From: kevinc@solman.kpc.com (Kevin Cameron)
Newsgroups: rec.martial-arts,talk.politics.guns
Subject: The basic problem with anti-gun nuts.
Date: 11 Dec 92 23:59:02 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer

In article <sDZJVB1w164w@upchrch.UUCP>, joel@upchrch.UUCP (Joel Upchurch  ) writes:
|> I recall one Detroit study that showed that in most cases where a
|> woman shot her spouse with a gun it was found to be justifiable
|> self-defense.
|> 

I think that the basic problem that we believers in freedom have
with the anti-gun nuts is that they don't understand the concept
of "justifiable self-defense".  It seems that they want all persons
to be equally vulnerable to attack from criminals.

This passivism seems to arise from the increase in awareness of the
rights of criminals as citizens which occured in the US during the
60's and 70's.  For the record, I believe strongly in protecting
a suspected criminal's right to a fair and speedy trial, access
to legal counsel, etc.  When the passivists start extending this to
protecting the criminal's "right" to harm me, then that is where our
views diverge.

Now, I am sure that the passivists are thinking right now that they
don't believe in the criminal's "right" to harm others.  In fact,
their statements say they do believe in it.  If the right to protect
oneself is taken away, then this is the same as granting the "right"
to cause harm to the criminal.

Another way of putting this is to diagram the pertinent rights being
exercised during a possible scenario of a conflict between a home owner
and a robber.

First the passivist's viewpoint:

Robber's Rights        Home Owner's Rights     Law Enforcement Rights

Right to "case" the
home to determine if it
is an easy target.

Right to enter the yard
to gain entrance to the
home.

                        Right to call police
                        when noise is heard outside.

                                              Right to ignore the home
                                              owner's request for help
                                              or take as long as desired
                                              to respond.

Right to kick in the door
and enter the house.

                        Right to scream for help.
                        (This is ineffective since
                        neighbors are also passivists)

Right to steal anything,
rape anything, and kill
anything inside the home.

Right to leave without fear
of harm.

                                              Right to show up (or not)
                                              after everything is over.

                                              Right to file a report (or not).

                                              Right to catch the criminal later
                                              and put him in jail for a while
                                              (or not).

                                              Right to leave the site, go home,
                                              protect family with weapon
                                              approved by passivists for "Law
                                              Enforcement Use Only".

Again, the passivists are saying that the robber has no such rights as
listed above.  I guarantee you they don't have such rights around my
house.  But, if the government removes my ability to legally prevent
these things from happening, is it not, in fact, giving the robber
the right to do these things?  I say it is.

Here is the viewpoint of a believer in freedom:

Robber's Rights        Home Owner's Rights     Law Enforcement Rights

Right to "case" the
home to determine if it
is an easy target.

Right to enter the yard
to gain entrance to the
home. (Only if the
home owner isn't watching
at the moment to prevent
it)

                       Right to grab suitable weapon
                       when noise is heard outside.
                       (includes the most effective weapon
                       for such use: a gun)

Right to kick in the door.
(Only if the home owner
isn't watching at the 
moment to prevent it)

                       Right to aim weapon at robber.

Right to flee or
surrender if desired.

                       If robber has not fled or surrendered:
                       Right to use weapon as needed to prevent
                       robber from doing anything that might
                       endanger the home owner, his family, or
                       his property.

Right to die or be wounded.

                                              Right to show up 
                                              after everything is over.

                                              Right to file a report.

                                              Right to catch the criminal later
                                              (if he fled) and put him in jail
                                              for a while.

                                              Right to leave the site, go home,
                                              protect family with same weapon
                                              that is available to other
                                              citizens.

Now, I realize that there are many possible outcomes to the above scenario.
In some of those outcomes, the home owner might even have been hurt more
by attempting to protect himself.  For believers in freedom, however, the
point of self-protection isn't just to reduce risk of injury.  Equally
important is the right to determine one's own destiny to the greatest
extent that is possible and consistent with the legitimate rights of
others.  For those who don't understand freedom, "legitimate" rights don't
include the right to harm someone else without just cause.

-- 
Kevin Cameron

"Those who will trade essential liberty for promise of security will
 have neither" - Benjamin Franklin
Newsgroups: rec.martial-arts