The world’s gun control lobbyists promote the theory enthusiastically, namely the International Network for Small Arms (IANSA), a network, which regional and national gun control lobbyists belong. IANSA’s director, on behalf of the group, endorsed the prohibition of firearm for self-defense possession. IANSA works toward the overall confiscation of non-governmentally firearms, with an exception for low-power rifles and single-shot guns owned by hunters. Amnesty International also works closely with IANSA together with Oxfam, with the three forming a lobbying group referred to as “Control Arms.” The IANSA in collaboration with the United Nations, work in collaboration to support a common agenda. This has had a radical effect on the right to defend one-self (Shute & Hurley 38).
The right to defend one-self in English law is generally a complete defense of all levels of assault. Charles argues that it can be of use in mitigating liability from situations of murder to manslaughter (213). This is in the case where a police officer or a soldier acting in his duty uses a stronger degree of force than expected or necessary for self-defense. Therefore, self-defense is discernible from provocation that only applies in mitigating what would otherwise change from murder to manslaughter (Todd 145).
Scott says that because of the defense completeness, Self-defense in interpretation is relatively conservative as a way to avoid the creation of a standard of justification (134-143). The more level of forgiving a defense is the superior the incentive for a defendant to; relatively exploit it when making plans for the use of violence or in the attempt of explaining matters after the self-defense event (Scott 134-143). Therefore, even if the jury in cases of self-defense is entitled to take account of the actual physical characteristics of the respective defendant, the corrected evidence has little value in making decisions whether excessive force was of use in such an event (Robertson & John 76-79). The law states, "A defendant has a right to use reasonable force in the event of protecting himself, as well as others for whom he holds responsibility as well as his property but the force must be reasonable."
In the right to defend one-self, there is a controversy of what force is exactly reasonable as stipulated in the law. Opinions differ, and many scholars and organizations have different perspectives on the issue of reasonable force. The question underlying this is what the reasonable amount of force would be (Shute & Hurley 38). However, in all cases, the respective defendant does not truly have the right of deciding how much force is so-called reasonable because it would be a norm for the defendant in maintaining the reasonable force (Forsythe 18-27). This would also contradict the issue of guiltiness because situations vary as explained in the earlier discussion, in this paper. Some situations do not even warrant any use of force and therefore, the defendants would use the concept of reasonable force to while away their guilt (David & Joanne 43–178). The jury, as members of the general community, should be the ones to decide the level or degree of reasonable force depending on the circumstances that the defendants were at the time when they executed the right to defend one-self (Michael 156).
Robertson & John also argues that it is pertinent that the respective defendant was under pressure in situations of attack, and the imminent attack would not give him time act rational or make considerations of the amount of force used (76-79). Therefore, in executing a judgment on the right to defend one-self the test should balance the standard of a pertinent reasonable person through the attribution of some of the relative, subjective knowledge of the respective defendant, with an inclusion of their beliefs about the specific circumstances (Shute & Hurley 38). However, even permitting for mistakes made in the event of crisis, the degree of force must also be proportionate as well as reasonable given the interests protected as well as the harm likely to occur by use of such force (Charles 213).
The classic test on the right to defend one-self comes from the Jamaican Palmer v The Queen case, on appeal presented to the Privy Council in the year 1971. It espouses, "The defense in the event of self-defense is that which can be or will be understood readily by any jury. It is a type of a straightforward conception. Generally, it involves no particular form of abstruse legal thought. The defense only requires common sense for its understanding (Shute & Hurley 38). The same is both convenient sense and reputable law that an attacked man may reiterate by defending himself (Forsythe 18-27). It is both convenient sense and reputable law that the man may do it, but may do, what is only and reasonably necessary. However, everything will be dependent upon the particular circumstances and facts (Todd 145). It may, in particular cases be, clearly possible and sensible to take candid avoiding action.
There are attacks that may be dangerous and serious while others may not (Michael 156). If there were relatively some minor attack in the event, it would not be reasonable to allow some action of retaliation that was wholly over the proportion of the respective situation (David & Joanne 43–178). If an attack is severe and serious putting someone in instantaneous peril then direct defensive action might be relatively necessary (Shute & Hurley 38). If the situation is one of predicament for someone in danger, he may have to literally, avert the danger through some instant reaction. When the attack is over and no peril remains, then it is expected that the force employment ceases, and the introduction of revenge or even some form of punishment done through either paying off or pure aggression (Charles 213). There may not be any link with an inevitability of defense particularly when a jury thinks that in the situation of unexpected anguish an individual attacked only did what he instinctively and honestly thought as necessary as the most potent evidence only reasonable as a defensive action" (Scott 134-143).
Robertson & John argues that the right to defend one-self is also dependent on the intent or the reason for holding the weapon (76-79). He gives an example in explaining the right to defend one-self. He illustrates that in R v Lindsay (2005), the defendant who was said to pick up a sword in defending himself after an attack in his home by masked intruders armed with handguns, cut and killed one of the attackers. He slashed him repeatedly using a sword in self-defense. The prosecution case read that, although he initially had acted in self-defense, he lost self-control and in the process demonstrating a clear intent of killing the armed intruder because, he slashed continuously (Forsythe 18-27). In fact, he was himself a cannabis dealer keeping the sword available in defending him against fellow drug dealers. The Court of Appeal did confirm an eight-year term for him to serve imprisonment (Shute & Hurley 38). In a non-criminal context, this would not be the expectation for the case of ordinary householders "going too far" to defend themselves against armed robbers (Todd 145). They would receive a self-defense probe because of the intention of their act as well as the possession of the weapon (David & Joanne 43–178).
In explaining the right to defend one-self, the most astonishing claim is the Frey report, that there is no right of humans of self-defense. The reports states, “No international right of human of self-defense is set forth expressly in the sources of international law including customary law, treaties, or general principles (David & Joanne 43–178). While the human right to life is evident in practically every foremost human rights treaty internationally, the right to defend one-self is expressly recognized only in one, that is, Protection of Human Rights Convention and Fundamental Freedoms (European Human Rights Convention) (Michael 156).
In conclusion, the right to defend one-self is extremely wide and covered by many scholars but the international law has still not appropriately mandated the use of defense especially use of restrictive gun control. The issue is also wide as it covers key areas in self-defense including others and own property. There is therefore, need for specialty in each subject and a cardinal in each subject individually covered to cover the issue subjectively.