Against Guns, Against Self-Defense, or Both?

There was a shooting at the Greenwood Park Mall in Indianapolis, Indiana area on Sunday. Reportedly, the killer had hidden in the bathroom adjacent to the food court with a number of firearms in his backpack. As the mall was preparing to close, he entered the food court and killed three individuals as well as wounding two others. He might have killed more but he was stopped by 22 y.o. Elisjsha Dicken who was legally armed. Mr. Dicken was legally carrying concealed without a permit as was his right under Indiana’s recently passed permitless carry bill.

While the mall was posted as a so-called gun free zone, they have no force of law in Indiana. It would only be an offense if the carrier was asked to leave and refused. In that case, the concealed carrier could be arrested for criminal trespass.

Even though the mall was posted against carry by its owners the Simon Property Group, they had this to say about Mr. Dicken.

We are grateful for the strong response of the first responders, including the heroic actions of the Good Samaritan who stopped the suspect.

Contrast this dignified response with that of two of the leaders of the gun prohibition industry: Shannon Watts and Kris Brown.

First, Mrs. Watts who resided in the Indy area for many years until she left for more progressive pastures in the People’s Republic of Boulder and thence to California. She later deleted it.

And now Kris Brown, president of Brady United, who referred to Mr. Dicken as a “vigilante”.

Many on the progressive Left believe that government should hold the monopoly on violence. In other words, self-defense on behalf of yourself or others would be against the law and that any defense of a person should come from agents of the state, i.e., the police. If you respond like Mr. Dicken, then you are just as culpable in the eyes of the law as the killer.

Michael Bane discussed this at length in his MBTV On The Radio podcast last week. His example was that of the bodega worker who was being charged with first degree murder for protecting himself against a felon out on parole. This episode is well worth a listen.

We know that Mrs. Watts and Ms. Brown are anti-gun. It also appears that they are against self-defense. I am of the belief that as elitists, they fear firearms in the hands of the great unwashed. In other words, thee and me. They want the monopoly of violence – and the tools with which to secure it – to be in the hands of the state. This fits in directly with what Chairman Mao’s speech to the Chinese Communist Party said in 1938.

Every Communist must grasp the truth, “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party… All things grow out of the barrel of a gun.

The founders of the United States, by contrast, were greatly influenced by the works of English philosopher John Locke. He was a proponent of natural law. One tenet of natural law is that you have a natural right to life and you have a right to defend this life.

From Locke’s Second Treatise on Government, Chapter II, Section 16:

 it being reasonable and just, I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction: for, by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred: and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion; because such men are not under the ties of the commonlaw of reason, have no other rule, but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as beasts of prey, those dangerous and noxious creatures, that will be sure to destroy him whenever he falls into their power.

Most countries of the world, whether they be communist, socialist, capitalist, authoritarian, democratic, or some other variant, do not recognize the individual’s right to self-defense. It doesn’t matter whether you are in China or Canada, the monopoly of violence remains in the hands of the state.

The United States, however, does recognize an individual’s right to self-defense. Whether by common law or codified law, it is a right recognized in all 50 states plus the District of Columbia. This is true even in the most progressive of states.

That Mrs. Watts and Ms. Brown reject the right of self-defense puts them, not us, outside the mainstream. It is a right that must be defended at all costs because without it we are slaves.

6 thoughts on “Against Guns, Against Self-Defense, or Both?”

  1. Great post John.

    L. Neil Smith

    “People accuse me of being a single-issue writer, a single-issue thinker, and a single-issue voter, but it isn’t true. What I’ve chosen, in a world where there’s never enough time and energy, is to focus on the one political issue which most clearly and unmistakably demonstrates what any politician — or political philosophy — is made of, right down to the creamy liquid center.
    Make no mistake: all politicians — even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership — hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it’s an X-ray machine. It’s a Vulcan mind-meld. It’s the ultimate test to which any politician — or political philosophy — can be put.
”– L. Neil Smith “Why Did it Have to be Guns?”

    Power and trust are the core of the issue.
    If you demonstrate you don’t trust me then I’m going to reciprocate.
    See also – quis custodiet ipsos custodes


  2. Nice speech but Simon Property Group puts up signs that serve to disarm victims but do not pay for security to protect their patrons. Simon PG has malls “everywhere”. Visit them at your risk. Apparently, their policies are well known to predators.

    1. In effect, SM has stated / admitted several things:
      1. Their signage does not work. It did not keep the goblin out. It did not keep the goblin-slayer out. It is a useless piece of paper or plastic, and is not worth the ink spilled to print it in terms of efficacy.
      2. Their signage does not constitute automatic legal guidance, and in fact in some states is completely ignorable without consequence. Yes, someone could be told to leave under pain of trespass. This condition also applies to folks carrying spray paint cans, people dressed exhibitively, and folks just being generally disruptive. In all cases, the person must be asked/told to leave first, absent some other arrestable crime, before they can be trespassed, exactly the same way as someone carrying a firearm contrary to their policy. IE, it has no legal force on its own, and is again not worth the ink spilled.
      3. They have effectively drawn a line of distinction between mere carriage of a firearm and actual malicious and criminal activity. Two people carrying firearms were involved here (or more – I have heard a rumor than one of the victims was also carrying, but was killed before he had a chance to clear the holster or even process what was happening), but only one was committing actual random unjustified and criminal violence against innocents, while the other committed very directed and very justified targeted violence upon the first. The presence of a firearm is therefore tertiary to justification, at best, if not completely irrelevant as anything but a tool.
      4. In thanking Mr. Dicken, not only have SM effectively admitted the above two points, but they have very effectively endorsed and condoned his deliberate and measured actions and person in contravention of their own signage and policy. And in doing so, they have implicitly disavowed enforcement of the same, absent malicious and criminal conduct on the part of a firearm carrier, showing that they too consider their signage and policy to be a waste of bleeding ink. Furthermore, they have allowed – nay, endorsed! – further disregard for those policies and signs in future, again absent actual illegal conduct on the part of the person bearing the firearm.
      5. Government monopoly on justified deadly force here would have likely resulted in far greater loss of life. Likewise a monopoly on “first responder official EMS” – Mr. Dicken’s date / girlfriend is reportedly a nurse in training, and jumped immediately into action to save those she could as soon as the lead stopped flying. Awaiting official response for deal with either the spree killer OR medical intervention would have greatly magnified the carnage. By reacting appropriately and immediately, both Dicken and GF demonstrated the quick-response impotence of the all-powerful government, upon which we are all intended to rely.

      All of these are what are driving Watts and her ilk mad. Their signs did not work, are not enforceable and violation thereof for benign purpose has just been effectively endorsed by those who made them. Plus, it was made crystal clear that The Gun Is Not The Crime, and that their favored substitute of government for personal responsibility was powerless to actually stop anything, being shown up in a matter of seconds by a baby faced barely adult man sitting down for a HotDog On A Stick with his girlfriend.

      I suspect they hate that last point the most.

  3. Good use of ‘first responder’ by the PG.

    First responders are the people standing around after an emergency – not fire/ems/le. They are at best second responders..

  4. I think all y’all may be trying to hard to parse this, it’s simple, really . . . not enough victims, not enough blood for the anti-rights crowd to dance in. That is why they are upset.

Comments are closed.