In a recent social media post, the Firearms Policy Coalition called attention to anti-rights organization Everytown for Gun Safety’s “research” regarding Stand Your Ground laws.

(Everytown refers to these laws as “shoot first laws,” which many commenters on the post correctly point out is a manipulation of language designed to make said laws seem reckless and unreasonable, when in reality they are not.)

“Shoot first laws are unpopular,” Everytown proclaims in large font at the very top of their page, blatantly committing what is possibly the most basic logical fallacy, equating popularity with goodness. Contrary to what Everytown presumes, how popular or unpopular something is, has nothing to do with whether it is good or bad. Okay, Stand Your Ground laws are unpopular. So what? What does that have to do with whether they are good or bad? Nothing.

“Legal experts and advocates also oppose Shoot First laws,” Everytown continues. A similar point applies here: the fact that legal experts and advocates oppose these laws, has nothing to do with whether the laws are good or bad. There’s no rule stating that whatever experts and advocates think is automatically true. Experts and advocates are simply people, just like anyone else. They could be right in their beliefs, or they could be wrong. 

“In 2012, the NAACP called for a repeal of these laws due to their effects of increasing crime and promoting racist violence.” The same point applies here: the fact that an organization called for a repeal of these laws, has nothing to do with whether or not the laws should actually be repealed. There’s no rule stating that organizations’ policy positions are automatically correct. Organizations can be right in their policy positions, or they can be wrong. An additional point also applies here: just as the popularity of a law is irrelevant to its goodness or badness, the effects of a law are irrelevant as well. The fact that a law would increase crime and/or “racist violence” has nothing to do with whether the law is good or bad. Goodness and badness are determined by the intrinsic morality of a law or policy, not the effects. Additionally, I do not see how it would be possible for Stand Your Ground laws to promote “racist violence,” because Stand Your Grounds laws do not have anything to do with race.

And furthermore, there is a very important point to make about the NAACP itself. Over the past five years, through the positions that it has taken and statements that it has issued regarding the statue genocide, the NAACP has established itself as an organization dedicated to inflicting horrific, unbearable pain on innocent people, destroying everything that makes life worth living, and obliterating from the face of the earth every person who is different from the norm. Due to the bigotry, cruelty, aggressive intolerance, and complete moral bankruptcy demonstrated by the NAACP, I would argue that there is a very strong negative correlation between whether the NAACP has expressed support for a policy position, and that policy position’s likelihood of being right. In other words, the fact that the NAACP called for a repeal of Stand Your Ground laws is strong evidence that these are good laws that should not be repealed.

“And in 2015, the American Bar Association also released a report recommending the repeal of Shoot First laws.” A similar point to the ones that I’ve made above, applies here: the fact that the ABA recommends repealing Stand Your Ground laws, has nothing to do with whether they actually should be repealed. There’s no rule stating that the ABA’s position on an issue is automatically correct. The ABA might be right on an issue, and also it might be wrong.

“According to an expert quoted in the report, ‘If our aim is to increase criminal justice system costs, increase medical costs, increase racial tension, maintain our high adolescent death rate and put police officers at greater risk, then this is good legislation.'” I don’t see how a criminal justice system would cost money, and so I don’t see how Stand Your Ground laws could increase “criminal justice system costs,” whatever the heck that means. I also don’t see how increasing medical costs is a bad thing, because in every transaction, the buyer of a product or service pays money and the seller of the product or service receives the exact same amount of money, so every transaction is a net neutral. Furthermore, I don’t see how Stand Your Ground laws could increase racial tension, because they have nothing to do with race. Most importantly, as I’ve stated above, all of this is completely irrelevant to the question of whether Stand Your Ground laws are good or bad. The effects of a law have nothing to do with whether the law is good or bad, because goodness and badness are determined by the intrinsic morality of a law, not its effects. By listing all of these irrelevant factors as if they are somehow significant, the ABA and their alleged expert demonstrate a complete misunderstanding of what constitutes good and bad legislation.

So, yeah. Stand Your Ground laws are correct, because people have the right to use deadly force against people who trespass on their property. Trespassing on other people’s property is wrong, and therefore people forfeit their rights if they do it. It’s morally abhorrent to focus one’s criticism on the victims of wrong actions – as Everytown, the NAACP, and the ABA do – rather than the perpetrators.