I believe that an individual's right to defend themselvesand even their community in times of emergencyis a fundamental human right. Yet more and more, governments seem to be making it illegal for people to defend themselves. The idea seems to be that police have a monopoly on force. Even use of force by professional security guards is often looked down upon. The first type of law is the one that makes it difficult or impossible for people to just be able to defend themselves, without breaking the law. This could involve carrying a gun, or having access to a gun inside one's car, for example. The second type of law effectively criminalizes someone defending themselves, even when it was completely appropriate for them to do so. In many jurisdictions, the police and court system automatically assume guilt if one person (who is not police) shoots another. Even shooting an intruder breaking into your own home is becoming illegal in many jurisdictions. http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=123703 http://www.naturalnews.com/037166_self_defense_homeowners_violent_criminals.html http://savannahnow.com/stories/041599/LOCsmiley.html http://thefreethoughtproject.com/prosecutor-seeking-death-penalty-officer-killed-knock-raid/ Now obviously it might not be practical to say that all people have an absolute right to do whatever it takes to defend themselves. For example, just because you see a suspicious looking person following you and pulling something out of his pocket should you just immediately pull out your gun and riddle his body full of bullet holes before he can do you any possible harm? And in a crowded urban location, it might not be appropriate to have private citizens with rocket launchers and anti-personnel mortars, ready to face off against a possible (but very unlikely) military force. And what about when perpetrators disguise themselves as police? It has happened before. Does that just make them completely immune to any intervention by private citizens? Can they just pull over an armored car carrying a large quantity of money? Can they just waltz into a bank, past the hired security guards, and demand to enter into the vault? Or kidnappings. Could quickly grab a child of some wealthy family in plain sight in public and drive off with them. It seems more and more of the laws being passed essentially expect private citizens to be sitting ducks to anything bad that could happen. Oh, the police will try to find and punish the perpetrators after the fact, but they might never find them. Or the perpetrator could go on to do a tremendous amount of damage and theft before the police are finally able to get them. And then there are situations and places where the police are either not able or not willing to provide adequate protection. What happens when laws are passed that make people or a whole community entirely dependent on their local government for protection? If the police and courts are not doing their job, it seems like this could be an affront to the natural rights of the people.
Ok, here's another hypothetical. I know it's unlikely, but it illustrates the point I am trying to show here. You are walking along, and have a gun. All of a sudden, a group of five people begin to surround you. It appears they all have guns in holsters, but one of them is quickly pulling out his gun as he is running towards you. There is a small amount of time, as he is still some distance away, and probably would not be very accurate while he is running. You have no idea who these people are, and have to make a split second decision. What do you do? Now we can analyze the situation and try to determine what would be the most beneficial thing for to do, in terms of probability. We can try to guess at this group's motives, and what they may be planning to do with you. Or we can make a moral determination based on the principal of your individual natural right to defend yourself from those who choose to threaten your freedom and safety. We can make it even more complicated and imagine the man who is pulling out his gun appears to be wearing a bullet-proof vest under a thick jacket. Or suppose you come from a very wealthy family and think there is a possibility these people might want to hold you for ransom? Let's suppose this is in an area, or under circumstances where you have reason to fear for your safety. Maybe it's a neighborhood with a very high amount of crime, shootings, and muggings. Two people were found dead in the last month and no one knows who did it. Or there is a total and complete break-down of law and order (I'm saying this isn't your daily life, average friendly neighborhood type of situation). You manage to yell out "Don't reach for your gun or I'll shoot you!" But there's not much time for them to react to the warning, and you're not even sure if they clearly heard what you said.
Let's say that there are two paths in the woods. They both lead to the same destination. One person likes to choice the left path, another the right path. Does that mean that either paths are wrong? No, of course not. That's the problem with your scenario. People do have the right to defend themselves, but how varies differently. Couldn't we say that people are defending themselves by enacting measures that makes it harder to get guns, so criminals can't get hem either? If at the end of the day, it brings down gun deaths and crimes, then it would seem that people are using their right to defend themselves.
Your perspective actually seems fundamentally similar the scenario I presented (despite outward appearances). You want to infringe on the rights of other people to try to preventatively defend yourself. Someone who did nothing but carry a gun where he wasn't supposed to will be thrown behind bars for two years, all as part of your policy to make you feel more safe. Because he might have been planning to use that gun for something bad. That's really the moral issue here. So does someone have the right to defend themselves because their safety/freedom might be in danger? One cannot secure their absolute right to self defense without infringing on the rights of others. Of course, that group of 5 people who surround you in my hypothetical scenario could have, through their actions, chosen to avoid putting themselves in that situation, just like someone arrested for violating a gun control law could have avoided carrying the gun. I'm not trying to change the topic, but I see analogies to abortion here. The rights of one individual in potential conflict with another. The mother could, of course, have chosen not to put herself in that situation. But how much of the responsibility can we shoulder onto the person that puts themselves in that situation? Telling a woman she can't risk pregnancy might be a little like telling a man he can't have a gun, even if there might be some reason for him to want it. And maybe in that earlier scenario, that group of 5 armed people might actually have had a justifiable reason for their actions. But even if the reason is ethically justifiable on their part, it could still be a violation of your natural rights. How do we decide who's rights are greater? How do we make sure inherent natural rights of people are not denied?
You have stumbled upon what I believe. I believe that all rights are inherently equal, but as a society we come to identify some rights as more important then other rights. Think of the right to kill someone. We have that right, but we choice to declare it a crime because another person has the right to live. That right to live trumps the right to murder. There in lies the problem though. We don't decide what's right or wrong individually, we decide what is best for the group. The reason though that this doesn't change with every new regime change, is through the laws in place. The laws are simply a sign of what a society values, or their culture. So then the rights that are "denied", have been trumped by a right considered more valuable by society.
how utterly ironic and hypocritical at the same time. - - - Updated - - - Even more ironic and hypocritical than the first one
While I see a lot of sense in your comment there is one thing that does and always has overridden the right to life and that is the right to defend yourself against injury .. in fact that right is probably the most fundamental right of all, it can never be removed from you where as the right to life can be removed.
We all want to live, but at the end of the day, we have to make sacrifices. If I sacrifice myself today, so my family can live tomorrow, then it seems like a good deal to some people. We value our own safety, that's why we have laws in place to protect ourselves. But sometimes those laws doesn't make it so living life is a fundamental right. If it were so, then why can't I steal a loaf of bread when I'm starving? I need the bread to live but I can't take it without paying for it in the first place.
I agree. Governments have a way of placing more and more laws and burdens onto the people, without really much regard to how those laws actually affect the people and their individual rights. The mother could have avoided putting herself in that situation in the first place, just like someone who is seems to be threatening your safety made a choice to put themselves in that situation. So whatever befalls them isn't entirely on you.
This is called risk, and no one is expected to suffer extended injury due to a risk taken, by your logic it could be said that a person who drives a car put themselves in the situation where a crash could happen, and if one does, then they should not receive medically help to rectify any injuries after all they could have avoided putting themselves in that situation in the first place. not always, mentally incompetent people (which is what a fetus would be seen as IF personhood is granted) are not capable of making choices such as this, that however does not give them free reign to injure others, however it stills give a person the right to protect themselves against such injuries, or as the Model Penal Code - Page 197 states it ""People whose involuntary movements threaten harm to others may present a public health or safety problem." The law recognizes that both involuntary and voluntary acts can cause harm and injury to other people and that involuntary characteristic of an action does not give its perpetrator any right to inflict harm or injury. You make this statement "I believe that an individual's right to defend themselvesand even their community in times of emergencyis a fundamental human right." and you advocate for the banning of abortion which, at it's core, is a self-defence issue, that is ironic and hypocritical. You need to understand that consent to the risk of injury is NOT consent to the actual injury.
That would still be your choice to do so, just as it would be your choice not to sacrifice yourself . .you cannot be forced to make that sacrifice, the banning of abortion is basically forcing a woman to make a sacrifice. A person has as much right to be a bad Samaritan as they do to be a good Samaritan, banning abortion makes a woman a captive Samaritan, she has no choice to be either a bad or good Samaritan. You have a right to food, you do not have a right to be fed. The right to life only extends to the point where that right infringes on another persons rights. Stealing infringes on another persons rights for example how do you know that-that loaf of bread was not all the person who it was stolen from had to feed himself and so by stealing it you have placed their life in doubt.
Oh they do. But the question is then, what rights are they protecting while at the same time subjecting? The logic is there, but the ideas behind it, they're not worth it.
Of course. We have the freedom to make a decision, that can't be changed. The problem then is how we define freedom? Are we truly free or are we still being pulled by our strings? And yet why did they have the loaf of bread to begin with? Is it because they too are hungry, or is it because of something else? The farmer can't feed his family wheat if the baker takes his wheat and then won't give him his fair share back for the wheat in the first place. The baker might not be able to operate without the farmer, but that is no reason why they should be treated as equals.
Freedom in my opinion is the right to do as you please unless by doing it you infringe on another person's rights. I once saw something written that said, the only true freedom is anarchy, in the absence of anarchy the closest we come is the freedom over oneself. On a purely physical plane then no not all people are equal, that doesn't equate to not treating people equally .
The problem is that we all infringe upon others rights when one person decides to use their rights. If I'm talking all the time, then you can't talk, thus infringing upon your rights. I get what you're saying, I just don't know if I would agree with it. Of course.
Brazilian security guard Tiago Gomes da Rocha confessed to the murders of 39 people. He would approach victims on motorbike and shout "robbery!". He would then shoot the victims and leave without robbing them.
i"d say that if you are that unaware of your surroundings, you're never going to be able to bring your gun to bear on them anyway (in time)
