Since 2005, more than 40 states have passed or proposed new "Castle Doctrine" legislation intended to expand the right to use deadly force in self-defense. Some argue that these new laws are the expression of one's "right to defend" while others argue that they are a "license to kill.". Explain each argument and make your own argument for one side or the other

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Opponents and supporters of the castle laws see them in fundamentally different ways. Supporters claim them as the public reasserting fundamental rights. The first woman president of the National Rifle Association argues that the castle law codifies the "right of the people to use any manner of force to protect their home and its inhabitants.". She contends this right goes back to the 1400s, and that Florida prosecutors and courts took away that right by requiring that "law-abiding citizens who are attacked by criminals" have to retreat. Gun control advocates say the laws "are ushering in a violent new era where civilians may have more freedom to use deadly force than even the police.". They're not a "right to defend"; they're a "license to kill" (Rather 2009). The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence sees the laws entirely differently. The communications director for the Campaign says: This law sends a message to people who are potentially dangerous and have an itchy trigger finger that as long as they can make a reasonable case they were in fear, they can use deadly force against somebody (Kleindienst 2005).