Liberal Philosopher Argues Self-Defense Deprives Assailants of Their Rights

A liberal “philosopher” and “writer,” Justin Curmi, has posted an article in which he argues that the use of a firearm in self-defense is wrong because it deprives the attacker of “the right to a fair trial.”  He adds: “… using a firearm to defend oneself is not legal because if the attacker is killed, he or she is devoid of his or her rights.”

Actually, Curmi makes many strange, poorly-written assertions in his article, including:

There is no doubt that people do have the right to carry and have a stockpile of guns (“the right of the people to keep and bear arms”) and a state has the right to organize a well-regulated Militia. But, the main issue is on the right to self-defend with a firearm.  The main problem with the notion of self-defense is it imposes on justice, for everyone has the right for a fair trial. Therefore, using a firearm to defend oneself is not legal because if the attacker is killed, he or she is devoid of his or her rights.

So, people have a right to have guns and carry them, but not a right to use them in self-defense?  What about the right for a person to defend themselves and their families from an attacker?  We must let evil have free reign so that we don’t offend “justice?”

Curmi then throws in a few bizarre sentences regarding mental capacity, stating:

In addition, one’s mental capacity is a major factor in deciding whether a man or woman has the right to have a firearm. There are two reasons for ensuring mental capacity. First, one of the Five Aims is to ensure domestic tranquility and there can be no tranquility if one does not have the capacity. Second, if one’s brain is distorting his or her reality, they do not have the proper reasoning and deduction skills to use a firearm.

Then, Curmi states: “A gun for civilians is a weapon for a revolution and not for ordinary use. The belief that a gun is a useful tool to protect one is counterintuitive because guns get into the hands of people who use them for horrible reasons.”  He ends by arguing that only the police are well-trained enough to use firearms in a time of stress.

To summarize Curmi’s argument into a more coherent list:

  • Everyone has the right to carry and have guns
  • Those without “mental capacity” do not have “the right to have a firearm”
  • No one has a right to use a gun in self-defense
  • Police can use guns, because they’re “better trained”
  • Guns are only for revolution
  • Guns are not useful tools, because some people might misuse them

His argument begs the following questions:

  • What use is being able to carry guns if not to use them in self-defense?
  • Why can police use guns?  Are they not also depriving someone of the right to a fair trail (by Curmi’s own logic)?  Are they only “useful tools” in the hands of police?
  • Who arbitrates whether someone has the “mental capacity” to have a firearm?  If it is the government, how does this square with the assertion that “guns are only for a revolution?”

Curmi’s argument is faulty, not well thought-out, and poorly articulated (read this post on Instagram for further violence done by him to the logical method).

Aristotle weeps.

 

 

 

Gender Equality Means Leaving Women Defenseless

Today’s *facepalm* story comes to us from our politically correct neighbors to the north. It seems that the Canuck Government believes allowing women to defend themselves against physical and sexual violence would “further gender inequality.”

Canada doesn’t just deny its citizens a right to firearms, it also prohibits them even basic tools for self-defense. Pepper spray is among the illegal items which can get you in trouble. In fact, defending yourself with pepper spray may save you from being raped but you’ll end up serving up to 3 years in prison and paying up to $500,000 in fines. That’s insane!

“Ok, so they aren’t allowed to carry pepper spray but, aren’t Canadians really polite? How big a threat can there be?” You might think that, but you’d be wrong. Canadian federal statistics show that half of all women over the age of 16 will be victim to a violent crime during their life. HALF! There were 173,614 violent crimes against women reported to the police in 2011 alone.

Well, at least one Canadian Member of Parliament wants to change that law and allow women the tools to defend their own bodies.

Kellie Leitch has been a Canadian MP since 2011 and was formerly the Minister of Labour and Minister of Status of Women. She’s also a Pediatric Orthopedic Surgeon and is currently running to head the Conservative Party of Canada. On December 1st, she announced her plan to improve public safety in Canada by, “empowering Canadians to defend themselves from Criminal acts.

This seems like a very straightforward, small step towards solving this problem. But Leitch’s Liberal opponent, Minister Patty Hajdu, wants to quash the effort, claiming that allowing women to carry any weapon would promote gender inequality:

Her misguided approach places the onus on women to defend themselves rather than focusing on addressing and preventing gender-based violence. […] We are developing a federal gender-based violence strategy in consultation with provinces, territories and grassroots organizations to ensure that women in Canada can live free from violence. We will continue to make sure that gender equality is at the core of all government decisions we ma‎ke.

In Hajdu’s fantasy land, legalizing defensive tools excuses the actions of the aggressor. It also appears that she believes Canadians must choose between allowing basic self-defense or taking preventative measures to stop violence before it begins. That’s not only a twisted sense of morality, it’s literally crazy talk!

Canadians should follow Leitch’s lead in legalizing more tools for self-defense, as well as following a “both-and” approach to resolving their epidemic of crimes against women.