How we lose our right to self defense.

 The February 25th 2024 edition of the Detroit Free Press carried an article by staff writer Jeff Seidel reporting on the tragedy of an acquaintance who was shot in the face by her step father. Since Mr. Seidel knew the family of the young victim I can empathize with his concern over her fate even though she did survive.

But where I depart from Mr Seidel's concern is his use of the concept of "gun violence" as the act of the shooting. Why? You might ask? Because the concept gun violence is a package deal packaging together two different kinds of gun violence: the violence of gun assault and the violence of gun self defense. To me, this is sloppy thinking.

Guns are violent tools. They are supposed to be. But combining the gun violence of assault with the gun violence of defense is to package both forms of violence as equal evils. This has been the goal of most of the Democratic Party and the mainstream media to which Mr Seidel belongs, for decades now.

I would have no issue with his article if he had identified the kind of violence used on the young lady as gun assault. That is what it jolly well was.

Michigan's governor Gretchen Whitmer has been using the package deal of "gun violence" for quite awhile now. It is this kind of package dealing that is being used against the young and unsuspecting.

Logically, if all forms of gun violence are dangerous and thus to be avoided then gun confiscation would seem to be justified to the unthinking.. Actually the most unsafe people in the world were the peasants in communist Russia, China, Cambodia, Cuba and other dictatorships of the last century.

It is hoped that future articles on gun violence by the Free Press staff will distinguish between the violence of assault vs the violence of defense. The right of self defense is in the Constitution for a reason. It is a requirement of the right to life. If you don't have a right to defend your life, you don't have a right to life.