Lee Wrights: The sanity of self-defense

by R. Lee Wrights
Liberty for All

I have been called numerous things in the many years I have spent embroiled in various causes; but, until a couple of years ago I had never been called a gun wacko. Oddly enough I was labeled as such because of something I wrote that advocated individuals taking responsibility for their own defense. Because I encourage people to educate themselves in the area of self-defense, to avoid finding themselves at the mercy of criminals and over-zealous bureaucrats, I was labeled a gun nut.

So, that is how it is these days? If you encourage people to defend themselves, you are some sort of mentally-challenged individual best suited for a private, padded room? My how times have changed.

Read more.

8 thoughts on “Lee Wrights: The sanity of self-defense

  1. Deran

    First, let me say I am not anti-gun, I grew up around firearms, I’ve spent many a good time in shooting ranges.

    But, I wonder if this article/essay is in some relation to the mass murder in Aurora, CO. If so, I do not think everyone armed is anything but hype when discussing mass murderes like that fellow. If firearms were not avb to him he could have built a bomb or poison gas etc. I think a real response to people like him is a much more expensive and socially intensive: the guy was a sociopath or mentally ill in some serious way. My opinion is that if we had a more integrated system of counselling and social workers etc where guys (mass murders are 99/100 guys) like this could potentially get some help at a young age and where people could be aware and actively seeking to help or keep an eye on people with violent tendencies.

    Now, I don’t want big brother putting all the weirdos in bedlams, because I would be writing this comment from a locked ward if that’s how society worked. But I do think a society that looked to be of help to people with mental health problems would be a society with less guys doing mass murder with firearms (or knives like in China or the UK).

  2. NewFederalist

    Deran… I always appreciate your comments. As a libertarian I do not always agree with you but I respect your viewpoint. I am more than a little confused by your comment regarding the terrible incident in Colorado. If the USA were full of social workers and therapists who were on the lookout for people with mental health problems and fully funded by the government (or even some other source of funding) but this guy slipped through under the radar, wouldn’t it make sense for an armed citizen to take him out before he did all this damage? The same could be said for the guy who shot Representative Gabrielle Giffords. I personally do not like firearms but I truly believe they make more sense in the hands of law abiding citizens than people who will have them anyway with the citizens disarmed and easy prey.

  3. Jill Pyeatt

    TH @ 4: Trolls seem to have decided to visit IPR last night, as evidenced on at least one other thread. I don’t plan to fee them.

    This is another excellent piece by Mr. Wrights.

  4. Deran

    @New Federalist.

    I guess I’m not saying mental health care would have stopped the mass murder in Aurora, or necessarily many such crimes. And I can understand if there were people attending the film who had conceal carry permits, one of them might have been able to shoot the mkiller. Although I don’t know how well such a thing would have worked out with a loud movie playing, smoke gernades and lots of gun fire. I would worry abt a loud smoke-filled room with people shooting all around. It might have saved lives and injuries. I guess in someways I am responding to all my liberal friends who use this as a reason to call for gun bans and my conservative/libertarians for arming everyone because of the killings in Aurora.

    And I always find your comments, New Federalist, interesting, well thought out, and not prone to rants!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.