In Defense of Self Defense
Before I get into my usual ramblings I'd like to acknowledge that
1. I have been drinking and
2. there are a lot of people out there
with an indefinitely higher level of expertise on the subject than
myself.
I am merely a layman who readily admits he is Monday
morning quarterbacking, but I think being a layman grants me the
ability to speak to those of a similar or lower level of
experience without sounding like I am speaking down to them.
In my opinion (which is never ever wrong) the right to self
defense is one of, if not the most basic of rights. This
supersedes any laws or ordinances of one's country, county or
city. It is the right of survival in and of itself. No one of
sound mind and reasoning would ever blame a raccoon for biting at
a dog's snout while said dog is trying to tree it. Therefore how
can any sane man or woman decry the actions of someone using
lethal force on another when under similar duress? I do not just
mean this as an argument for firearms rights (though this author
is a huge proponent of them and their proper use). No this is far
bigger than that. Whether the weapon in question be firearm,
blade, rock or even one's bare hands, you have the right to defend
your life your property and those around you. It is truly mind
boggling how there are some people (and by some I mean A LOT) who
not only believe that violence of any kind is unacceptable, but
that you have a DUTY to retreat from danger. No matter what your
location, circumstance and/or your disability (or ability), you
can not and will not inflict violence upon your aggressors.
Maybe these people think we as a society are too civilized for
such actions? Or that a truly innocent victim would find a way to
escape no matter the costs? I honestly could not tell you as even
in my most humorous of moods I can not play advocate for this
particular devil. I know that some of these people who feel this
way mean well (while others are clearly just looking for political
clout,) but I can tell you that the majority of these folks have
either lived an extremely sheltered life or are lying.
Obviously you are smart enough to come up with your own reasons
why someone would lie on this matter, but what about the so called
"sheltered" I have mentioned? Maybe they have never been put into
a situation where their own safety was in jeopardy? Perhaps they
are single and without children? Or maybe their livelihoods have
never been threatened? Either way I am glad they have never been
forced into a space between the proverbial rock and a hard place,
but I think this has made most of said folks terrified at the
prospect of being responsible for their own safety.
One could easily blame it upon upbringing, the nanny state or
whichever hyperbole one finds amusing, but such thinking is not
only detrimental to the individual but society as a whole. These
people vote, and there are many an amoral politician willing to
capitalize on these feelings to gain power. Such politicians will
use this power to feed on and into said fears, thus making it
harder for the common man to do what needs done whenever the
gauntlet is dropped.
I can hear some of you now, that I have constructed a strawman to
attack for my argument and I will half agree with you. These types
of people are far too broad for someone like myself to categorize
effectively in an easily compartmentalized fasion to make for an
easy read so, yes I admit I am strawmanning a bit (if that's even
a word). It does not change the fact that self defense has become
far harder to justify in the halls of justice here in the west but
even more so in the court of public opinion. In many cases a
victim (and I truly mean victim) can be absolutely railroaded by a
jury for firing one too many shots, or throwing one too many
punches whileban officer of the law can dump three or four
magazines into a perp with zero repercussions. I know there are a
huge number of people nowadays who will take any chance to take
those in law enforcement and peace keeping down a peg but that
isn't my aim here. The point is merely that if we as a society,
can not find fault in a TRAINED officer's actions in defending
themselves then how can we in all honesty hold to account an
untrained citizen for firing four shots instead of three? For
throwing a third punch when the second knocked out their
assailant? It seems intellectually dishonest to do so and is a
disservice to both our citizenry and our first
responders.
An anecdote I have for this in particular was a good friend of
mine who was literally back stabbed during a meet up to sell an
iPhone. This friend was a trained martial artist and despite being
egregiously wounded was able to pound his assailant into the
pavement despite nearly bleeding to death in the process. In spite
of my friend's near inhuman endurance to pain and his overcoming
his cowardly adversary, he very nearly served fifteen years in
prison for causing "undo harm" to his attacker, despite this other
person attacking him from behind with full intent to murder.
Luckily, saner heads prevailed and the case against him was thrown
out.
On top of this, I do not think people truly understand the length
of response times in both metropolitan or rural environments.
These can range from eleven minutes to even an hour (sometimes
more)! Ask anyone you know who has served in the military, in
police, fire or paramedic roles, an awful lot can happen in five
minutes let alone eleven. Once again this is not a shot at any
emergency services, but we need to face facts. After certain
events in the past decade, a lot of departments have been
defunded, downsized and have seen record number drops in
recruitment. This, while extremely distressing, should be a highly
motivating factor for anyone on the fence to take a first aid
class, to learn self defense techniques and to procure a weapon if
they can. I know it is extremely cliché but the old adage holds
true: "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away!"
A personal account I have was one of the few times in my life I
have ever had to draw a firearm in self defense. At a rather shady
gas station I was approached by an obviously drug addicted man who
as asking for change. When I replied I had none he became enraged
and proceeded to threaten me and eventually charged at me. Before
he even reached within 30ft of me I had drawn my weapon and made
clear it would be best for both of us if he went on his way.
Luckily he did, and no blood was shed. I did what any intelligent
person would do after such an event and phoned the police
department. They made it rather clear that they could not be
bothered with what had happened without a body and in no uncertain
terms told me to stop wasting their time. This was rather chilling
to me and I would hope anyone who has been in a similar situation.
Another issue I have (and one that might be polarizing to some) is
that of property crime. Smash and grabs, armed robberies, mass
theft, arson, flash mob robberies, etc. A very large segment of
the west has effectively neutered our police and our own reactions
to these events and they are beginning to take their till. There
is some truth that poverty can spur crime rates but there is far
more weight to the fact that crime causes far more poverty than
vice-versa. Many on the extreme left will claim "These
corporations have insurance to pay for the damages!" or they will
claim "It's morally just to steal from (insert large retailer
here)!" Well that could not be further from the truth. I know many
will accuse me of being a bootlicker (if they haven't already) and
plug their ears to any answer I might serve up. That is fine I
suppose but it solves nothing. Many of the places effected by this
rise in crime are small mom and pop stores, owned locally by
people who have put their life savings into their property.
Other's like big retailers are forced to close due to record
losses in profit and the inability to acquire any insurance due to
their area of operations. This costs hundreds of thousands of
average, every day people their jobs and only sources of steady
income. I know this might seem barbaric to some of my readers but
one can not help but think that, perhaps these crimes might
diminish if more of the perpetrators saw actual prison time or met
their end at the barrel of a gun.
"Are you saying property is worth more than human life?!"
Honestly? Yes I am. When a person or persons have decided to do
inordinate harm to others through destruction and theft they have
readily admitted through their own actions that they value these
stolen goods and destroyed property more than their own lives, so
why should I argue counter to this?
One more personal anecdote (yes I know these don't count as
"objective proof" and would never fly in true debate) was an
argument I witnessed between a veteran friend and one of his
acquaintances. The argument can essentially be broken down to
this, the acquaintance claimed my vet friend was overcompensating
by having a long gun by his bed in case of a home invasion and
that the "smarter thing to do" was to hide in a closet and call
the police, since property wasn't worth killing over. When my vet
friend reminded him that he had a wife and three children to worry
about and therefore could not afford to "hide in a closet", the
acquaintance wrote him off. It did not matter to this man that my
friend had young children in various rooms about his home, in his
mind neutralizing the threat was akin to murder and should be
dealt with as such. Once again the mind boggles at such logic but
it is shockingly common in modern times.
I have personally been on the receiving end of various levels of
violence and theft at least 20+ times in my life. Either do to my
occupation or merely being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Out of these numerous moments I only ever had a firearm on me
three times and needed to draw two of those times. Another two I
had to use a blade to escape, the rest were done via quick
thinking, quick feet or de-escalation. I know this little essay of
mine sounds like I am pro blood maddened slaughter of anyone who
confronts you but that couldn't be further from the truth. One of
your top priorities should be removing you and yours from the
threat of violence through words before actions, and only to take
those actions when no other option is available.
Once again I prompt my readers to ask those they know with real
world experience how many times they kept their ability to cause
harm in check merely by knowing their own capabilities, and
acknowledging the consequences of using them. This does not
detract from my objections to the ever increasing attacks on the
common man seeking to remove his abilities and means to defend
himself, his family and property from the perversions of those who
take advantage of the corrupted system we have somehow found
ourselves in.
In closing, I press that my readers, regardless of political,
national, religious or ethnic affiliation, should not cave to the
pressure of those sheltered from violence. Do not let those who
fear taking responsibility for their own safety, nor those who
seek to gain power by feeding on those fears, sway you from your
right of self determination. All of us who do no harm to others and
merely seek to live our lives have the same rights as our ancient
forefathers did to repel the invader, the tyrant or the raider. Do
not be placid in this endeavor, for placidity is what got us to
this place of slow death in the first place. Be active in your
community, vote local, be aware of your surroundings and most
importantly of all, stay strapped.