HuffPo: Shooting Attackers in Self-Defense Denies Criminals a ‘Fair Trial’

Getty Images
Getty Images

In a recent essay, a Huffington Post writer makes the incredible argument that while the Second Amendment guarantees U.S. citizens the right to carry and stockpile arms, it does not give the right to shoot violent attackers in self-defense because to do so would deny assailants a fair trial.

If the reasoning sounds convoluted, that’s because it is.

Although author Justin Curmi declares that the Second Amendment is highly contested, he also states that there is “no doubt” about citizens’ rights to keep and bear arms; it’s using them that’s the problem. In fact, he believes it is illegal.

“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,” Curmi declares.

Since everyone has the right to a fair trial, Curmi argues, it must therefore be illegal to curtail an attacker’s right by using lethal violence against him to defend oneself. He seems to assume that the crafters of the Second Amendment believed that citizens should be able to keep and bear arms without intending that the weapons ever be used, which stretches the imagination to the breaking point.

He also seems to assume that the violent criminal’s right to a fair trial supersedes the victim’s right to life itself, since the logical alternative to self-defense is letting oneself be killed.

There seems to be some confusion in Curmi’s mind regarding just why the Second Amendment was adopted in the first place. If not for self-defense, then why keep and bear arms?

“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,” Curmi asserts.

In point of fact, the “belief that a gun is a useful tool to protect one[self]” has nothing to do with what other people happen to be doing with guns. The belief in a gun’s usefulness for self-defense depends solely on the effective benefit it provides to a person wishing to defend himself, and on nothing else. There is nothing “counterintuitive” about a firearm’s utility to stave off attackers, since this has been factually demonstrated on countless occasions.

The strangest thing about this essay is not the author’s opposition to firearm use. It is rather the Huffington Post’s willingness to publish an article that wouldn’t be accepted in a seventh grade writing class. Rife with grammatical errors, the piece wanders from one non-sequitur to another without ever making a serious case for anything.

Which leads one to conclude that as long as a writer is touting the politically correct position, it’s good enough for the Huffington Post. Journalistic standards and logic be damned.

Follow Thomas D. Williams on Twitter 


Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.