The Debate Over Self-Defense And Defense Of Others

By Semperpapa

The shooting in Tucson that cost the lives of six innocent people and several wounded, including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, has sparked a new round of excitement on the part of the anti-gun activists. These are the same kind that lurks in the shadows feverishly waiting for the next opportunity to advance their anti Second Amendment agenda.

For these types, every horrible tragedy like the one in Tucson, or Columbine, or Virginia Tech, lends itself to the advancement of their Utopian view of an America where the right to own and bear arms is removed.

These folks are not much better than those lawyers we qualify as “ambulance chasers”, because they will try to win their arguments on the blood of others.

We have gone through all the different iterations of blame on the part of the Left regarding the tragedy in Tucson, from the blame placed on Conservative dissent against the current regime to assigning the responsibility to Bush and Reagan and who ever else.

And of course, practically immediately, the attacks against the Second Amendment started to pour out of every liberal that could get to a microphone or a keyboard. Absolutely expected.

One accompanying issue of the Tucson tragedy was the one concerning the safety of elected officials. The attack on Ms. Giffords brought to the surface the vulnerability of Congress members as they try to come into contact with their constituencies across the Nation. The availability of contact between an elected official and his or her voters is a basic characteristic of our governmental system, and one that should not be allowed to be altered by the actions of a deranged individual.

Calls for additional protective details for politicians have been made, but the task could be daunting, considering that the extra protection would have to fall upon the Capitol Police force in Washington and on the local law enforcement when the politician is home. Perhaps it is a difficult task, but a doable one.

In fact, it is somewhat disturbing that the law enforcement chiefs of Tucson and Pima County, did not have at least couple of officers at the Giffords event on that Saturday.

But there is another line of approach to the issue that could, at least, provide an improvement of the situation, and that is being already taken into consideration by some in Congress: the possibility of carrying a weapon themselves.

North Carolina Rep. Renee Elmers is considering carrying a weapon at public functions by virtue of her possession of a Concealed Carrying permit she already holds, while another NC representative, Health Shuler, stated that he has been already doing so for sometime, due to some dead threats received.

Other politicians have expressed the intention of doing the same, as the attack in Tucson brought to the forefront the necessity, and right, to self defense.

The right of an individual to self defense is one that our Forefathers understood very well, as they had to come to grips with that concept as they took on the most powerful military empire on Earth to achieve independence. And the Second Amendment was intended to address just such right: the ability to defend oneself from injury or death by the hand of another or by the hand of an oppressive government.

In the wake of the attack against Giffords, who was the intended target of the madman, the anti-gun machine got into high gear, with a renewed call for more gun control legislation.

Even a usually conservative congressman, Rep. Pete King, has fallen pray to the insanity of the moment proposing legislation that would prohibit anyone with a gun from being within 1,000 feet of an elected official.

Initially, I was somewhat surprised of Mr. King’s move, knowing that the New York congressman is not one to find refuge in the cooks’ camp, but considering his intention of investigating the disturbing connections between the current administration and known radical Islam organizations in the US, I could understand the apprehension of the man.

But his reaction is one that is dictated purely by a knee-jerk reaction to a tragic event, without much common sense thought going into it.

The truth of the matter is that no law can prevent a determined attacker from perpetrating his or her crime.

In fact I am convinced that the law, at times, is a contributing factor to the criminal act.

There is already a slur of gun laws prohibiting guns within or near schools, and yet we have seen massacres taking place in schools (Columbine and Virginia Tech), where the no-gun zone legislation only contributed to the inability of students to self-defend.

I am not advocating that students would be allowed to have weapons in the classrooms, after all here in California one must be at least 21 to own a pistol, but I am certain that there may be some of the faculty members, especially in the grade schools, that would be willing to take action in defense of innocent lives.

Maybe if such person was at Columbine or on the Virginia Tech campus and was allowed to have a firearm at the location, the death toll could have been contained.

The question still remains about the right each one of us has to self defense. While I applaud the intention of some lawmakers to take responsibility for their own protection, although I believe that they should refrain from publicizing it, I cannot help being incensed by the hypocrisy of the whole thing.

I, as a law abiding citizen with no criminal record or mental conditions, cannot obtain a CCW permit in California, because the reason I would want one, pure self defense, is not enough to afford me such right.

Unless I am a businessman who usually carries large amounts of money or precious stones; unless I am involved in a legal dispute that forced me to take out a restraining order against someone; unless I have dire reasons to request such a permit, the county Sheriff would not even consider my request.

What makes my safety less important than the one of a jewelry merchant or a Congressman?

Why is the safety of my family of lesser value?

In the days following the Rodney King police beating verdict in Los Angeles, when riots were exploding at various location, we lived in a city east of LA that was not the best of neighborhoods. In fact some violence had erupted in the streets and I even heard a gun shot just on the other side of my backyard wall, on the main street. Until things came down, I took the necessary precautions to insure the safety of my family, including breaking the law and having a weapon with me as we tried to live our lives.

Yes, I broke the law, but ultimately the defense of my loved ones was most important on my mind. And thankfully, I never had to face the need of having to use my weapon, I did not hurt anyone and no one was the wiser. Contrary to what the anti-gun nuts want all to believe, we, responsible gun-owners, are not itching to use our weapons!

I am tired of people jumping on band wagons and take self righteous positions against my God-given right to self defense and to defend my loved ones. I am tired of people who are all for security details protecting their safety, while they attempt to impose their Utopian “gun-free society” views on law abiding citizens like me. And I am definitely tired of authorities who self appoint as judges of my right to self-defense.

When someone just broke into my home and is only seconds from “interacting” with me and my family, a police unit ten minutes away does not do me any good.

When I am stranded on the highway in the middle of the night and some criminal decides to take advantage of that opportunity, the chance of a Highway Patrol cruiser driving by to protect me is not much help.

And yet it appears that the powers-to-be believe that my life and that of my family is not worth enough to allow me to exercise my constitutional rights.

Even here in progressive California, the law allows me to open carry a weapon, but that exercise in lawful behavior comes with a definite downside. Either because of ignorance of the law on the part of law enforcement or because such activity is so rare that people freak out at the sight of a civilian with a .45 Glock in a holster, open carry can land one in custody and with mounting legal costs, just to prove that one’s actions were in perfect concordance with one’s constitutional rights.

So the debate remains one between adherence to the law of the land and the primordial need to defend oneself and our families. Thousands of gun control legislation have provided only a much easier field of operation for those who thumb their noses at the law. They have provided somewhat of a safe heaven for the safe perpetration of criminal activity, penalizing only law abiding citizens who exercise their god-given right to self defense.

When a progressive nutcase succeeds in creating another “gun free zone”, the only real accomplishment is that criminals have one more zone where to safely operate.

Years ago, in the 1990s if my memory does not fail me, the highways of Florida were scenes of several violent carjackings, in some cases deadly attacks. The Florida legislature acted in passing a law allowing residents traveling on the state highways to carry their weapons in the vehicles. Immediately the number of carjackings dropped dramatically.

Criminals, conscious of the possibility that the vehicle targeted was driven by someone now able to defend himself, started to target cars that displayed rental companies stickers, having come to the conclusion that those vehicles would be driven by tourists and non locals, therefore unarmed.

That criminal pattern convinced the car rental companies to remove all the stickers from their vehicles, eliminating the ability of criminals to isolate potential victims and the rate of criminal activity fell even further, again because the criminal element was not able to distinguish a potential victim from someone who would be able to defend himself.

It does not take much more than the basic application of common sense to understand that prohibiting the presence of guns is a rule observed only by law abiding citizens, while criminals, by definition, have the tendency not to concern themselves much with the rule of law.

Self defense and the defense of our loved ones is a right we have as a civilized society. No politician or activist should have the power to infringe upon that right.

Just my thoughts!