March 23, 2012 1 Comment
I don’t like “stand your ground” laws. I understand the sentiment–if I have the right to be in a space, I also have the right to be there and be safe. I have the right to be free from harm, from being a victim of a crime. I have the right to defend myself.
I have the right to defend myself.
That is why I don’t like “stand your ground” laws. I already have the right to defend myself.
One concern many people have for new (or old) gun owners is that gun owners will get overconfident–they’ll feel invincible, because of the power that comes with carrying a deadly weapon. As a result, they’ll become careless. They’ll escalate tense situations. They’ll be too quick to draw their weapon. They’ll draw their weapon when they have no intention of really shooting, just because they’re feeling out of control, and they want that control back.
Those are reasonable concerns, to say the least.
I’ve said before that drawing a deadly weapon like a gun, in self-defense, should be a last resort. What I haven’t said, but implied, is that every possible attempt should be made to deescalate.
I believe gun owners have a duty to try to deescalate.
If deescalating means removing yourself from the situation, if that’s possible, then so be it, your right to be in whatever location you’re in be damned.
Because it’s not about your right to be occupying a space, it’s about your right to be alive, to be safe, to be free from harm and injury.
(note: I’m not talking about castle doctrine here. I’m not referring to occupying your own living space, or your car, for instance.)
The right to self-defense is more than adequate for gun owners to protect themselves from attackers, wherever you are.
Stand your ground laws only protect irresponsible rogue-cowboy-wannabe gun owners from being prosecuted, not to mention encourages them to go on with their rogue cowboy fantasy.
This costs a lot of innocent people their lives, and that’s unacceptable.