WSJ Article Assumes Justifiable Homicides Don’t Save Lives

AmmoLand ^ | November 12, 2025 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

A recent Wall Street Journal article makes claims about justifiable homicides using false or at least unproven assumptions. From wsj.com:

It’s easier than ever to kill someone in America and get away with it. 

In 30 states, it often requires only a claim you killed while protecting yourself or others. 

There are several assumptions wrapped up in the opening sentences. First is the assumption that it is never necessary or justified to kill someone.  The phrase “get away with it” implies the person was not justified. Even though the article is about justified homicides, the authors, in the first sentence, imply that justified homicides are not justified.  Why the literary double-speak? It is because the premise of the article depends on convincing the reader that justified homicides were not justified.

This is a progressive article of faith. It is not sustained by the facts. In a previous article at AmmoLand, this correspondent explained two different models of how homicide happens, at least in Western society.

From AmmoLand:

The first model, which I call the “Progressive Elite” model, has these basic assumptions about criminal homicide and its causes:

1.  The majority of people, except for the exceptional elite, are just moments away from committing a criminal homicide.  They have poor impulse control and fly into rages which escalate into homicidal rages if a weapon happens to be present.  For this reason, only those in the elite, who have become experts in government through the attainment of public office, employment by police agencies, or attendance at ivy league schools, should be allowed access to weapons that might be use when these uncontrollable, emotional fits, strike.  Just a few months ago, it was reasonably summarized by  David Frum at thedailybeast:

---

TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: banglist; homicide; justified; wsj

[Chewbarkah]

What the WSJ can’t or won’t get is that the laws surrounding “justifiable homicide” exist to protect normally law-abiding people forced to defend their own/others live through no fault of their own. If lawyers for some thugs and criminals misuse “stand your ground” laws, etc., to get their clients off, that is the price the rest of us pay for the right to defend ourselves from attack. Legislators need to fine tune the laws to limit misuse, while preserving the self-defense rights of the innocent.

In most circumstances, Leftists and what used to be “liberals” embrace “better a hundred guilty go free than one innocent man be convicted wrongly”. Somehow, when someone has to defend their own life from an aggressor, they reverse their position. Because deep down they sympathize with criminals, and want law-abiding people to be helpless against them. “Why?” is ineffable.

[marktwain]

“Why?” is ineffable.

---

Thomas Sowell gives a pretty good explanation of “why” in A Conflict of Visions.

Essentially, it is different assumptions about the nature of reality.

If you believe police cause crime, and criminals are “victims of the system”, you can easily believe civilians shooting criminals is a bad thing.

[bravo whiskey]

In addition to having to show a weapon, just carrying one and being alert will discourage many criminals looking for an easy target.
A 60 year old CCW lady walking and ALERT to her surroundings (because of some training) might be a harder target than a college lineman walking with his head in his phone.

[PROCON]

RKBA Ping List

This Ping List is for all news pertaining to infringes upon or victories for the 2nd Amendment.

FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from this Ping List.

More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.

[Sir Bangaz Cracka]

What good is self-defense if you “can’t get away with it”? Might as well just go ahead and die. That’s what the writer probably wants to happen any way (if you are white), as the odds are that the perpetrator is going to be a black guy who only wants your stuff.