Do The Four Perspectives That Have Shaped Self-Defense?

Define self-defense? Self-defense is when someone protects them self from harm way. In the novel of The Outsiders by S.E. Hinton, Johnny Cade has been carrying a concealed weapon on him everytime he went outside. When he and Ponyboy Curtis walk down the streets they were ambushed by Socs. When Bob, the reason why Johnny is carrying a weapon, decides to drown his friend, out of self-defense Johnny stabbed Bob. Johnny was still innocent because he stabbed Bob due to self-defense, to scare off the other Soc, and to save Ponyboy from drowning.

The article “Shootings Test Limits of New Self-Defense Law” by Ralph Blumenthal tells the story of Joe Horn, a man in Texas, who shot two men in what he claimed was self-defense under the recently instated “castle doctrine.”

Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.” (Texas State)

In America, the average amount of people shot per year is 100,000; over ten thousand defenseless people are murdered. The Second Amendment’s proclamation that “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” has been an extensive topic of debate. Moreover, the amendment has been one of many debates over the several years throughout America. The discussion of gun control is often debated as to whether or not it is morally right to legally bypass the Second Amendment to avoid unlawful uses of arms. The Second Amendment allows citizens to carry firearms specifically for protection, gun control hinders that right and places civilians’ lives in danger. In short, the U.S. government’s intrusive restrictions on gun laws prevent law-abiding citizens from defending themselves with firearms.

In recent years, the self-defense doctrine in several jurisdictions has been changing. Some jurisdictions have started using “stand your ground” laws, which change the traditional requirement that the person being attacked must “retreat to the wall” before using any kind of force. Proponents’ arguments include that the law merely codifies an individual’s deep-rooted right to defend oneself. Opponents’ arguments include that the law creates a “license to kill” and has negative racial implications.

In November of 2007, a man living in the Houston, Texas area pulled a shotgun out and killed two men he believed were robbing a neighbor’s home. The 61 year old man called 911 and asked the operator to dispatch police to capture the two men. The operator warned the man to stay inside, but he responded to the operator stating, “I have a right to protect myself too, sir. The laws have been changed in this country since September the first, and you know it.” In the previous months, Texas legislature had passed a version of the Stand Your Ground law that removed a

The United States Constitution is a social contract between the U.S. government and its citizens, which promises their [the citizens’] rights and liberties will be protected. The Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights states that every citizen has the Right to Bear Arms; moreover, it means that an individual has the right to defend him or herself from physical harm. States are passing Stand Your Ground laws, which are similar to the Castle Doctrine (one has the right to defend oneself in the confines of his or her home), but the Stand Your Ground laws extend the range; instead, people may defend themselves using deadly force in any area they are permitted access (Jealous, 2013; Cox, 2013; Moore, 2012). Stand Your Ground laws contain flaws wherein predators or vigilantes may twist the law to their benefit, yet the Stand Your Ground laws are meant to justify the deeds victims must perform in order to defend themselves. Stand Your Ground laws are beneficial through their fundamental purpose, but how defendants are abusing the laws and how critics claim that the presence of a gun influences the victim’s decisions during an attack are detrimental to the enhancement of the laws.

Defense of others is when someone uses reasonable force to protect another person or property from harm. This defense is used when an individual steps in to keep the victim from being injured, or to keep property from being injured, destroyed or stolen. Reasonable force is also a key element of this defense.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed " (US Const). Although written over two hundred years ago, the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is still indispensable today. With thousands of innocent Americans murdered from the use of a firearm every year, there is a strong calling for stricter gun-control laws and regulations. Yet, every day United States citizens are forced to use their firearms for protective purposes, frequently saving their lives. While firearms pose a threat when in the wrong hands, restricting their use to only law enforcement is not the answer to ending gun violence. Though the rights granted under the Second Amendment are imperative and must not be stripped away, there are measures that should be taken in order to prevent gun violence, including the expansion of more stringent and thorough background checks and the increase in mental health screening.

In general, self-protection measures of different types can be effective, in the sense of reducing the risk of property loss in robberies and confrontational burglaries, compared to doing nothing or cooperating with the offender. Yet the most effective form of self-protection used is a gun. But owning a gun requires that the person be responsible and know the ramifications that encompass such a preference. Guns can be a valuable tool for self-defense and provides a chance for someone to square off with an intruder that has deliberately invaded their space.

“After a few more glimpse, she picked up her pace and was soon running in earnest. Within second she disappeared into a cross street”(Staples, Brent 301) and “I often witness that “hunch posture” from women after dark on the warren-like streets of Brooklyn where I live. They seem to set their faces on neutral with their purse strung across their chests bandolier style, they forge ahead as though bracing themselves against being tackled” (Staples, Brent 302), both show the approaches people take to protect themselves from harm. They are trying to either protect themselves from a possible attack or trying to swerve away their traducer, which can be termed as self defense. But, while self-defense is simply the protection of oneself, under what circumstances is it appropriate and what actions can be termed self-defense is a debatable topic. Self defense is a subconscious or conscious action taken by an individual to protect himself or someone else from immediate threat of physical harm or verbal threat of physical harm(given the possibility of the attacker to inflict the damage),which should not exceed the amount of physical damage that the assaulter has

According, to the the theory that self defence is an inherited right, a person should have the right to defend his or her life,

While achieving a balance between a law abiding citizens’ right to own guns and keeping guns away from criminals may be challenging, it is something we should all strive for. A victim’s inability to protect themselves or the one’s they love, will always be an issue with certain laws. Those laws which restrict gun ownership would essentially hinder one’s ability to protect themselves and leave them wide open for an attack. We have seen these stories in the news day after day. McDowall states, “Restrictions on carrying concealed weapons are among the most common gun control policies.” (193). When it comes to concealed carry, Mc Dowell states, “These statutes limit who may have a deadly weapon-usually a handgun- hidden on their person when outside the home.” (193). On a daily basis, you can see reports of

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”-Thomas Jefferson.

Although, when people think of self defense they tend to think that means killing someone if they were to break into their home, but the castle doctrine specifies that, a person may not use deadly force upon another person unless: he or she reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect himself or herself or another against death, serious physical injury, rape, sodomy or kidnapping or serious physical injury through robbery, burglary or arson or any forcible felony (Senate). You may use excessive force if a person who illegally enters, remains after illegally entering, or attempts to illegally enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle legally occupied by such person. A resident does not have to retreat from his or her home or vehicle when a burglar is breaking and entering.