A single salient question; is there a human right to self defense?

The simple answer is yes, survival is the strongest instinct. Since many on this forum are not religious, then we are not much more than animals. Yes I have the right to defend my life, my family's lives, and my territory or home.

 

Some people are busy re-writing History, packing it with unproved falsehoods to bolster an Anti Gun Agenda, there are many such Lies and claims made by the various Gun Control Clack.

I really don't have to Defend any answer I give as far as Personal Defense, I have served in various Official capacities where carrying Firearms were part of My duties, I have had many layers of comprehensive training and am a Firearms Instructor, and also have used Firearms in Personal Defense many times.

Most States Penal Codes specify quite clearly when it is legally justified to use Lethal Force.

I have never lived in fear, and many of the posters referring to fear as a reason to be Armed understand not the issues involved, especially British subjects, (Tyre gives it away) you cannot simply rationalize for or against Personal Defense or use Religion or Religious belief as part of that Rationalization.

Example; you are walking down the street and a Brigand pulls a knife on you and demands your valuables and also demands your wife get into his car, what do you do ?

Let the Criminal have his way, or defend your wife ?
What if you are old or infirm ?
It is about being prepared, not living in fear.

Si vis Pax, Parabellum....

 

As I said, it's sad that all that is required. Fear of personal violence is so strong that all those things are required.

 

As opposed to what precisely? What exactly are you comparing the above standard to?

 

I'll say it again. It's a sad state of affairs when an ordinary person is forced to worry daily about their safety from attack. We've all got the usual things to worry about that might do us in but some of us have more to fear from other people being the attackers. That reminds me of http://gawker.com/5932846/american-...ing-lack-of-handgun-during-mild-confrontation

 

Yeah I used to carry condoms in my wallet too, but sadly not required these days.

 

Why carry? Is it your job? Is it for self-defence? Is it because you can? If so, no problem with any of that.

 

No need for comparisons, the facts stand for themselves.

 

To paraphrase and summary:

Sherlock Holmes addressing Watson;
Based on the actual life of Dr. Bell
( England )

Thor Bridge story..

Holmes... "I seem to recall your being Armed on some of our little adventures....Watson..... I have My Revolver....."

I do not recall either Mr.Holmes or Dr. Watson
As being particularly fearful of anything....

 

Do you have a right to violently attack or interfere with peaceful people?

 

Surrender to whom?

 

That is simply the state of the world. Society does not protect the individuals, nor can it be made to. Government and police officers are not there to provide services such as protection from harm to any particular individual. Such services are reserved only to the public in general. The courts in the united states have long held that neither the state as a whole, nor agents of the state, can be held responsible or otherwise for not protecting someone from harm.

Perhaps it is a sad state of affairs. But it is the state of the world that everyone lives in. The sooner such fact is accepted, the sooner one can move on and plan accordingly.

 

For a woman it's not much of a life being unable to defend yourself against a physically stronger attacker.

Why do you keep propounding the Law of the Jungle?

 

Your reference says: "Yet in the Colonial and early federal periods, guns were certainly less common than most think, and were seldom associated with interpersonal violence. Most significant gun-related violence occurred between Native Americans and European settlers, and as a primary tool of war. In early conflicts, including the Revolutionary War, limited gun availability among the general population proved to be a severe and protracted problem, as American military leaders, including Continental Army Gen. George Washington, regularly complained that service-eligible males lacked not only working firearms, but also basic knowledge of their use and maintenance. These complaints by American military leaders persisted up to the Civil War in the 1860s."

What a load of garbage! Guns were used by our forefathers *all* the time, PERSONAL guns. They were a primary tool for obtaining protein by early settlers, wild turkey, deer, rabbits, squirrels, etc.
The problem the Continental Army had was that the guns in use by the army WERE NOT THE SAME as those in common use. That's why in Federalist Paper 29 it was written " Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped;" This means with the same type of firearm used by the military, with similar ammunition and accessories. It also means that today having the people at large properly armed and equipped would include AR-15 rifles and 9mm Berettas.

go here: http://www.guns.com/2011/11/25/thanksgiving-leftovers-the-guns-of-the-pilgrims/

 

Partially agree. The criminal justice system exists to keep the peace. Peace is good for commerce. Way back in history when English law (which is the root of the legal system in both our countries) shifted from a focus on individual or collective revenge without thought of deterrence and to a broad idea of peace for the kingdom (to allow foreign merchants to safely visit and trade) individuals gave up their entitlement to vengeance for the promise of peace. That's pretty much the case today. Quite right that none of us individually are legally entitled to protection. The police and criminal justice system are part of a general deterrence. We still have the right to self-defence although it is hedged around with certain requirements dependent on the jurisdiction. But where a person feels the need to be armed for self-defence it indicates that the deterrence isn't working effectively. And that's not good for the ordinary person.

 

You are in error. I'm not in favour of a lawless society and in any case you've begged the question. But to get back to the point - it's a sad state of affairs where someone has to carry a firearm for self defence. Somalia I can understand. But for a location with good government and services and a very high standard of living I think it's a bit sad.

 

Then it is failing to meet the very reason that supposedly justifies its reason for existence.

Matters such as vengeance and revenge are not being discussed, as they are not relevant to the matter of self defense. The two standards are not, in any way, shape, or form, even remotely related to one another.

Pray tell, why exactly is that fact so difficult to grasp within this discussion?

Whether or not such is good for the ordinary person, it does not change the fact that such is indeed the state of the world that is lived in, both in the united states and elsewhere.

In the united states, there is just slightly more than one million police officers. That works out to approximately one police officer for every three hundred individuals, or approximately one police officer for protecting an area the size of a small town. The numbers are simply not there, to make the system itself amount to a deterrent by virtue of its mere existence. There is no way this fact can be changed, as there is simply no amount of funding that can bring about a sufficient number of police officers to reduce the number of private citizens to police officers. Nor is there a manner to address overcrowding in prisons that result in offenders being released early, or the excessive reliance on plea bargains to obtain convictions on reduced charges.

The system that in place does not work, because it cannot work. The only option the people in the united states have is to look after their own well being. Even the police officers are aware of this fact, and advising the public to legally procure firearms and learn how to use them, because they simply cannot respond in time to prevent someone from being murdered, or otherwise subjected to victimization by one who holds no regard for human life.

 

Sad or not, it is the state of being, and nothing will ever change that fact.

 

The law of self-defense is often referred to as the first law of nature. Within this forum the issue is not just self-defense but more specifically the right to use deadly force in self-defense. The law of self-defense is the law of necessity, and deadly force is justified when it is reasonably perceived to be necessary. Assume for a moment that you are a juror in a case where a man is charged with killing someone and he claims self-defense as his justification for the shooting. Here is a jury instruction you would get (in my home state of Virginia, which largely follows the common law standard we inherited from England):

THE COURT INSTRUCTS THE JURY THAT the amount of force used in self-defense must be reasonable in relation to the harm threatened, and that the defendant is not allowed to use deadly force in self- defense unless he reasonably feared, under the circumstances as they appeared to him, that he was in danger of being killed or that he was in danger of great bodily harm.

There are other variations on this, like the “castle doctrine,” but I find this new forum format too restrictive to talk about them in one sitting. In any event, the RKBA was a long recognized natural right when it reached America, and our national history has confirmed our recognition of the RKBA as a subset of the broader right of self-defense against both private and public violence. At its core it is a right to be prepared to defend yourself.

---

And indeed, gentlemen, there exists a law, not written down anywhere but written in our hearts; a law which comes to us not by training or custom or reading but by derivation and absorption and adoption from nature itself; a law which has come to us not by theory but from practice, not by instruction but by natural intuition. I refer to the law which lays it down that, if our lives are endangered by plots or violence or armed robbers or enemies, any and every method of protecting ourselves is morally right. When weapons reduce them to silence, the laws no longer expect one to await their pronouncements. For people who decide to wait for these will have to wait for justice, too--and meanwhile they must suffer injustice first. Indeed, even the wisdom of the law itself, by a sort of tacit implication, permits self- defense, because it does not actually forbid men to kill; what it does, instead, is to forbid the bearing of a weapon with the intention to kill. When, therefore, an inquiry passes beyond the mere question of the weapon and starts to consider the motive, a man who has used arms in self-defense is not regarded as having carried them with homicidal aim. Cicero , Selected Political Speeches, p. 222 (M. Grant, trans. 1975)

 

Fire extinguishers or spare tires are owned for fear of personal violence? I guess my first aid kit is too?

 

I don't see American Society being Armed as a "Sad (sorry) state of affairs" any more than current U.K. and other Countries for putting up with Brutality as far as being Disarmed and the danger of being attacked, however, the Lies being told by Propaganda and proponents of Gun Control is indeed a sorry state of affairs.

Convincing people that Gun Control = Crime prevention.

 

Do you find that you ears pop a lot, being up in your high tower?

 

Ivory Tower,
High Horse,
Etc...

 

Only when I come down

 

Why would you come down? Life can't possibly be worth living when you do that.