Stand your Ground on Stand Your Ground Laws.

Self-defense is a natural right, and I can’t think of a single country where it is not also a legal right recognized for all people.

In response to the not guilty verdict in the George Zimmerman trial, there has been criticism of state “stand-your-ground” laws that say individuals do not have a duty to retreat if they are attacked.  This is ridiculous since Zimmerman’s actions have been found justified not once, but twice.

Charles W. Cooke, on National Review online, says that such laws simply affirm a preexisting individual right of self-defense, rather than granting any new or special right.   Cooke’s views echo my own.  A good argument that stand your ground beats the alternative “duty to retreat,” has also been made recently.

There is no good argument to rescind these laws, and a number of good reasons to think enacting them in all states would make the average person (unless they plan to commit a crime) safer.

A major NCPA study found that firearms play an important role in self-defense against criminals.

A second NCPA piece found that concealed carry holders were more law-abiding than the average citizen.

Miranda Lambert’s song is on the mark.


Comments (12)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Lloyd says:

    The law is justified in a way that allows everyone to fight or flight. You should always be allowed to defend yourself and with any weapon at your disposal.

  2. Dewaine says:

    Didn’t the Defense opt not to use Stand Your Ground in their arguments?

  3. Frank says:

    “A second NCPA piece found that concealed carry holders were more law-abiding than the average citizen.”

    I would assume someone who takes the time and effort to follow the law and acquire a gun is more “law-abiding” than the average citizen.

    • JD says:

      True, seems logical. Although, that does expose something important that may be overlooked. Since many criminals will carry a concealed weapon illegally, why would we think that disarming the populace would have different results? Why would we think that criminals would obey that law?

      • Dewaine says:

        You’re right. I don’t understand the though process that some people have.

        My best conclusion is that people have trouble thinking past “stage 1″ (Sowell). They think that they’re position will prevent the criminal from being killed and that life can be salvaged. This is all well and good, but they are overlooking that absent the right to self-defense, the good citizen is likely to be killed or injured!

  4. Baker says:

    Despite the not guilty verdict, I feel that Zimmerman was still wrong to kill Martin

    • Then, by extension, what you are saying is that if you are being followed or watched, its okay to turn around and sucker punch someone and once he/she is on the ground start bashing their head into the concrete. Their only defense is to try and reason with you or hope the police show up. Multiple studies have shown that the best (safest for the person being assaulted) response is an armed response.

    • Dewaine says:


      While there is some reasonable doubt to what happened that night, H. Sterling Burnett’s response is the most plausible scenario based on what was presented in court. If that scenario is reality, then Zimmerman did nothing wrong.

  5. Steward says:

    Appropriate song for the topic, although not particularly my style.

Leave a Reply

If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a Gravatar.