Is Self-Defense a Right, or Something More?

There’s no argument that you have a right to defend yourself. No law should exist that prohibits that. Sure, most places have laws that make it impractical or difficult to defend yourself, but you can defend yourself pretty much everywhere lawfully.

But could it be something more?

Many of you may be familiar with the name Law Dog.

If you’re not, you’re familiar with one of his creations. In particular, the story comparing our gun rights to a cake. We want our cake back, and Law Dog is the one who came up with that analogy. It’s gone around so much that a lot of people use it without realizing the origins, but now you do.

Anyway, he recently published a piece on his Substack about how self-defense is more than just a right.

Lot of folks consider self-defence — the act of defending yourself against immediate unlawful force — to be a right.

If pressed, they will state that self-defence is a right granted to them either from their Deity, or from Nature, depending on their personal faith.

In this — to my way of thinking — they are correct.

However, I put it to you that self-defence is not only a right, but it is a duty. Indeed, it is my opinion that a citizen of a community or society is obliged to defend themselves from unlawful immediate uses of force against their persons.

I see that I have lost some of my Gentle Readers. Allow me to elaborate.

All creatures on this little green dirtball operate on a Reward/Risk system: is the potential reward of this action worth the risk of this action? If so, you do the thing — if not, you do something else.

In this, humans are no different than animals — except that we can calculate delayed risks for immediate rewards. We understand that an act we do today, may have dire consequences next week.

One of the things I have noticed about critters during my law enforcement career is that they lack this ability. The possibility of getting caught by the police next week, or next month, has very little influence on the average critters Risk/Reward calculations.

Getting caught, injured or killed during the crime? Yes. Getting caught, injured or killed after committing the crime? Not so much.

There’s obviously a lot more there, so you’ll have to read the rest of it for yourself, but the gist is that by failing to act in one’s own self-defense–or, I’d add, in the defense of others–one is acting in such a way that it enables the predator–the “critter” in Law Dog’s parlance–to continue predatory behavior until such time as they’re forced to end.

He’s not wrong.

In failing to act in your own self-defense, you’re adding a perverse variable into that risk/reward system. They’re emboldened to step up their efforts. They’ve risked and been rewarded. Surely, they’ll be rewarded again if they take the same risk. Except, as Law Dog points out, it’s not the same risk in their mind. The risk is lowered. They did a thing and didn’t get hurt, which means the risk isn’t as bad as they initially feared.

Think about something you did that scared the crap out of you. Let’s say it’s something like rock climbing or skydiving. There’s something to fear, but when you do it successfully, you realize it wasn’t that bad, so you do it again. And again. Your fear fades with each attempt.

But those are activities that don’t hurt others. Overcoming that fear isn’t going to impact anyone else.

The criminal becoming emboldened, however, is.

His first few attempts will be filled with fear. That fear may keep some of their aggression in check. As the fear fades, though, the aggression takes hold.

In other words, failing to act in your own self-defense means putting the next person at a greater risk.

Yet I’m going to add my own take here, and that’s in defending others.

Years ago, I let my fear dictate my decisions and I didn’t act when I should have. While no lasting harm came of the situation, I still harbor self-resentment for failing to act. Yeah, I might have gotten my butt kicked, but it wouldn’t have been the first time and I can get over a butt-kicking.

Failing to act when you have the ability to act leads to a feeling of guilt and cowardice that will never leave you. Even if you don’t care about the next guy the criminal targets, your own sense of self-worth should drive you to act when you have the ability to act. Just taking video and calling the cops is better than nothing, for crying out loud, and we all have video cameras in our pockets these days.

But it’s far better to be equipped to deal with such people in a…far more decisive manner, because it does protect the next person.

So yeah, self-defense isn’t just a right. It’s a moral duty.

Step up.