Peterson & Self Defense

Ahh -- the gift that keeps on giving.  I heard about this word salad and figured I had to cruise by slowly to look at the wreckage (is that a mixed metaphor?).  As usual, the real action is in the comments.  From Joan Peterson, Brady Campaign to End Gun Ownership Board Member:

Find me a definition of self defense that doesn't come from a gun blog, gun website or Libertarian site that says self defense is a basic human right. Here is a definition from Dictionary.com- "self-de·fense [self-di-fens, self-] Show IPA
noun
1.
the act of defending one's person when physically attacked, as by countering blows or overcoming an assailant: the art of self-defense.
2.
a claim or plea that the use of force or injuring or killing another was necessary in defending one's own person from physical attack: He shot the man who was trying to stab him and pleaded self-defense at the murder trial.
3.
an act or instance of defending or protecting one's own interests, property, ideas, etc., as by argument or strategy."
Here is the origin of the word-" self-defense
1651, "act of defending oneself," first attested in Hobbes, from self + defense (q.v.). In sports sense, first with ref. to fencing (1728), then boxing (1820s)."
Don't see any reference to it being a basic human right. But you gun rights extremists have made this up to justify your views about guns.

Oh really -- tell me more about your world view on natural rights.

...what I meant to say is that there is not a definition for self defense that says it not a basic human right. In law, people have a right to self defense. But to call it a basic human right is just not true.

I will give her props for referring to a dictionary.  Progress!  However, reading comprehension is clearly lacking.  It seems that the rationale for defensive violence is included in the given definition, paragraph one above.  How would one "overcome an assailant" without use of force?  Very strongly worded screams of pain while someone slams your cranium against the pavement?

Well, let's see what some slave owning dead white guys thought about that.

To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.
         ---John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)

John Adams is a big fan of the well regulated militia but even he admits that private arms obviously are capable of being used in private self defense.  It is obvious to him.

How about Roger Sherman:

[C]onceived it to be the privilege of every citizen, and one of his most essential rights, to bear arms, and to resist every attack upon his liberty or property, by whomsoever made. The particular states, like private citizens, have a right to be armed, and to defend, by force of arms, their rights, when invaded. 

Elbrige Gerry:

Self-defence is a primary law of nature, which no subsequent law of society can abolish.

Avid federalist (and suspected monarchist!) Alexander Hamilton:

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense."

James Madison:

"...the great principle of self-preservation" was a "transcendent law of nature and of nature's God."

How about this one?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

If one has an unalienable right to Life, then do you not have some right to protect that life?  The "right" to life would be fairly meaningless if someone else could take it from you at any time, would it not?  The entire legal and moral justification for the American Revolutionary war was the concept of "self defense."

Well, what about some non-white guys who didn't own slaves?

The Dalai Lama:

If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. 

Christian Theologian Dr. Normal Geisler:

…to permit murder when one could have prevented it is morally wrong. To allow a rape when one could have hindered it is an evil. To watch an act of cruelty to children without trying to intervene is morally inexcusable. In brief, not resisting evil is an evil of omission, and an evil of omission can be just as evil as an evil of commission. Any man who refuses to protect his wife and children against a violent intruder fails them morally.

Mainstream Christinianity is even ok with defensive violence.  Go talk to a military chaplain or a clergyman who works with police officers.

When Joan Peterson suggests that self-defense is not a legitimate right possessed by all people, she's taking the first exit off the highway into Crazy Town.  While a few limited jurisdictions like Massachusetts ban even basic defensive tools like pepper spray (some rapist might get all bleary eyed and wheezy, you know), the idea of self defense as an individual right is enshrined in centuries of English Common law, is fundamental to the American idea of governance, and is comfortably established in literally millenia of western ethical development.

Let's be very clear:  Joan Peterson supports the right of rapists, domestic abusers, and other violent criminals to freely abuse their victims, while facing no risk of defensive violence from the victims.  In her world view it is apparently morally unacceptable for a woman to double tap a rapist with an AR, hit a rapist with a round of buck center of mass, brandish a firearm at a rapist threatening violence, hit a rapist with a bat, spray a rapist with pepper spray, tase a rapist with a stun gun, hit/bite/claw/scratch a rapist, or even verbally defend herself by shouting and screaming.  Apparently victims just need to lie back and take it.  Then they can call 911 (if they survived) and the cops can put the case into the "cold case" files (or at best, maybe collars the guy where he may spend a few years in the pokey then be released) and the victim can get counseling to try and get over being traumatized while the attacker roams about to repeat their crimes again.

I'm sorry, but such a worldview is evil.  There is no other way to describe the enabling of evil individuals bent on violent crime when there are simple, easy to use tools available to stop them.

Perhaps Joan should get on an airplane to somewhere that aligns with her view of self defense, like North Korea.  Thank goodness she's helping floor the accelerator on Brady Campaign's descent into the dustbin of history.