The right to self-defense is something that is so universal, even the most anti-gun nations still at least pay lip service to it. They may make it impossible on a practical level, but almost everyone agrees that at some point, you have a right to defend yourself. Even California, New York, Massachusetts, Illinois, and Connecticut, among other anti-gun states, acknowledge it.
Yet it seems a House subcommittee has been looking at self-defense for some insane reason.
Now, I'm not saying that the House is somehow wrong to look at self-defense if it's under attack. I'm saying it's insane that we live in a world where a House subcommittee feels the need to look at it.
The U.S. House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance, under the leadership of Chairman Andy Biggs (R-Arizona), held a committee hearing focused on the right of law-abiding Americans to protect themselves.
...
‘No one wants this to happen’
Subcommittee Chairman Biggs set the table succinctly during his opening remarks about why the hearing was so critical.
“At a time when violent crime continues to plague our communities and rogue prosecutors allow criminals back out on the streets, it is important to preserve our right to defend ourselves and our loved ones,” Chairman Biggs stated. “It’s disgraceful to think that someone defending their family from a deadly attack would be punished.”
House Democrats on the committee, including ranking member Lucy McBath (D-Georgia), Jared Moskowitz (D-Florida), and Dan Goldman (D-New York), repeatedly stated the need for strict gun control was rooted in the belief that more laws means less crime. One hearing witness, however, had firsthand experience about why that is the wrong belief paradigm.
David McDermott, a self-defense attorney in Chicago, explained why self-defense is so important to him.
“At the age of 17, I was walking with my now-wife, Dana, and some friends when a large group of gang members ran over to us,” McDermott said. “I was sure we were going to be attacked, and before I knew it, I was hit in the head with a blunt object. I immediately went down to my knees as I was beaten repeatedly with a lead pipe and baseball bat. Dana and my sister were held at gunpoint as these gang members continued to beat me bloody.”
McDermott went on to note that no one wakes up and says, "Hey, today's the day I'm going to be attacked." He's right, they don't. While we all pray we're never the victim of such a brutal assault, or any assault, that's not necessarily up to us.
Sure, we can try to avoid dangerous places, have good situational awareness to avoid suspicious people, etc, but no one can be "on" all day, every day. Sometimes, we're putting ourselves in a less than ideal situation for whatever reason. Sometimes, we did everything right and trouble still comes to us.
The right to keep and bear arms is so important because we don't get to know when something is going to happen. We don't have the initiative. That's on the bad guys.
So, we have to be ready all the time.
As for gun control, law enforcement officer turned competitive shooter Dianna Muller probably said it best:
“I believe that the people that advocate for gun control are … doing it from a place of privilege. If you don’t think you need the Second Amendment or if you don’t think you need to carry a firearm or have self-defense, then you are coming from a place of privilege and you’re not coming from a community that is plagued with violence,” Muller said. “You’re not living in a community that needs to have that kind of security. I would check your privilege and say that the Second Amendment is what gives everyone the right to be safe.
Yep.
Look, when you're wealthy enough, security isn't that difficult. You can just call up a company and have around the clock protection from highly trained individuals who served with some of our elite military and law enforcement units. They can wire your house up for video and audio and know if a squirrel in the tree outside farts.
Most of us can't swing that.
The best some of us can do is to move into safe neighborhoods in safe cities, but even that's not realistic for many others. The only option left is the right to keep and bear arms. A gun on your person means you're safe wherever you go.
The fact that this is something that a House subcommittee is looking at bothers me, but only because it should be so self-obvious that it shouldn't be necessary.
Unfortunately, it is.
