For every gun used in the act of self-defense, six more guns are used in the act of committing a crime. Self-defense although it isn’t a basic human right, deserves to be distinguished as one worldwide in case of an event of the need to legally protect oneself. The right to self-defense is a very contentious subject. There are several ethical perspectives that can be explored. Self-defense can be argued through many examples throughout history such as biblical, criminal, and cultural facets. Self-defense is defined as “the use of reasonable force to protect oneself or members of the family from bodily harm or attack.” Self-defense is used in several criminal situations and is sometimes hard to decipher from lawful or unlawful. In many cultures the right to self-defense differs based mostly on ethical senses. Self-defense is related mostly to assault, battery, or homicide. On one hand, self-defense allows someone the right to defend themselves in the act of harm or the justified thought of aggression or intent to do so. While on the other hand, self-defense morally doesn’t justify the reasoning to murder someone if they are intent on doing the same undermining the whole situation ethically. With a rise in crime rates and increase in weapons brings up the issue more often than none, should the right to self-defense be a basic human right and to what extent? Most legal systems throughout the world allow self-defense as a charge in criminal cases either partially or as a whole.
Sometimes known as alter-ego defense, self-defense has been morally and ethically debated on for years. Self-defense is seen as flawed in many cases and is seen as an excuse for the murder of someone not involved in a situation or claiming someone’s intent without knowing exactly if one is in real trouble or danger. Murdering someone for the act of self-defense not only puts one in the role of the executioner but also brings themselves into the eyes of the criminal themselves making the person claiming self-defense a criminal. There are several variables involved in cases of self-defense, one of the most highly discussed variables is the fine line of force required. A defender should use only enough force to stop an attacker but when you imply such flexible circumstances it’s hard to judge the situation and intentions. In many cases lack of evidence and proof is common and with the verification of some of the facts claimed possibly many cases could be flipped from guilty to innocent or vise-versa. Events involving alcohol or narcotics can affect judgment, defense of property, reasonable force, and mistake of self-defense are just a few variables under the large umbrella topic of self-defense and criminal charges itself. Speaking on cases involving many variables and the right against self-defense, there are available options other than defending oneself other than outright murdering or assaulting on that is believed to have intentions of harm. For example, retreating or the intent to retreat could change the overall decision made by juries. In a particular case, R v Bird [1985], the defendant had been assaulted by a man and she retaliated by slapping him with a bottle. (Self Defense Introduction, 2003) The case was decided on the fact that the defendant hadn’t shown an unwillingness to fight at first. In another instance, the defendant devised the creation of several bombs in the instance of another riot involving damage to his store, which never happened, and he was later charged under the Explosive Substances Act. He attempted to “write his own immunity” stated by Lord Lane CJ. A large part of the issue surrounding self-defense is the potential increase in assaults and murders that could “rationalize” and/or “protect” government citizens from prosecutions. This is why there should be strict laws regarding this right and a firm stance surrounding the issue if it is ever implemented worldwide. The large amount of cases involving self-defense relates back to the basis of morality and ethics. https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/self-defence.php
The beginning of the moral and ethical justification has dated all the way back from 354 B.C. using Latin phrases such as “justum bellum” interpreted as “a just war.” As in the same way self-defense is debated and has attempted to be molded, wars went through the same protocol naturally with different cultures displaying their ideas through past wars eventually shaping the rules of war. In the biblical aspects of life, in Exodus 20:13 the Ten Commandments states “Thou shall not kill.” (The Ethics of Self Defense, 2003) This gives no explanation to any circumstances other than one shall not commit murder. For devout Christians this would eliminate the discussion on if self-defense with intent of murder would be moral or not. The upbringing of morality brings along an opposing perspective on whether self-defense should be a human right or not. https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/ethics-self-defense-violence-justified/
The right of self-defense isn’t based of moral values but the ability to properly defend yourself and property from attack or damage. I believe one should be able to protect themselves lawfully and not be charged criminally throughout any culture. With valid amounts of proof, one should be able to prove whether they were in the wrong or right of a situation. There are many examples of times when self-defense or the disarming of one resulted in the saving of lives. The ethical approach to this debate would be decided on if someone would turn their shoulder when something evil is happening right in front of them or would they act on the situation and prevent the harm of themselves or others. A large discussion about acting on the several recent mass murders at schools has brought up the idea of potentially arming trained teachers to carry firearms to defend the students and the school. This relates directly to self-defense being a basic right because who wants to have to worry about their kids being in a dangerous situation just because they are trying to get their education. By arming teachers, it gives the school a cheaper option other than body guards and a faster response to the police or first responders. This would fit right around the lines of defending and protecting yourself and others through the deterrence of school shooters.
I think that self-defense should be a basic human right due to the fact that it gives a human the right to protect themselves in potential of danger and it gives them the right to protect others with potential lethal force in the regards of an attack on others or someone with the intent to kill. Ethically yes, the rights against gun control are strong considering the fact that most religions go against the acts of murder and killing, but they don’t go against protecting yourself. There is a fine line between how far it is okay to go with self defense but with stricter laws defining what exactly is the farthest one should go could better represent the law to becoming a basic human right. A human’s natural instinct is to protect themselves during danger and that goes with any other animal. Even though self-defense shouldn’t lead to murder, sometimes there is nothing anyone can do but to avoid taking someone’s life to save many others potentially. Once the factors and stipulations surrounding this right are out in place and firmly stood by and supported by governments I think it could potentially make the world a much safer place. By doing this domestic violence, assault, and murder could all be decreased when paired with such laws such as concealed carry permits that are supported throughout many countries at this time.
When I started the research, I was still considering that the right to self-defense should be a basic right and the information I conducted only helped further reassure my convictions about the rights to defending oneself I do also support the right to bear arms and my family is right-wing based politically which could affect my thoughts on the right to self-defense. Overall my thoughts have not changed on the subject. I struggled with the fact that there was a lack of available information to me based purely on the subject of self-defense as a basic right globally. There was also not a large majority of information against the right of self-defense. A bulk of the research based on self-defense was involved or based around the United States and its recent struggles with Guns Rights. I was impressed by the fact that there was a large abundance of support for self-defense rights along with the several cases involving self-defense and how there were a many of stipulations involving the subject such as the “stand your ground laws.” Further research should however be conducted in implying this future right into the constitutions of governments worldwide ultimately impacting the safety and justification for murders and other accusations.