So I generally lie more left of center than most people in the shooting community. This means I interact with a lot of people that are self proclaimed liberals. I have one friend who is very loudly pro French style socialist principles. We got into a discussion about self-defense and he's a fan of equal force. The idea that you have a right to defend yourself only in a manner equal to the assault. We went back and forth about it but I ultimately had to make a few things clear to him.
1. Not everyone is a trained peace keeper capable of measuring force during an assault. They should not have to measure it and should be able to respond as forcefully as they like in response to the the "surprise" of the situation.
2. Even if someone had that training, there are always mitigating factors that can never be judged objectively in a court later.
3. His argument that everyone has a right to life, even the assaulter, is a construct of a society functioning on a social contract. Basically a philosophical Golden Rule. I argued there is no reason for a civilized person, under the protection of law and police to assault another. When we convict people for prison terms we strip their rights. We grant no legal protection for contracts that are otherwise in violation of the law. In the same concept, a person who has chosen to assault another (violating their right to autonomy) has, in my mind, opted out of the social contract. They have waived their right to the security of their own health, well-being, and ultimately life by choosing the risk of attack.
I was wondering how other people thought about self-defense and equal force/right to life arguments. I'm always looking for a way to better vocalize, in a rational and level manner, why gun rights are important. People like to sell words like murder and rape but to opponents they see it as an emotional appeal to scare people into needing a gun. Weirdly, my arguments above actually moved someone who was hard-line anti armed society to considering it much more sincerely.
1. Not everyone is a trained peace keeper capable of measuring force during an assault. They should not have to measure it and should be able to respond as forcefully as they like in response to the the "surprise" of the situation.
2. Even if someone had that training, there are always mitigating factors that can never be judged objectively in a court later.
3. His argument that everyone has a right to life, even the assaulter, is a construct of a society functioning on a social contract. Basically a philosophical Golden Rule. I argued there is no reason for a civilized person, under the protection of law and police to assault another. When we convict people for prison terms we strip their rights. We grant no legal protection for contracts that are otherwise in violation of the law. In the same concept, a person who has chosen to assault another (violating their right to autonomy) has, in my mind, opted out of the social contract. They have waived their right to the security of their own health, well-being, and ultimately life by choosing the risk of attack.
I was wondering how other people thought about self-defense and equal force/right to life arguments. I'm always looking for a way to better vocalize, in a rational and level manner, why gun rights are important. People like to sell words like murder and rape but to opponents they see it as an emotional appeal to scare people into needing a gun. Weirdly, my arguments above actually moved someone who was hard-line anti armed society to considering it much more sincerely.
