| Submit your comments on this article | ||
| -Land of the Free | ||
| Self-defense is a questionable argument for owning a gun | ||
| 2016-09-30 | ||
| [BaltimoreSun] Self-defense is the most widely accepted basis for gun ownership rights. When the Supreme Court asserted a constitutional right to private gun ownership in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), it referred to "traditionally lawful purposes" and offered a single example: self-defense in the home. Those who assert moral (or human) rights to gun ownership also invoke self-defense as a foundation. So it is also in the Bible, not just the courts.
The relationship of the individual to the state and its actors is a passive one for the individual, not an active one. You rarely hear an argument for gun control that doesn't involve the government, nor do you see an argument against gun control that doesn't involve the other active element of the state, its criminal class. Suppose I live in a country with useless law enforcement and know that an assassin is trying to kill me. Surely I, an innocent person, may defend myself. But if the only effective means is by blowing up a crowded building, killing not only the assassin but dozens of innocent people, I may not proceed. My act of self-defense would be disproportionately harmful to innocent others and would violate their rights. My right to self-defense is limited by the means I may take in exercising it. Your act of self defense is lawful, regardless of the harm caused to "others". And in a national entity in which your self defense means are limited, you'll always have the criminal as a go-to source for firearms. Perhaps, then, people have a right to take effective means to defend themselves so long as these measures don't wrongly harm or violate the rights of others. Yet this isn't quite right either. The professor set up an absurd straw man and knocked it down easily. Let's see if he can come up with something a little more substantive. 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. Criminals are also citizens, which is a point the professor misses. They may be criminals, and they may have been denied by the state the right to vote, but they are still members of a civil society. As we know from previous court rulings, governmental employees are in no way obliged to provide protection to the individual. The relationship of police and the law to its citizens is custodial. 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. So the qualified right to self-defense comes to this: a right to defend oneself when doing so (1) does not wrongly harm others or violate their rights and (2) is necessary to protect one's security and/or rights because such protection isn't otherwise forthcoming. The right to self defense exists outside the penumbra of governments and their regulators. That the law limits and regulates the basis for enacting self defense is a reflection of the defectivity of the state, not the citizen's duty for self defense. So, there is no "qualification" for the right to defense, in the sense that there is no basis for self defense. There is only the duty for self defense, and that includes self defense against an overreaching, overbearing government. Does the qualified right of self-defense support gun ownership? Presumably, this right concerns the freedom to use effective means to defend oneself — subject to the two qualifications just stated. So, it must be asked: Are guns effective means? Are they necessary for one's protection? And does gun ownership steer clear of harming others and violating their rights? These questions raise complicated issues in the social sciences, political philosophy and ethics. In this short space, I can only offer a few brief notes of skepticism. Hint: His answer would be no. First, in our current American milieu of minimal gun control, gun ownership is associated with an increased likelihood that someone in the household will die a violent death. Assuming the spirit of "self-defense in the home" includes defending not only oneself but other household members, this evidence-based generalization suggests that gun ownership, on average, is not an effective means to personal security; rather, it tends to be self-defeating. Guns are dangerous, and even more so for those who are untrained or who are careless in their handling, which are not mutually exclusive. That guns are mishandled or are used for criminal acts in no way invalidates the duty to oneself and one's own family for self defense. Second, is gun ownership necessary in the event of an attempted break-in? That is uncertain. Some evidence suggests that calling the police and hiding are more frequently sufficient for a good outcome than is brandishing or using a gun. Very well then. Cowering seems to be a measure of self defense for the professor, presumably sans firearm, which is fine for his purposes. As a personal preference, a 5.45mm fits my personal requirement.
Self-defense is therefore a shaky basis for gun ownership rights. No wonder so few developed nations have acknowledged them. English-speaking developed nations have similar notions to ours about firearms. The Australian example, which has been a massive failure is more a testament to the known fact that gun control doesn't work. David DeGrazia (ddd@gwu.edu) is professor of philosophy at George Washington University. His seven books include "Debating Gun Control," co-authored by Lester Hunt and published this month by Oxford University Press. | ||
| Posted by:badanov |
| #16 They say that an NRA sticker on a vehicle parked on the street effectively protects the entire block. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2016-09-30 18:09 |
| #15 Has the good professor noticed that gun free zones are the favorite spots for mass murderers? Criminals have a tendency to avoid attacking places where they have a good chance of being killed. Guns in the hands of law abiding people deters crime. Home invasions are far more common, for example, in Britain than here. Facts do not bother this guy. Anyway the standard sequence is crime occurs police investigate with luck a perpetrator is arrested a trial police do not protect individuals defense of individuals is not a part of this process. the government is not a substitute for self defense. example: the dead marathon bomber was reported by Russian intelligence to the FBI; he was interviewed and apparently cleared. another recent terrorist was reported to the FBI by his father, with no intervention. Great government protection! |
| Posted by: Grins Snese4215 2016-09-30 17:04 |
| #14 they always include suicides in the "deaths in the home" count to have a much higher toll |
| Posted by: Frank G 2016-09-30 15:03 |
| #13 DepotGuy, reminds me of the stats on children killed by guns. Children of course includes 18-19 year old gang-bangers. When you remove them from the stats the number of children killed by guns is very low. But they want the image of a toddler to really push the emotional message when they know logic doesn't serve them. Scoundrels all. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2016-09-30 11:47 |
| #12 Spoken like a 'man' who's never been in a fistfight, or got mugged. |
| Posted by: Raj 2016-09-30 11:46 |
| #11 Oh, a big britches philosopher writer. Know who really was? Socrates, that's who. He served his call to duty as a hoplite. A hoplite was responsible for purchasing his own weapons and armor. The government expected its citizens to do so. No absolute right to self defense is the damn tardest thing I have ever heard, and I mean that. How far removed from reality does a person need to be to even think that, never mind sharing it as some grande epiphany. Zombie flicks - do the main characters just sit there and wait their turn to be eaten? Sports - do football players and boxers just let themselves get hit or do they try to protect themselves? Do people not swat mosquitos? Do we not shoo flys from our food? Do we not get inoculated as a defense against disease? Do we not recoil from fire so not to get burned? Thank you, I will take my advise from Xenophon, who would laugh at this guy's silk stockings. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2016-09-30 11:33 |
| #10 ...gun ownership is associated with an increased likelihood that someone in the household will die a violent death. This is an absolute favorite logical falicie arguments amongst gun control advocates. And it's even more absurd in the context of self defense. A large portion of this raw data includes illegally possessed firearms. Furthermore, it conflates possession with action. Even if one was to make an ipso facto argument regarding degree (domestic violence with a gun vs blunt object) it offers only a reaction to a symptom without a solution to the primary affliction. Burning candles in the home may increase the likelihood of an accidental fire but doesn't increase the likelihood of arson. |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2016-09-30 09:31 |
| #9 Self defense against a 500 pound bear will get you arrested. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2016-09-30 09:21 |
| #8 but, but he's a Professor! Of Philosophy! At George Washington University! Author of SEVEN books! Ultimate Moral Authority! George himself would say: "Shuddup, punk. Get me my slippers" |
| Posted by: Frank G 2016-09-30 08:56 |
| #7 These questions raise complicated issues in the social sciences, political philosophy and ethics. Get back with me after I'm done defending myself when the police are not around. As well as self-defense, the purpose of the 2nd is to defend against a tyrannical government. We can sort out the intellectual arguments after the shooting stops. As it is said better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2016-09-30 08:33 |
| #6 Found it. |
| Posted by: Punky Jeatch4693 2016-09-30 08:18 |
| #5 I believe there was a Supreme Court decision some years ago that stated you do not have an expectation of protection by the police. Some guy got mugged and sued the police. He lost. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2016-09-30 08:15 |
| #4 Self-defense is the most widely accepted basis for gun ownership rights. The "basis" won't mean a great deal of the Beest is elected. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2016-09-30 06:57 |
| #3 Self-defense is the most widely accepted basis for gun ownership rights. Straw man argument. The 2d Amendment clearly shows for the militia, to which the founders put trust in rather than a standing army to guarantee their rights. Having just rid themselves of the Kings army and decedents of the rule of Cromwell, they knew exactly what they were doing. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2016-09-30 06:52 |
| #2 This twit of a professor needs to confine himself to asking his students about treees falling in forests |
| Posted by: John Frum 2016-09-30 06:40 |
| #1 Why do you keep posting these things? We know the self appointed "intellectual elites" are not just crazy as a bat but dumb as shit as well (except when it comes to feathering their own nests). In his discussion of the new, Soviet, "intelligentsia" in Archipelago Gulag, Solzhenitsyn states "If the fact that a circle has 360 degrees impacted these people's well-being, they'd make calculations in anything but radians, a felony." Well, the current western "new class" would do one better - they would make the word 'circle' a hate speech. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2016-09-30 03:03 |