Vigilantism and Self Defense
Wow. It has been quite some time since I’ve last written here. I’ve discovered that it is much harder to write than it is to speak to a responsive audience (a person).
In my previous post I talked about how there are a lot of people who are unable to separate similar, but distinct concepts. One of the arguements which is made in support of gun control is the frightning image of ‘vigilantes’. Vigilantes were groups of armed citizens which attempted to enforce the law without a justice system. This might work on occasion, but there is a good chance that mob mentality will kick in and innocent people will be hurt or killed.
People own firearms for a number of reasons - some for sporting or for hunting. I personally have interest in neither of those. I do have an interest in firearms ownership for another reason - self defense. The principle of self defense is required in a civilized society where citizens exist as free beings. Only a slave is required to submit to physical abuse from another - free people can avoid, request intervention, or defend themselves against physical attack. Defense of oneself is the last in a line of options, but in many cases it is the only viable one.
What people fail to grasp is the difference between defense (either self defense of defense of others) and vigilantism. Defense is the principle of using some sort of force with the goal of preventing immediate unwanted violence or force to be used against oneself or others. Vigilantism is the idea of using unlawful force after the crime has been commited with no intention of preventing any immediate harm to others - it is an attempt to subvert the law by becoming judge, jury and executioner all in one easy step. As much as I like government efficiency and speedy trials, this is just a little too speedy for me.
As an example, if you are in a shopping mall and a man walks in and shoots a stalking subject (or his girlfriend or his wife or his sister or…) and then drops the gun, to kill him would be vigilantism. If he held on the the gun it could be considered defense - after all, it isn’t a far stretch to assume that with a gun in his hand he might kill somebody else. If instead you saw him in the parking lot getting into his car, you might be able to attempt a citizen’s arrest, but in general you would have little justification to use leathal force. Of course, if the man in question used a knife instead of a gun, the issue becomes a whole lot murkier.
Those who attempt to confuse the two issues are trying to simply instill their confusion on you as well. Vigilantism is a bad thing. Self defense is essential, and firearms are the easiest, cleanest, most civilized and generally the best way to deal with the most dangerous of threats.