culture very odd – pacifists are idolized, but so are the offensive warriors of the state.
I’m quite convinced though that there is a natural aversion to violence and killing.
” I didn’t wrong him, he wronged himself.”
Exactly. But that is still a wrong. The “your money or your life” or “your body or your life” threat leaves the victim with no ability to choose right. My preferred choice would be “I’ll keep both and you can keep whatever is yours.”