# Carrying a weapon for self-defence: is it acceptible?



## kickcatcher (Mar 20, 2006)

Specific question: Do you believe that carrying a concealed weapon of some sort, whether a firearm, blade, kubutan or whatever*, for the purposes of self-defence, in circumstances where a) you are not aware of any higher than normal risk and b) it is prohibited by the local laws, is morally acceptable? 

_*for the purposes of the question, it doesn't matter how explainable the item is as not a weapon, if you are carrying as a weapon it is. _

Yes? 
No?


----------



## Andrew Green (Mar 20, 2006)

Morally is tricky question.  If someone was carrying purely for self-defence, despite having no reason to do so, internally I think they'd be morally ok.

However, a defensive weapon that is portable can very easily become a offensive weapon.  And if people believe you are carrying a weapon when you are not supposed to I think they will look at you differently.  Lots of people carrying lots of weapons is not very "friendly", and since I prefer friendly, I'd never carry a weapon unless I had good reason to do so, and would really prefer everyone else not carry one as well.

Truthfully, people that feel the need to have a weapon on hand 24 / 7, regardless of what they are doing and where they are really creep me out.  That, to me, smells of paranoia and a unstablle person who I'd really rather not have any weapons ever...


----------



## KenpoTex (Mar 20, 2006)

I guess it boils down to whether you value your personal safety more than you value always being on the "right side" of the law. Thankfully I live somewhere where I don't have to be worried about the legality of being armed. If I lived in some parts of Europe (for example), or for that matter, some of the more "freedom infringed" parts of the US, I'd still find something to carry even if it wasn't a purpose designed weapon.


			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Lots of people carrying lots of weapons is not very "friendly", and since I prefer friendly, I'd never carry a weapon unless I had good reason to do so, *and would really prefer everyone else not carry one as well.*
> 
> Truthfully, people that feel the need to have a weapon on hand 24 / 7, regardless of what they are doing and where they are really creep me out. *That, to me, smells of paranoia and a unstablle person who I'd really rather not have any weapons ever...*


okayyyy...You'd PREFER that no one carry weapons?  I'd PREFER that violent crime never happened and that everyone was perfectly safe from threats.  However until that happens (and no, banning weapons is not EVER going to help).  I'll "stick to my guns" (pun intended).  

On second thought...you're right.  I guess I'm not a very "friendly" person. Tell you what...I'll give away all my guns, knives, and various other "toys" and we can all hold hands and sing kum-bye-ya. :rofl:


----------



## WingChun Lawyer (Mar 20, 2006)

Not at all. Laws should be obeyed, that is the most simple answer in moral terms: you agree to uphold the laws of the society you live in.

So you do not break the law, UNLESS YOU HAVE A DARN GOOD REASON FOR THAT. If there are no special circunstances justifying your attitude, you are not morally entitled to break the laws you or your representatives agreed to (mind you, I am speaking from the perspective of someone living in a democratic regime).

In short, unless society has absolutely failed in its job of protecting you, you should work within its governmental and social structures to see the changes you wish for implemented. You are not morally justified in breaking the law.


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 20, 2006)

Hmm.  Tough question, because I would answer circumstance 1 yes, but not neccessarily so to question 2.

Overall, tho, since its a question of morality, I'd probably have to say yes... based 1) on the fact that you just never know, and 2) on the fact that recent events have proven that the "authorities" (i.e. cops) have no _obligation_ to protect you.  I personally wouldn't have moral qualms BENDING the law a little in a circumstance where if somthing unexpected happened I could only really count on myself to save myself.

If I can put a qualifier on it, however, given both of those circumstances, I would _try_ to choose somthing that if randomly stopped by authorities would not arouse _undo_ suspicion of its use as a weapon, _regardless_ of my intention to use it as such... like a heavy duty metal ink pen, or bat AND a ball glove, a couple carabiners linked together AND a pocket reference on rock climbing, or a small length of rope with a knot in the end of it...  or a couple golf balls... of course WHAT i'd choose would vary depending on the circumstances of where I am... but it would be a dual purpose item that wouldn't be illegal to carry in normal circumstances, hence my comment that I feel I am BENDING the law, not overtly breaking it.


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 20, 2006)

WingChun Lawyer said:
			
		

> In short, unless society has absolutely failed in its job of protecting you, you should work within its governmental and social structures to see the changes you wish for implemented. You are not morally justified in breaking the law.


 
So, does this attitude take into consideration the fact that several recent court cases have ruled that the police and government have no actual _obligation_ to do anything to help you if you are being attacked?  PERSONALLY I consder that absolute failure in society's job of protecting me... but I acknowlage that some people still consider that wrong.



			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Truthfully, people that feel the need to have a weapon on hand 24 / 7, regardless of what they are doing and where they are really creep me out. That, to me, smells of paranoia and a unstablle person who I'd really rather not have any weapons ever...



I dont know if Being prepared is neccessarliy paranoid and unstable.  I carry a roadside emergency kit with me when I drive, and some jumper cables... I wear a helmet when I ride my yami MOST of the time... but I don't see that as paranoia, I just see it as preparation.  

Oh well, to each his own I guess.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 20, 2006)

Sometimes the decision of whether or not to carry is made for you.  In my career, it is impossible to carry based on the regulations of my work place.  This doesn't mean that some people aren't breaking the rules, though...


----------



## KenpoTex (Mar 20, 2006)

WingChun Lawyer said:
			
		

> In short, *unless society has absolutely failed in its job of protecting you,* you should work within its governmental and social structures to see the changes you wish for implemented. You are not morally justified in breaking the law.


 


			
				Technopunk said:
			
		

> Overall, tho, since its a question of morality, I'd probably have to say yes... based 1) on the fact that you just never know, and 2) on the fact that recent events have proven that the "authorities" (i.e. cops) have no _obligation_ to protect you. I personally wouldn't have moral qualms BENDING the law a little in a circumstance where if somthing unexpected happened I could only really count on myself to save myself.


 
This, I feel, is an important point in the discussion. It is not the governments job to protect us on an individual basis. This has been established, and supported, time and again. If it is the government's job, we need to fire them for gross incompetence and find a better method. The only person you can count on to protect you is YOU.

edit: Technopunk, looks like we cross-posted


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 20, 2006)

kickcatcher said:
			
		

> Specific question: Do you believe that carrying a concealed weapon of some sort, whether a firearm, blade, kubutan or whatever*, for the purposes of self-defence, in circumstances where a) you are not aware of any higher than normal risk and b) it is prohibited by the local laws, is morally acceptable?
> 
> _*for the purposes of the question, it doesn't matter how explainable the item is as not a weapon, if you are carrying as a weapon it is. _
> 
> ...


 
Specific Answer, or as specific as I think I can be on the subject 
(a) I don't think so (b) It is not legal, and I have no idea if it is moral.

But as an addition. Some people that carry weapons tend to be over confident and that can and has got people killed. 

Others fail to recognize that there is a REAL BIG difference between carrying a weapon and using it.

While others know the difference and are capable of it and are highly trained in the use of said weapon.

Basically this is a hypothetical question that cannot be truly answered unless you have been in the situation, which I haven't. You can argue legality and morality until the cows come home and at the end of the day you truly have no idea. 

I know people I can ask and I am certain they would not agree either, and yet they have been in that situation.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 20, 2006)

A "martial" artist who fears weapons is *not a martial artist at all* -- he or she is a *hoplophobe* projecting his or her fear while pontificating from ignorance.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 20, 2006)

*Why I Stopped Arguing Gun Control on the Internet*


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 20, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> A "martial" artist who fears weapons is *not a martial artist at all* -- he or she is a *hoplophobe* projecting his or her fear while pontificating from ignorance.


 
Phil

I still say; someone who makes a statement like that has a serious lack of understanding about martial arts.

Sorry about hounding you to another post, but I couldn't let that one go there and I can't let it go here.

You are spouting your own dogma and I am sorry but I just cannot agree nor do I expect you to agre with me. One visit to you website shows that would not be possible.

As for not arguing gun control on the internet, I find that doubtful, unless this means you are shutting down your webpage.

And I am not advocating that you should. It is always good to get other opinions.

My best to you


----------



## RoninPimp (Mar 20, 2006)

I have no problem whatsoever with people protecting themselves however they see fit. Knife, gun, sap, brass knuckles, whatever. That said, there isn't much real reason to go armed to the teeth in most places in the developed world.

Arguing what MA are or aren't is a pointless sematical circle jerk.


----------



## Flatlander (Mar 20, 2006)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> So, does this attitude take into consideration the fact that several recent court cases have ruled that the police and government have no actual _obligation_ to do anything to help you if you are being attacked?


Can you reference this?  If true, that's a disconcerting turn of events.


----------



## still learning (Mar 20, 2006)

Hello, The safest way is to obey the laws. Make sense? If you carry ?..it is because of intent to use! 

Best to practice "Awareness" and trust your "instincts". Remember Verbal Judo.

All things around you and on the ground can be use for weapons, if you need to fight back. 

Things in our pockets can be converted too? (keys, coins-throw them). One dollar coins make powerful throwing object. Practice with them.

Have one credit card (one side sharpen) and learn how to strike with it? Did you see Steven Seagal use it in a movie? (I don't have any with sharp edges)

Think about it...how many times have you been in a serious situtions? and WHY? ...... ...........Aloha


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 20, 2006)

> I still say; someone who makes a statement like that has a serious lack of understanding about martial arts.



That's fair, given that I'm saying someone who disputes it has a serious lack of understanding about _martial_ arts.


----------



## Andrew Green (Mar 20, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> That's fair, given that I'm saying someone who disputes it has a serious lack of understanding about _martial_ arts.



Well, since I have no intention of ending up on a battlefield when I go to get groceries, I don't think I need a weapon...

When I was wearing the green suit and kevlar hat, I did carry a rather large gun though.

Martial, on it's own, refers to military.  Would you consider what you do Military arts Phil?


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 20, 2006)

The problem is that you don't get to decide what you will or won't need.  That is the dilemma of self-defense.  Reality doesn't care how secure you _feel_ and it doesn't care what you think is likely.  All you can do is attempt to be prepared -- and hope that your preparations will ultimately be a waste of time.



> "The crime rate right now (1999) is lower than it's been since the mid   1960s. However, the incidence of violence in those crimes is much higher -- less crime, more violence. The FBI has amassed statistics that tell us a person generally stands a six percent chance in his or her lifetime of being   victimized in some way. Of course, all statistics are capable of manipulation and don't normally reflect the reality of any given situation. The fact is   that if your experience in that six percent includes a stabbing which results   in your requiring a colostomy, that mere six percent becomes pretty life altering. If it includes a nonconfrontational property crime -- your mailbox gets destroyed by vandals, for example -- you got off easy.
> 
> "This is not melodramatic, just truthful, prudent, and appropriately   concerned."
> 
> - Kelly McCann, aka Jim Grover


----------



## Andrew Green (Mar 20, 2006)

kenpotex said:
			
		

> On second thought...you're right. I guess I'm not a very "friendly" person. Tell you what...I'll give away all my guns, knives, and various other "toys" and we can all hold hands and sing kum-bye-ya. :rofl:



I'll take em, providing I can get permits 

I got nothing against "toys", and rather like shooting.  I just don't like carrying weapons


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 20, 2006)

Reality doesn't care what you like.


----------



## Cruentus (Mar 20, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> The problem is that you don't get to decide what you will or won't need. That is the dilemma of self-defense. Reality doesn't care how secure you _feel_ and it doesn't care what you think is likely. All you can do is attempt to be prepared -- and hope that your preparations will ultimately be a waste of time.


 
This is a very good quote, and true from my viewpoint. 

I also am of the personal opinion that no government has the right to infringe on your civil liberties, or your right to self-defense. Saying that you "agree to follow the laws of the land" simply because you live there, and therefore that not obeying the law would be immoral is fallacious. It is not like the laws will change simply because you disagree with them, or that everyone signs an agreement to obey said laws before being born somewhere or moving somewhere. I say that people should carry what they need, under reasonable standards, to defend themselves. 

What would be considered reasonable? What ever would neutralize the threat as effeciently and safely as possible. So, please no one make the arguement that you need a rocket launcher to feel safe because obviously a rocket launcher is not reasonable given that it is not needed to neutralize most threats and it is certianly not safe. Such arguements are ridicules.

However, I respect peoples personal choices; whether it is to carry firearms, knives, or to not carry at all. However, everyone needs to realize what was expressed above: that reality doesn't care what your comfort level is, and isn't going to go easier on you because you choose not to carry.

Lastly, I would make no personal judgements on someones morality if they made a reasonable choice that happened to be illegal in their locale. But that is just my opinion...

Paul


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 20, 2006)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> Can you reference this?  If true, that's a disconcerting turn of events.



Dan, there have been at least 1 posts referencing court cases about this here on MT... In the study I believe.  Im sure if I search hard enough I could find em... but so can you.


----------



## Andrew Green (Mar 20, 2006)

"reasonable standards" is where things get mucky.

"Saying that you "agree to follow the laws of the land" simply because you live there"

Generally referred to "tacit consent", as termed by John Locke.

And you do, you agree to follow the laws and rules laid out by the government for the good of ALL the people in the country.  If you disagree with those laws, vote for someone that supports your views.  If the system is corrupt, rebel against it.  If enough people see it your way you will win, otherwise you will end up in jail


----------



## Hand Sword (Mar 20, 2006)

I've always carried a pocket folder with me. Chances are on the street, there will be more than one attacker or an armed attacker. Having something at least evens the odds a little, in my opinion.


----------



## Ceicei (Mar 20, 2006)

kickcatcher said:
			
		

> Specific question: Do you believe that carrying a concealed weapon of some sort, whether a firearm, blade, kubutan or whatever*, for the purposes of self-defence, in circumstances where a) you are not aware of any higher than normal risk and b) it is prohibited by the local laws, is morally acceptable?
> 
> _*for the purposes of the question, it doesn't matter how explainable the item is as not a weapon, if you are carrying as a weapon it is. _
> 
> ...



Well, sure.  Carrying a gun is prohibited by local/federal laws, unless you are allowed exemption(s) under the laws.  State legal codes do outline the exemptions.

Getting licensed/permitted under the law to carry a gun/weapon is one way to do that legally.  Since I have a permit to carry in the State of Utah, I do consider it morally acceptable.  I do not carry it as often as I should though.

As to risk, danger/violence cannot always be predicted.  I consider a firearm one of the tools among the other things I learn to use as part of my self defense training/philosophy.   It is very rare for the police to be right there at the moment danger happens, so I am proactive with the defense of my family and myself.  A firearm, however, is not usually the first line of defense.  It depends upon the nature of the threat.

- Ceicei


----------



## still learning (Mar 20, 2006)

Hello, Where we live and how we were brought by our parents...will influence us on what we feel we need to do to protect ourselves with. 

A friend that lives in Los Angles, will carry his gun if he is going out to a particular area to visit friends. He was brought up in a pretty rough area and had many confrontations. (Racial)

When he is visiting his father who lives in Kona,Hawaii...he never thinks there is going to be trouble. (No-fear here)

The decision to carry will always be base on how your were raise to believe...there is NO right or wrong on the belief....just the laws in your state make them. Man make the laws! NOT God! 

This discussion can go on forever because your belief's either way ,will always be correct for you. The laws in your state may give you the right to arm yourself. Then you can decide too?

What two states allow you to carry a gun? or states? Texas, ...?


.....just my beliefs and thoughts on this.....Coconuts make good weapons and drinks.......Aloha


----------



## Andrew Green (Mar 20, 2006)

Looking at the number of developed countries that allow citizens to carry concealed weapons vs the ones that don't whoe wins?

Is there a developed country other then the US where carrying a firearm is legal for private citizens?


----------



## Simon Curran (Mar 21, 2006)

I have made my feelings known about general populace carrying weapons before, so I won't go into that again, but, having said that, although it is not permitted to carry a weapon by law here in Denmark, it would be foolish of me to go to certain predominantly Muslim areas carrying a Danish flag just now if I weren't armed, but it would be foolish even if I were armed so the point is moot.
As a general rule of thumb though, where I live and where I go, I feel no need to be armed, and I do truly believe that anyone who came here and thought they needed to be armed are the paranoid dangerous type who should be prevented from arming themselves.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 21, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Looking at the number of developed countries that allow citizens to carry concealed weapons vs the ones that don't whoe wins?
> 
> Is there a developed country other then the US where carrying a firearm is legal for private citizens?



Very few, if any -- this is one of the many reasons we're better than you. 

As I said in another thread or in this one (I don't remember), cross-cultural "gun control" comparisons are meaningless and misleading because violence is cultural, not spawned by the availability of specific tools.  The nations held up as examples of the benefits of strict gun control had much lower levels of violent crime _before their strict laws were enacted_ because of the cultural differences.


----------



## elder999 (Mar 21, 2006)

kickcatcher said:
			
		

> Specific question: Do you believe that carrying a concealed weapon of some sort, whether a firearm, blade, kubutan or whatever*, for the purposes of self-defence, in circumstances where a) you are not aware of any higher than normal risk and b) it is prohibited by the local laws, is morally acceptable?
> 
> _*for the purposes of the question, it doesn't matter how explainable the item is as not a weapon, if you are carrying as a weapon it is. _
> 
> ...


 
1) Yes, carrying a "concealed" weapon is morally exceptable where I'm not aware of any "higher than normal risk'-what's "normal risk?" 

2) Yes, it's _morally_ acceptable where "prohibited by local laws.." what's "prohibited?" Once, in N.Y., a nurse was attacked in an elevator, stabbed her attacker with the scissors in her purse (there for cutting bandages and such) and was charged with carrying a concealed weapon, etc.-the charges were dropped, and that's what courts are for-and she survived her attack to go to court.  Ditto the knives I and other tools Ialways have for "legitmate purposes," as well as the cane I'm openly carrying more and more these days.......


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Mar 21, 2006)

Weapons, be they firearms, knives, or an M1A1 Abrahms, are tools.  In themselves, and in carrying them, they are neither moral nor immoral.  It's all in the intent.  Carrying to defend yourself, loved ones, and others is I  think would meet any moral standard.  Doing so to threaten or cause harm would of course be immoral.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 21, 2006)

I think that we can all agree that it is morally defensible to defend oneself.  And I think that the law would protect us if we could show that it was neccessary to use a weapon in order to defend ourselves.

I think part of this discussion is the attitude that has when one carries a weapon.  I believe that people should carry weapons reluctantly.  It shouldn't be something that someone _wants_ to do, it should be something that one _needs_ to do.  I would like to live in a world in which I don't have to carry a weapon, but I don't live in that world, so sometimes I carry.

Another interesting aspect of this discussion is the difference between a carried weapon and an improvised one.  Is there a moral difference in this situation?  I can definitely see a legal difference...


----------



## KenpoTex (Mar 21, 2006)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> Can you reference this? If true, that's a disconcerting turn of events.


 Unfortunately it's not a "turn of events," it's been this way for quite a long time.

Warren v. District of Columbia

Riss v. City of New York  The lone dissenting judge in this case had this to say: ""What makes the City's position [denying any obligation to protect the woman] particularly difficult to understand is that, *in conformity to the dictates of the law [she] did not carry any weapon for self-defense*. *Thus, by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York which now denies all responsibility to her."*

There are many more cases but these serve to make the point.


----------



## WingChun Lawyer (Mar 21, 2006)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> So, does this attitude take into consideration the fact that several recent court cases have ruled that the police and government have no actual _obligation_ to do anything to help you if you are being attacked? PERSONALLY I consder that absolute failure in society's job of protecting me... but I acknowlage that some people still consider that wrong.


 
Well, in Brazil the police does have this obligation. I thought the same applied in the US: can you provide some reference for that statement of yours?

It does sound strange. I mean, suppose you are getting beaten to death in the street, a cop is allowed to just sip his coffee and enjoy the show? In Brazil said cop would be tried for murder along with the people who administered the beating if he didn´t provide help, or at least called for backup if he needed it.


----------



## WingChun Lawyer (Mar 21, 2006)

Kenpotex, thanks for the links. I read the first case and indeed those judge´s attitude was absurd - I suppose in THAT case carrying a concealed, illegal weapon might indeed be morally justified. 

Well, at least in Brazil I know the police officers would be held criminally responsible, and the government itself would be held accountable for damages and losses, moral and otherwise.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 21, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> *Why I Stopped Arguing Gun Control on the Internet*


 
And apparently you started again.



			
				Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> That's fair, given that I'm saying someone who disputes it has a serious lack of understanding about martial arts.



Now your just predictable.

You chose not to answer specific questions or defend some of your points and I have seen this before in other posts. So the best thing for me to do here is just let you go on spouting your dogma and leave you to your agenda and simply stop wasting my time and everyone elses, and I will kindly exit the post.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 21, 2006)

I chose not to bother with questions I didn't feel like answering because I thought they were silly (or I plain missed them in the rush of text), that's true.  I'm breaking my own rules by having the argument now, even in part.  The number of times you tell me I'm predictable is starting to become predictable -- and I'll say again that I would hope I am predictable, as I try to apply my philosophy (itself a rational one) logically and consistently.

(Didn't you already say you were done with the conversation, if we're going to start holding ourselves to that standard?)

As for "dogma" and "agendas," my only agenda is to further the cause of pragmatic, successful self-defense.  My "dogma" is the philosophy of martialism, the promulgation of which I am quite proud.  I will never be successful in convincing many "martial" artists that they've forgotten the purpose and the character of what they think they are doing, but I'll keep trying nonetheless.  Some battles are worth fighting.


----------



## rutherford (Mar 21, 2006)

HI!  Let me remind everybody that you don't need a permit to carry in Vermont.

Come on up to the Green Mountain state, and go ahead and bring your properly registered gun.  However, chances are you won't need it.  Our violent crime rate is extremely low, which is why I carry a knife for fun and spontaneous training instead of Self Defense.

I think the moral responsibility of carrying a weapon is simply knowing how to use it.


----------



## WingChun Lawyer (Mar 21, 2006)

Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> You chose not to answer specific questions or defend some of your points and I have seen this before in other posts. So the best thing for me to do here is just let you go on spouting your dogma and leave you to your agenda and simply stop wasting my time and everyone elses, and I will kindly exit the post.


 
Smarter people than you or I have failed in forcing Phil to face his own mistakes, inconsistencies, and prejudices. Phil does not win by force of argument, he wins by patience - he will keep writing and writing and writing until people give up arguing with him, without ever actually debating.

Phil will simply ignore all your relevant points, while erecting a wall of strawmen arguments. He will also quote himself ceaselessly to prove his points, even though his previous arguments are as unconvincing as his present ones.

So just give up, it´s not worth your time. Phil is not here to debate, he is here to sell himself as an authority on self defense, despite having no credentials.

PS: and don´t point at his inconsistencies too much, or he will cry to the mods and have the thread locked even though no PERSONAL attack was made.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 21, 2006)

WingChun Lawyer said:
			
		

> Smarter people than you or I have failed in forcing Phil to face his own mistakes, inconsistencies, and prejudices. Phil does not win by force of argument, he wins by patience - he will keep writing and writing and writing until people give up arguing with him, without ever actually debating.
> 
> Phil will simply ignore all your relevant points, while erecting a wall of strawmen arguments. He will also quote himself ceaselessly to prove his points, even though his previous arguments are as unconvincing as his present ones.
> 
> ...


 
I was getting that impression.

Thank You


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 21, 2006)

He's a stalker; I wouldn't put too much faith in his interpretation of events.

Look, I'm sorry if it frustrates you that you cannot persuade me or that I know my point of view to be correct; I'm sorry if the fact that I ruthlessly apply a logical and consistent philosophy means that it's difficult to argue with me.  I'm not _trying_ to annoy you; I am passionate about what I believe.  I am also not trying to ignore you specifically (unlike some of the folks whom I do have on "ignore"), but if I'm going to address something it's got to be worth addressing because I don't have the time to argue this all day (and, like I said, I'm bending my own rules about having the argument at all, given how pointless it is, ultimately).

Don't fall into the rather seductive trap of thinking that simply because I don't answer a specific query it must mean you've scored some telling and irrefutable point, however.  Quite the contrary; usually it means that point's not worth the effort or the dignity of a reply.


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder (Mar 21, 2006)

Here we go again.

Rather than turn this into (yet another) "PhilBate", how about we let Phil have his opinion, and everyone else have their opinions, and we just go back to the topic? Otherwise the bloody mods will pop in, start posting "stickynotes" all over the thread, and people will get sent to their holes without tea. MKay?


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 21, 2006)

Royt!  Cheerio, and all that rot!


----------



## WingChun Lawyer (Mar 21, 2006)

Very well, then. Back to the topic at hand.

Anyone read the links provided by Kempotex? I read the first one, and the ruling in that case was absurd. If that sort of ruling is common, I can´t help but agree that that consitutes an exceptional situation, one that morally justifies citizens in breaking the law to provide for their own safety.

There was a case in Brazil, some years ago, about an elderly man who was carrying an unlicensed weapon and was arrested for it. The court recognized he lived in a dangerous area, and that the state did not provide him the safety he needed to go from his work to his home everyday: he also had no criminal records of any sort.

He eventually was acquitted. I suppose this is one of the special circunstances which allows one to morally break the laws.


----------



## Chris Thompson (Mar 21, 2006)

I have no moral objection to anyone carrying a weapon for self-defense, whether it's legal or not. (Sorry, but in my experience equating the law with morality is just not feasible).
However, I no longer carry one. It's a simple matter of weighing the pros and cons. How many times have I felt the need to draw a weapon in a self-defense situation? Not once. In each case I was able to resolve the issue with my hands or my head. This is not a very violent place I live in. How many times have I been stopped and searched by the police for some reason or other? Several times. What's the penalty for carrying concealed? A year in county. So, based on my experience in the area I live in, the odds of something unfortunate happening to me are a lot higher if I carry a concealed weapon than if I don't, as the probability of getting searched by the police is higher than the probability of getting in a fight I can't resolve without a weapon. I think a lot of people make this sort of decision every day.

-Chris Thompson


----------



## kickcatcher (Mar 21, 2006)

WCL, re Brazil. It's worth reminding the Americans on the board that areas of Brazil are FAR more dangerous than any US city. Same with UK of course (i.e. Northern Ireland). 

Without getting too political on what is really a moral issue, all this about not being allowed to carry a concealed weapon = "freedom infringed" - sometimes people need a bit of perspective. Go to somewhere like Burma and tell the locals you're freedom is infringed by not being allowed to carry a concealed weapon.


----------



## kickcatcher (Mar 21, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> A "martial" artist who fears weapons is *not a martial artist at all* -- he or she is a *hoplophobe* projecting his or her fear while pontificating from ignorance.


 
I really don't get where you are coming from with this. I "fear" weapons, it's called commonsense. If you don't fear weapons why do you feel the need to train to defend against them? 

Hoplophobe is a negative label you like throwing around. You imply that anyone who supports gun/weapons controls has an _irrational_ concern of the general public being armed. The problem I have with that is that it is entirely possible that pro-weapons control people have a RATIONAL concern of the general populace being armed. The term hoplophobe cannot therefore be universally applied to people who "fear" weapons and/or people carrying weapons. Your statement is therefore illogical. It doesn't seem to add up to me at all.


----------



## Andrew Green (Mar 21, 2006)

How about a rational concern of guys that remind me very strongly of Dale Gribble being allowed to carry firearms?


----------



## elder999 (Mar 21, 2006)

kickcatcher said:
			
		

> WCL, re Brazil. It's worth reminding the Americans on the board that areas of Brazil are FAR more dangerous than any US city. Same with UK of course (i.e. Northern Ireland).


 
That's debatable-I'd really like to see the data. There are U.S. cities that are FAR more dangerous than anyone imagines when thinking of "the U.S.-Detroit comes to mind immediately, as well as parts of N.Y.C., parts of Miami, parts of L.A., parts of Dallas, parts of Chicago......


It's also worth pointing out to you, re Brazil, Ireland, etc., that in those areas it is a relatively simple matter for a criminal to obtain and conceal a firearm-in fact,  the last person I know of who bought a firearm in Brazil bought his off a _child_.....



			
				kickcatcher said:
			
		

> Without getting too political on what is really a moral issue,...


 
Explain, exactly, how it's a "moral" issue.



			
				kickcatcher said:
			
		

> all this about not being allowed to carry a concealed weapon = "freedom infringed" - sometimes people need a bit of perspective. Go to somewhere like Burma and tell the locals you're freedom is infringed by not being allowed to carry a concealed weapon.


 
..but I'm not in Burma, am I? While I support the U.S.'s founder's position that our rights are "God-given," or natural rights, and do not proceed from our government, I understand that in _other_ countries they have their own laws-if you want to argue the _morality_ as you've pointed out, that's one thing, but as far as laws go, well, pretty much when in Rome, do as the Romans do, right? So I still carry a cane-pretty much legal-and potentially _lethal_ everywhere. Ditto pocket knives. One with the full intention of supporting my bad knee, and th other as an everyday tool I've carried since I was 9 years old, and both with the intention to use for self-defen*s*e. Explain, again, how that's a "moral" issue- I'm not at all troubled by it, morally.....


----------



## WingChun Lawyer (Mar 21, 2006)

When it´s all said and done, the whole guns issue is not and should not be judged based on absolute, "natural" values. One size does NOT fit all.

A weapons store

1) In Texas is a perfectly harmless commercial enterprise.

2) In Burma is a criminal hold, used to sell illegal instruments, mostly used for ethnic cleansing.

3) In Brazil may be any one of the above.

There are no easy answers here regarding private weapon ownership. Each country deals with weapons in a different way, both in cultural terms, and when it comes to criminal use of said weapons. What I object to is the (sorry, but it´s true) typical american attitude which judges other countrie´s values based entirely on the american standard.

So no, making guns legal or illegal is not an easy answer anywhere in the world.

Anyway, that was not even the issue at hand! We were discussing if it was or is morally correct to infringe gun ownership laws WITHOUT GOOD REASON. I believe it is not, I gave my reasons. I also understand that a lack of effort by the State to protect you may indeed constitute good reason to break the law in order to protect you and your loved ones.


----------



## elder999 (Mar 21, 2006)

WingChun Lawyer said:
			
		

> When it&#180;s all said and done, the whole guns issue is not and should not be judged based on absolute, "natural" values. One size does NOT fit all.


 
No, when "it's all said and done," the Founders ut it quite succinctly in the Second Amendment-*here* one size does indeed fit all. 




			
				WingChunLawyer said:
			
		

> . What I object to is the (sorry, but it&#180;s true) typical american attitude which judges other countrie&#180;s values based entirely on the american standard.
> 
> So no, making guns legal or illegal is not an easy answer anywhere in the world.


 
Actually, I haven't done that at all-just the opposite, in fact, and they don't come any more "american" than I am.




			
				WingChunLawyer said:
			
		

> Anyway, that was not even the issue at hand! We were discussing if it was or is morally correct to infringe gun ownership laws WITHOUT GOOD REASON. I believe it is not, I gave my reasons. I also understand that a lack of effort by the State to protect you may indeed constitute good reason to break the law in order to protect you and your loved ones.


 
Actually, it was framed as an "any weapon" question, including objects that were otherwise legal-the unstated position seeming to be that if I carry a cane and knife everywhere in the world I go with the intention of using them for self-defen*s*e, in places where it's illegal (somehow) to do so, is morally wrong.


----------



## WingChun Lawyer (Mar 21, 2006)

elder999 said:
			
		

> 1) No, when "it's all said and done," the Founders ut it quite succinctly in the Second Amendment-*here* one size does indeed fit all.
> 
> 2) ACtualkly, I haven't done that at all-just the opposite, in fact, and they don't come any more "american" than me.
> 
> 3)Actually, it was framed as an "any weapon" question, including objects that were otherwise legal-the unstated position seeming to be that if I carry a cane and knife everywhere in the world I go with the intention of using them for self-defen*s*e, in places where it's illegal (somehow) to do so, is morally wrong.


 
1) Over there, MAYBE. I do know this issue is much discussed even in your country, and I do know some states do pass restritive laws against gun ownership, second amendment or not. Certainly you do not speak for the whole USA. God given or not, your constitution is certainly subject to discussion and interpretation in your own country, by your own law makers.

2) I was not accusing you. But I have been involved in debates with americans regarding gun ownership before, and the amount of holier than thou speeches I endured from your fellow citizens is terrible. Many of your countrymen, certainly many of the weapon owners, seem to believe a quick fix solution to all violent crime in the whole world is to legalize gun ownership without restrictions!

And I do not believe in quick fix solutions, any more than I believe in one size fits all.

3) Maybe I read it wrongly, but I do believe the question involved actively breaking weapon/gun ownership laws (whether about guns, knives or batons).


----------



## Andrew Green (Mar 21, 2006)

WingChun Lawyer said:
			
		

> Many of your countrymen, certainly many of the weapon owners, seem to believe a quick fix solution to all violent crime in the whole world is to legalize gun ownership without restrictions!



Yeah, I've heard that one a few times too.

Makes about as much sense to me as ending war by giving everyone Nukes...


----------



## WingChun Lawyer (Mar 21, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Yeah, I've heard that one a few times too.
> 
> Makes about as much sense to me as ending war by giving everyone Nukes...


 
Last time I heard that speech, I just asked the individual in question why, if gun ownership is the best way to create democracy and to stop crime anywhere and anywhen, don´t the US allow Wal Mart to sell AK-47 rifles and ammunition to the iraqis.


----------



## kickcatcher (Mar 21, 2006)

Elder, the original question is designed to bring out a debate about MORALS and weapons carriage for &#8220;self-defence&#8221;. WCL pretty much hit the nail on the head when he said _&#8220;We were discussing if it was or is morally correct to infringe gun ownership laws WITHOUT GOOD REASON.&#8221; _. 

Morals are unquestionably an issue whichever side of the fence you sit on. Each of us has a moral threshold for what we consider acceptable and what is not. Breaking local weapons laws (whatever they may be) in order to carry a weapon may or may not be over that threshold for you. Most people would say &#8220;it depends&#8230;&#8221; because the threat to your person is an issue. If you are in a dangerous locality then it is more likely to be considered acceptable than if you are not, etc &#8211; that is why I qualified the question by stipulating that we are talking about when the threat is not abnormally high. 

Some people may like carrying weapons and feel the need to morally justify it, perhaps by making out that the world is more dangerous than it is and/or that the law enforcement are not likely to help. 

We have to ask ourselves, is the perceived risk an exaggeration? Do I really _need_ to carry a concealed weapon? 

Then we have the moral issue of using a weapon on someone, whether or not they were trying to do you harm. Like other things it is usually about the threshold of what is morally acceptable and we have to put it in the context of threat &#8211; if someone is threatening you with a blade, then putting them in hospital or worse is generally thought of as justifiable as &#8220;self-defence&#8221;. However, if we consider another situation, this one a real life case study:

In UK a farmer called Tony Martin had been burgled several times. None of the burglaries involved violence of any sort. On one occasion he interrupted the burglars and as they fled he shot one in the back with his shot gun, killing the burglar. He was tried and convicted for murder. Public opinion was deeply divided &#8211; on the one hand people sympathized with his frustration at being targeted by thieves, and added to that there was possibly some cultural prejudice involved for many people (the burglars were &#8220;pikies&#8221. But on the other hand clearly he did not shoot the burglar in self-defence. Whilst in America many people think that using lethal force to protect property is morally justifiable, the law in UK does not. 


PS. Why do you put the &#8220;s&#8221; in self-defense in bold?


----------



## elder999 (Mar 21, 2006)

WingChun Lawyer said:
			
		

> 1) Over there, MAYBE. I do know this issue is much discussed even in your country, and I do know some states do pass restritive laws against gun ownership, second amendment or not. Certainly you do not speak for the whole USA. God given or not, your constitution is certainly subject to discussion and interpretation in your own country, by your own law makers.


 
Actually, the Constitution, and especially the Bill of Rights-which isn't really a "Bill of Rights" as much as it is a catalogue of areas the government can't muck about in, the 2nd Amendment being one of those that deals specifically with the keeping and bearing of arms not being infringed-anyway, the interpretation of the Consitution is up to our Supreme Court, not our law makers, and one could hold (and many do) that those laws that restrict gun ownership in various states (and municipalites, even) are un-Constitutional, and only lack the appropriate challenge to do so-though one could also argue that however restrictive the laws are, it isn't illegal to own or carry a firearm anywhere in the country, even California-it's just harder....



			
				WingChunLawyer said:
			
		

> Many of your countrymen, certainly many of the weapon owners, seem to believe a quick fix solution to all violent crime in the whole world is to legalize gun ownership without restrictions!


 
Well, I'm not about to argue that one way or the other, exsactly-though I will say that violent crime does seem to drop statistically in areas of this country where citizens are permitted to carry concealed weapons.Don't believe me, look on the F.B.I. webpage.

l.



			
				WingChunLawyer said:
			
		

> 3) Maybe I read it wrongly, but I do believe the question involved actively breaking weapon/gun ownership laws (whether about guns, knives or batons).


 


			
				kickcatcher said:
			
		

> _for the purposes of the question, it doesn't matter how explainable the item is as not a weapon, if you are carrying as a weapon it is._


----------



## WingChun Lawyer (Mar 21, 2006)

elder999 said:
			
		

> 1) Actually, the Constitution, and especially the Bill of Rights-which isn't really a "Bill of Rights" as much as it is a catalogue of areas the government can't muck about in, the 2nd Amendment being one of those that deals specifically with the keeping and bearing of arms not being infringed-anyway, the interpretation of the Consitution is up to our Supreme Court, not our law makers, and one could hold (and many do) that those laws that restrict gun ownership in various states (and municipalites, even) are un-Constitutional, and only lack the appropriate challenge to do so-though one could also argue that however restrictive the laws are, it isn't illegal to own or carry a firearm anywhere in the country, even California-it's just harder....
> 
> 2) Well, I'm not about to argue that one way or the other, exsactly-though I will say that violent crime does seem to drop statistically in areas of this country where citizens are permitted to carry concealed weapons.Don't believe me, look on the F.B.I. webpage.


 
1) I´ll take your word for it. Still, it´s hard to form a militia when you can only have light weapons, all of them registered, isn´t it?

2) In your country that may be the case, I doubt that rule applies equally to others crime ridden countries - not to mention countries under the threat of a civil war, as Iraq.

3) I thought the question involved illegality of weapon ownership, didn´t it? Not merely the intention to use an object as a weapon? I do know that was Kickcatcher´s intention.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 21, 2006)

When hoplophobes start pointing to fictional characters and saying, "See!  Such people shouldn't own firearms!" we're not dealing in rational debate; we're dealing in the *fear, ignorance, and projection* that characterize the anti-tool mindset.


----------



## kickcatcher (Mar 21, 2006)

WCL, my question was kinda both. Carrying a "weapon", whether a gun or chopsticks (sorry) for the _purpose_ of self-defence. 

Explainability of the chosen weapon shouldn't affect the moral issue - carrying a kitchen knife around in your pocket and then saying "but officer, I am going to be in a kitchen later tonight"...


----------



## elder999 (Mar 21, 2006)

kickcatcher said:
			
		

> We have to ask ourselves, is the perceived risk an exaggeration? Do I really _need_ to carry a concealed weapon?


 
Perhaps *you* need to ask *



			
				kickcatcher said:
			
		


			Then we have the moral issue of using a weapon on someone, whether or not they were trying to do you harm. Like other things it is usually about the threshold of what is morally acceptable and we have to put it in the context of threat  if someone is threatening you with a blade, then putting them in hospital or worse is generally thought of as justifiable as self-defence.
		
Click to expand...

 
So, it's really two issues-using a weapon AND whether or not they were trying to do you harm. Realistically, I would me (or my family, or someone else...) harm. The example that you use really is a good one, in that, if someone were breaking into my home, and I were home, I would shoot them. In the past, I've told them to leave, and let them know I had a shotgun, but these days I'd probably just shoot them, and I could expect, after legal inquiry, to stay in my home and not go to jail. As for the case of Mr. Martin, they were, after all, fleeing. If, as has happened in the past, the malefactors fled, and I were to have shot them, well, I expect I'd be in jail, even here in the "wild, wild, west...." 

 In the first instance, though, I'm not protecting property, any more than Mr. Martin was-I'm protecting my life and the life of my family.



			
				kickctcher said:
			
		


			PS. Why do you put the s in self-defense in bold?
		
Click to expand...

 
To show that  I know how to spell, of course...:ultracool*


----------



## kickcatcher (Mar 21, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> When hoplophobes start pointing to fictional characters and saying, "See! Such people shouldn't own firearms!" we're not dealing in rational debate; we're dealing in the *fear, ignorance, and projection* that characterize the anti-tool mindset.


Why is that not rational debate? 

You're not debating at all, you are preaching politicised rhetoric, making bold and derogatory statements without backing it up with rational explanations of your points.


----------



## WingChun Lawyer (Mar 21, 2006)

kickcatcher said:
			
		

> Specific question: Do you believe that carrying a concealed weapon of some sort, whether a firearm, blade, kubutan or whatever*, for the purposes of self-defence, in circumstances where a) you are not aware of any higher than normal risk and b) it is prohibited by the local laws, is morally acceptable?
> 
> _*for the purposes of the question, it doesn't matter how explainable the item is as not a weapon, if you are carrying as a weapon it is. _
> 
> ...


 
Well, according to item b, above, I thought the weapon necessarily HAD to be illegal for the moral issue to even be an issue, I believed that was the focus of the discussion.

And Phil, I know you probably will ignore the question, but try to answer this.

Would you sell firearms to the iraqi people right now, no questions asked, no register necessary, no restrictions? Do you believe it would further the cause of Iraq´s democracy and peace to open your very own weapon store in the middle of Baghdad right now? Answer that please.


----------



## kickcatcher (Mar 21, 2006)

elder999 said:
			
		

> So, it's really two issues-using a weapon AND whether or not they were trying to do you harm. Realistically, I would me (or my family, or someone else...) harm. The example that you use really is a good one, in that, if someone were breaking into my home, and I were home, I would shoot them. In the past, I've told them to leave, and let them know I had a shotgun, but these days I'd probably just shoot them, and I could expect, after legal inquiry, to stay in my home and not go to jail. As for the case of Mr. Martin, they were, after all, fleeing. If, as has happened in the past, the malefactors fled, and I were to have shot them, well, I expect I'd be in jail, even here in the "wild, wild, west...."
> 
> In the first instance, though, I'm not protecting property, any more than Mr. Martin was-I'm protecting my life and the life of my family.


 
Ok, since we are using hypotheticals to explore our respective moral thresholds, would you apply the same "shoot first ask later" mentality if you went downstairs during a "home invasion" (lol) and found two young and apparently unarmed teenagers making off with your TV?


----------



## elder999 (Mar 21, 2006)

WingChun Lawyer said:
			
		

> 1) I´ll take your word for it. Still, it´s hard to form a militia when you can only have light weapons, all of them registered, isn´t it?
> 
> 2) In your country that may be the case, I doubt that rule applies equally to others crime ridden countries - not to mention countries under the threat of a civil war, as Iraq.
> 
> 3) I thought the question involved illegality of weapon ownership, didn´t it? Not merely the intention to use an object as a weapon? I do know that was Kickcatcher´s intention.


 
1) Actually-and avoiding the whole "militia" issue for the time being (if you want to argue that one, we can certainly do so elsewhere, for about a second....) anyway, there is nothing illegal about owning unregistered firearms. As for light weapons, they're pretty much what's appropriate...

Civil war and Iraq are special cases-neither of which really apply. Iraq being a good example-if I were to go over there as a civilian contractor (I turned down a job gettring their power plants going) I'd have been armed, as a matter of course, from what I understand.


----------



## kickcatcher (Mar 21, 2006)

WCL, yes I did mean that. But I tried to apply "weapon" across the board and attempted, unsuccessfully, to pre-empt the wise ***** "bat _AND_ ball" answers with my qualifier. In some places it is the intent of the item that defines it as a weapon in law. In adition certain items are often deemed "weapons" merely by their nature - guns being an obvious one. In UK for instance carrying any blade over a certain length in public, except for credible legitimate reasons, is deemed an offensive weapon. There's still some leverage for mitigation and/or excuses, but the law attempts to limit them so that they cannot be abused. 

Kobutan keychains are a good example. I do not know what the UK law is regarding them but I would have thought that they are considered "offensive weapons" since their designed purpose is as a weapon, irrespective of how ineffective and/or inocuous they are. Carrying nunchucks around is another example of an "offensive weapon" even though they are pretty naff as weapons (lol, sorry). 


*English spelling of ***


----------



## elder999 (Mar 21, 2006)

kickcatcher said:
			
		

> Ok, since we are using hypotheticals to explore our respective moral thresholds, would you apply the same "shoot first ask later" mentality if you went downstairs during a "home invasion" (lol) and found two young and apparently unarmed teenagers making off with your TV?


 
Are they going out the door? If they're "making off" as you said, then no, within the standards of use of force, I'm obligated not to shoot them-if they're making off with my wife, on the other hand, it's an altogether different dilemna, isn't it? 

Actually, the place where I live has an average response time of 45 minutes for emergency services, and all burglaries with someone within the home are "home invasions," though the only invaders I've had to deal with there are bears. On the other hand, when I lived in New York I repelled 2 "home invasion" by racking the action on my shotgun and saying "Get out of my house NOW." If they hadn't run, I'd have shot them. If they turned out to be "unarmed teenagers" (which they may well have been) I'd have had to live with that-though they probably wouldn't have been killed, as my first two loads are bird-shot.....


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Mar 21, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> A "martial" artist who fears weapons is *not a martial artist at all* -- he or she is a *hoplophobe* projecting his or her fear while pontificating from ignorance.



there you go again using great big words.  

just to be clear, we're talking about people who won't train and arm, yes?

a martial artist who has no healthy fear of what the wrong end of a weapon will do to him is an idiot.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Mar 21, 2006)

with weapons and anything else, i see no ethical problem with violating the law if you're doing so with sufficient good reason.  just don't come crying to me if you get busted over it.  

responsible civil disobedience includes taking your lumps like a man.


----------



## kickcatcher (Mar 21, 2006)

elder999 said:
			
		

> Are they going out the door? If they're "making off" as you said, then no, within the standards of use of force, I'm obligated not to shoot them-


Let's say they are standing in the middle of your living room with your TV in their arms. You are between them and their exit. They are wearing T-Shirts which read "I invade homes!".


----------



## Ceicei (Mar 21, 2006)

kickcatcher said:
			
		

> Let's say they are standing in the middle of your living room with your TV in their arms. You are between them and their exit. They are wearing T-Shirts which read "I invade homes!".



Within the standards of use of force, their arms are busy with the TV; no need to use the weapon.  If, however, they choose to throw the TV at you, it changes the dynamics of the scenario.  Weapons are used when there is a level of threat high enough to warrant doing so.  Usually, people who try to invade homes while the occupants are still home aren't there just to burgle.  They are typically more dangerous because they tend to carry weapons when they knowingly enter homes with the owners still there.  Common burglars prefer to do their stealing when the home occupants aren't present. 

- Ceicei


----------



## WingChun Lawyer (Mar 21, 2006)

elder999 said:
			
		

> 1) Actually-and avoiding the whole "militia" issue for the time being (if you want to argue that one, we can certainly do so elsewhere, for about a second....) anyway, there is nothing illegal about owning unregistered firearms. As for light weapons, they're pretty much what's appropriate...
> 
> Civil war and Iraq are special cases-neither of which really apply. Iraq being a good example-if I were to go over there as a civilian contractor (I turned down a job gettring their power plants going) I'd have been armed, as a matter of course, from what I understand.


 
I just mentioned the militia because we were arguing about what the Supreme Court and the lawmakers are doing with your Constitution. I´ll drop the subject for now if you will.

But I don´t get it when you say there is nothing illegal abot owning unregistered firearms - if registering is mandatory, that would be illegal.

As for Iraq, that question was not directed at you, I realise you are not an idiot and/or a fanatic; it was just a blatant example of how the NRA mentality is not applicable to all places.

PS: glad you did not go to Iraq, I would hate to see your beheading here. Honestly.


----------



## Andrew Green (Mar 21, 2006)

elder999 said:
			
		

> To show that  I know how to spell, of course...:ultracool



"Defence" is correct, "defense" is the American spelling.

Don't believe me?

http://www.dod.mil.za/
http://www.dnd.ca/
http://www.defence.ie/website.nsf/home+page?openform

In a thread where someone has claimed that American's often take a stance of "Our way is the only right way" I don't think emphazising the American spelling of a word as the correct one is going to help your case...


----------



## elder999 (Mar 21, 2006)

WingChun Lawyer said:
			
		

> I just mentioned the militia because we were arguing about what the Supreme Court and the lawmakers are doing with your Constitution. I´ll drop the subject for now if you will.


 
That's...._interesting._



			
				WingChunLawyer said:
			
		

> But I don´t get it when you say there is nothing illegal abot owning unregistered firearms - if registering is mandatory, that would be illegal.


 
There's nothing at all illegal about my buying a used firearm that has been "registered" as purchased by someone else, and not registering it-I *own* it. In fact, this is the procedure that I recommend to avoid having the government come and take your guns away, which is all registration is really about: knwoing who has what guns and where to take them away.
Registration also does not apply to wide variety of completely lethal and servicable firearms manufactured prior to 1920 and classified as _antiques_.

Of course, all my firearms are registered.....


----------



## elder999 (Mar 21, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> "Defence" is correct, "defense" is the American spelling.
> 
> Don't believe me?
> 
> ...


 
And right back at ya, bub! Seems to me as though you're saying that the American way isn't the right way.........thin skinned lot you bunch who can't take a little joke -see, the "smiley" at the end, that means it's a joke in "internetish...."


----------



## WingChun Lawyer (Mar 21, 2006)

elder999 said:
			
		

> That's...._interesting._
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Really? That sounds like a major loophole. Is the transaction registered somewhere? Does that apply in more restrictive states such as California?

It does seem like it is still easy to get an untraceable firearm in the US, even outside Texas and Nevada. I thought other places had harsher laws.


----------



## elder999 (Mar 21, 2006)

kickcatcher said:
			
		

> Let's say they are standing in the middle of your living room with your TV in their arms. You are between them and their exit. They are wearing T-Shirts which read "I invade homes!".


 
Standards of force then require me to act in the place of the police-tell them to put the T.V. down and their hands up. If the malefactors don't comply, try to rush me or threaten me with the T.V., then I'm within the deadly force standard, and I would shoot them-probably right in the middle of their cute little T-shirts.....


----------



## kickcatcher (Mar 21, 2006)

elder999 said:
			
		

> Standards of force then require me to act in the place of the police-tell them to put the T.V. down and their hands up. If the malefactors don't comply, try to rush me or threaten me with the T.V., then I'm within the deadly force standard, and I would shoot them-probably right in the middle of their cute little T-shirts.....


 
So for you, simply not putting the TV down justifies killing them? Your moral threshold for using deadly force is far lower than mine, that's for sure. 

Also, in that above hypothetical situation, you are pointing a firearm at them, are they not then morally justified in defending themselves?


----------



## WingChun Lawyer (Mar 21, 2006)

kickcatcher said:
			
		

> Also, in that above hypothetical situation, you are pointing a firearm at them, are they not then morally justified in defending themselves?


 
In my opinion, and according to brazilian law, no. They would be justified in surrendering peacefully and/or running away (shooting them in the back would warrant a nice jail sentence). But they are not entitled to attacking and/or drawing weapons of their own, they started an unlawful action.


----------



## elder999 (Mar 21, 2006)

kickcatcher said:
			
		

> So for you, simply not putting the TV down justifies killing them? Your moral threshold for using deadly force is far lower than mine, that's for sure.
> 
> Also, in that above hypothetical situation, you are pointing a firearm at them, are they not then morally justified in defending themselves?


 
1) They're in my house, and in spite of my superior mental capabilities, I'm not telepathic. I'm not shooting them for not putting down the T.V., but for breaking into my house and not complying-sufficient *reason* for shooting them-I'll deal with the moral angst later, but I'll be alive, which is really all the  justification that is needed, moral threshold be damned-you will  note, however, that I said my first two loads are birdshot, and not likely to kill them, just turn them into uncomfortable hamburger....

2) No, they are not morally justified in defending themselves; *they broke into my house.*

That's a pretty fair example of weak-mindedness on your part, in my opinion....


----------



## kickcatcher (Mar 21, 2006)

WingChun Lawyer said:
			
		

> In my opinion, and according to brazilian law, now. They would be justified in surrendering peacefully and/or running away (shooting them in the back would warrant a nice jail sentence). But they are not entitled to attacking and/or drawing weapons of their own, they started an unlawful action.


 
WCL, is there not an issue that the force being threatened must be proportional to the crime? Like if you dropped a chocolate bar wrapper on the pavement (where it is illegal) and someone pointed a knife at you and told you to await the police, even if you believed that they were going to stab you (despite their words) it would (/should) be illegal to attempt a disarm? 

To take it full circle, is pointing a gun at an unarmed burglar proportional? Clearly some people think it is.


----------



## elder999 (Mar 21, 2006)

kickcatcher said:
			
		

> WCL, is there not an issue that the force being threatened must be proportional to the crime? Like if you dropped a chocolate bar wrapper on the pavement (where it is illegal) and someone pointed a knife at you and told you to await the police, even if you believed that they were going to stab you (despite their words) it would (/should) be illegal to attempt a disarm?
> 
> To take it full circle, is pointing a gun at an unarmed burglar proportional? Clearly some people think it is.


 
I'm not, I'll repeat, telepathic-I don't have any way of knowing that he's "unarmed." He's in my house-it is, by most legal standards,proportional. 

How, by the way, did we get from "carrying" to in my home?(To take it full circle)


----------



## kickcatcher (Mar 21, 2006)

elder999 said:
			
		

> 1) They're in my house, and in spite of my superior mental capabilities, I'm not telepathic. I'm not shooting them for not putting down the T.V., but for breaking into my house and not complying-sufficient *reason* for shooting them-I'll deal with the moral angst later, but I'll be alive, which is really all the justification that is needed, moral threshold be damned-you will note, however, that I said my first two loads are birdshot, and not likely to kill them, just turn them into uncomfortable hamburger....
> 
> 2) No, they are not morally justified in defending themselves; *they broke into my house.*


 
Going back to what "self-defence" is, most people think it's the use of JUSTIFIABLE force/action to defend yourself - if they are standing there with your TV in their arms, many people would consider that it's rational to presume that they "invaded" your house for purposes other than to do you physical harm. And is standing there frozen with fear looking down the barrel of a gun the same as intent to do you harm? -Without a RATIONAL reason for believing that they intend to do you (/others) imminent physical harm, how can you be justified to use physical force in self-defence? 

We then have to ask is lethal force reasonable when faced with a non-lethal threat. Is throwing a TV at you the likely actions of someone trying to do you lethal harm? -probably not. It would be the actions of someone trying to distract you whilst they escape.


----------



## elder999 (Mar 21, 2006)

kickcatcher said:
			
		

> Going back to what "self-defence" is, most people think it's the use of JUSTIFIABLE force/action to defend yourself - if they are standing there with your TV in their arms, many people would consider that it's rational to presume that they "invaded" your house for purposes other than to do you physical harm. And is standing there frozen with fear looking down the barrel of a gun the same as intent to do you harm? -Without a RATIONAL reason for believing that they intend to do you (/others) imminent physical harm, how can you be justified to use physical force in self-defence?
> 
> We then have to ask is lethal force reasonable when faced with a non-lethal threat. Is throwing a TV at you the likely actions of someone trying to do you lethal harm? -probably not. It would be the actions of someone trying to distract you whilst they escape.


 
Pointing the weapon at them is certainly justified. Throwing the T.V.-50,000 volt capacitive charge, large weight, *in my home* is a threat of deadly force, as is the fact of their being there, and, in the example you offered, there being more than one of them. 

The only RATIONAL reason I need for believing that they mean to do me harm is that they are in my house. For the purposes of this discussion (to come full circle, *again*) what happens in my home has nothing to do with your original question, and should probably be avoided-I am on solid legal and moral grounds in this case: the fact of their being in my house constitutes a threat of lethal force- and it doesn't matter how you feel-_it's not your country, and it's not your *house*._ I certainly haven't advocated your acting as I've said I would-hell, let them have your T.V.,  and/or your wife, and/or your _****_.

On the other hand, if I were walking in, say, London, carrying my cane, and two ****-holes demanded my wallet under a threat of violence, and I smote them heartily with my cane, would I be "morally justified?" makes a much more interesting and debatable question that mirrors your original question as an example in a much better fashion than the whole burglary scenario....


----------



## Seig (Mar 21, 2006)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> Can you reference this? If true, that's a disconcerting turn of events.


I don't have it in front of me, but the US Supreme court has ruled and upheld with case law that law enforcement agencies are under no obligation to protect individuals. That's the reason why places like Florida have done away with mandatory "retreat" laws.


----------



## Grenadier (Mar 21, 2006)

WingChun Lawyer said:
			
		

> Well, in Brazil the police does have this obligation. I thought the same applied in the US: can you provide some reference for that statement of yours?


 
http://crl.nmsu.edu/~eli/rtkba/police.html

The police are only obligated to protect society, and not the individuals as a whole.


----------



## Andrew Green (Mar 21, 2006)

Of course in a litigous society people would be suing the police everytime someone littered on there lawn for failing to protect them from crime...

Anyways, "To serve and protect", that's the role of the police up here.


----------



## kickcatcher (Mar 21, 2006)

elder999 said:
			
		

> Pointing the weapon at them is certainly justified. Throwing the T.V.-50,000 volt capacitive charge, large weight, *in my home* is a threat of deadly force, as is the fact of their being there, and, in the example you offered, there being more than one of them.


 
Being in your home = threat of deadly force?!!!???!! are you serious? Being two of them = a threat of deadly force??!!!??? throwing a TV = deadly force????? wow, just wow. 

You may (or may not, I don't know) be legally justified in shooting them in such circumstances but in my view you are not morally justified. Obviously our moral thresholds are somewhat different. 

By removing the prerequisit of rationality in a person's entitelment to use force in self-defence, you are basically saying that concept of *reasonable* force is wrong. Most people would probably disagree. 



			
				elder999 said:
			
		

> On the other hand, if I were walking in, say, London, carrying my cane, and two ****-holes demanded my wallet under a threat of violence, and I smote them heartily with my cane, would I be "morally justified?" makes a much more interesting and debatable question that mirrors your original question as an example in a much better fashion than the whole burglary scenario....


If you believed there to be an imminent physical threat to your person, which would be quite reasonable in your scenario, then you could defend yourself using *reasonable* force. Whether beating them up with a blunt object is reasonable or not is largely down to how you go about it  i.e. chasing them in order to administer the beating is obviously not an act of self-defence. 

But the original question was not about people's right to defend themselves, it was about the morals of carrying weapons in circumstances where you are not permitted to by law, either because of the nature of the weapon or the purpose for which you are carrying it. 

It is illegal to carry a weapon in London. Provided you have a genuine medical reason for carrying it, then yes you may be able to get away with it - but if it had been modified in a manner to betrayed its purpose, then you'd be in trouble.


----------



## elder999 (Mar 21, 2006)

kickcatcher said:
			
		

> Being in your home = threat of deadly force?!!!???!! are you serious? Being two of them = a threat of deadly force??!!!??? throwing a TV = deadly force????? wow, just wow.
> 
> You may (or may not, I don't know) be legally justified in shooting them in such circumstances but in my view you are not morally justified. Obviously our moral thresholds are somewhat different.
> 
> By removing the prerequisit of rationality in a person's entitelment to use force in self-defence, you are basically saying that concept of *reasonable* force is wrong. Most people would probably disagree.


 
Yes, "being in my home=_threat_ of iminent deadly force."

I don't know how it is where you are, but I'm, for the last time, not a mind reader, and :

*More than 50% of all felony murders occur during a burglary or robbery. *
*Justice Department statistics state that approximately 60% of all rapes and 30% of all aggravated assaults occur during break*
I'd say that viewing someone in your home that way is prudent and reasonable, and the way I've defined how I would respond is also prudent and reasonable. If there's a lesson here, it's don't break into my house-at least, not when anyone is at home. I don't see how I'm removing any prerequisite of rationality-again, I'm not advocating that everyone respond as I said I would, I am saying what I would do, and yes, our moral thresholds are different, though I have to point out that at heart, I'm a Quaker-essentially a pacifist-I just recognize that the world doesn't work that way, at least, not for me-would that it did.....



			
				kickcatcher said:
			
		

> If you believed there to be an imminent physical threat to your person, which would be quite reasonable in your scenario, then you could defend yourself using *reasonable* force. Whether beating them up with a blunt object is reasonable or not is largely down to how you go about it &#8211; i.e. chasing them in order to administer the beating is obviously not an act of self-defence.
> 
> But the original question was not about people's right to defend themselves, it was about the morals of carrying weapons in circumstances where you are not permitted to by law, either because of the nature of the weapon or the purpose for which you are carrying it.
> 
> It is illegal to carry a weapon in London. Provided you have a genuine medical reason for carrying it, then yes you may be able to get away with it - but if it had been modified in a manner to betrayed its purpose, then you'd be in trouble.


 
It's just a cane, albeit a quite heavy one-it hasn't been modified at all. I had knee surgery last year. Of course, it's still a weapon, and concealed by virtue of my (sometime) limp......most of the time I run quite well without it-doesn't really matter, as I'm sure that in London it's still fashionable for a man of my age to sometimes carry a cane as an accessory.......


----------



## kickcatcher (Mar 21, 2006)

elder999 said:
			
		

> Yes, "being in my home=_threat_ of iminent deadly force."





			
				elder999 said:
			
		

> I don't know how it is where you are, but I'm, for the last time, not a mind reader, and :
> 
> *More than 50% of all felony murders occur during a burglary or robbery. *
> *Justice Department statistics state that approximately 60% of all rapes and 30% of all aggravated assaults occur during break*
> I'd say that viewing someone in your home that way is prudent and reasonable, and the way I've defined how I would respond is also prudent and reasonable. If there's a lesson here, it's don't break into my house-at least, not when anyone is at home.


Do you have the statistic for how many burglaries/robberies result in felony murders  that would be a more relevant statistic because unlike the ones youve quoted, that one would give us some perspective. As for rapes, I doubt that is accurate since most rapes are committed by people close to the victim and few are reported. 

You are presuming that everyone who breaks into your home is intending to kill you or your family  even kids trying to nick the tele. That doesnt sound rational to me. 




			
				elder999 said:
			
		

> It's just a cane, albeit a quite heavy one-it hasn't been modified at all. I had knee surgery last year. Of course, it's still a weapon, and concealed by virtue of my (sometime) limp......most of the time I run quite well without it-doesn't really matter, as I'm sure that in London it's still fashionable for a man of my age to sometimes carry a cane as an accessory.......


We all know it would be an easy weapon to explain away, relative to say, a knife. BUT, in your scenario, you having the cane as a weapon is a criminal offense, irrespective of whether you use it for assault or defence: 




> Section 1(1) of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 states:





> _"Any person who without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, the proof whereof shall lie with him, has with him in any public place any offensive weapon shall be guilty of an offence..." _
> Offensive weapons are defined by section 1 (3) of the act as:
> _"...any article made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use by him [or by some other person]."_




Therefore, if you think carrying the cane in London is morally excusable, especially given most parts of Londons low violent crime rates, then you think that carrying weapons illegally when there is no real reason to, can be morally excused. Thats your call  at last youve answered the original question of the thread.


----------



## Cruentus (Mar 21, 2006)

The law see's it as reasonable to use deadly force if there is an immenent threat to violence that could cause grave bodily harm or death. I find it interesting that someone would make a moral judgement on a person who would use a firearm if they were facing grave bodily harm or death. I am glad our laws aren't supposed to make moral judgements (remember that there is a difference between ethics and morality).

Now, that said, I will make a moral judgement here as well, philisophically speaking. I would say that it is IMMORAL to not use deadly force on someone who threatens you with deadly force. Not using deadly force when appropriate is putting yourself at risk, all those that rely on you as a valuable human being (your family, freinds, employers, etc.), and any potential future victims. By not using deadly force when appropriate, your allowing these risks to occur only for the sake of the person who made the conscious decision to create that risk in the first place. Not only is it nonsensicle, it is IMMORAL. 

What it comes down to is PERSONAL RESPONSABILITY here. This is illustrated correctly in the Supreme Court case that stated that LE is not obligated to protect individuals. 

The issue of PERSONAL RESPONSABILITY is one reason why I would hate to move away from this country (the U.S.), despite all of our problems that we do have. The U.S. system seems to factor in personal responsabilty more-so then other systems I have seen.

So, is a doctor RESPONSABLE for your health? No, YOU are responsable for your health. The doctor is just there to help you if you have a problem. In the same sense cops are NOT RESPONSABLE for your self-defense, YOU ARE. They are there to help if there is a problem and someone is breaking the law.

For some reason, no one reasonable is blaming doctors for the obese, lathargic, smokers heart and cholesterol problems. And, gosh darn it, no one seems to think that it is the fire departments responsability to have smoke detectors and fire extinguishers in homes. So, why again do we think that it is the Officer's responsability to come to our rescue in the midst of an assault?

Too many people, in my opinion, have an entitlement mentality. Too many people believe that it is someone elses responsabilty to take care of them, whether it be health, safety, financial stability, or what have you. The fact is that it doesn't matter where you live or what laws you follow; it is ultimatily YOUR PERSONAL RESPONSABILITY to take care of yourself, your family, and your community as much as you are able too.

And personal responsability directly applies to self-defense.


----------



## kickcatcher (Mar 21, 2006)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> I would say that it is IMMORAL to not use deadly force on someone who threatens you with deadly force.


So trying to kill them is the always the only way. If your first defence, say a punch, only stuns them enough for you to escape, you should follow up until they are dead anyway? Cool, Mr Morally enlightened.


----------



## elder999 (Mar 21, 2006)

kickcatcher said:
			
		

> Do you have the statistic for how many burglaries/robberies result in felony murders &#8211; that would be a more relevant statistic because unlike the ones you&#8217;ve quoted, that one would give us some perspective. As for rapes, I doubt that is accurate since most rapes are committed by people close to the victim and few are reported.
> 
> You are presuming that everyone who breaks into your home is intending to kill you or your family &#8211; even kids trying to nick the tele. That doesn&#8217;t sound rational to me.




It's quite rational-I can't read minds, statistically it does happen, so how do I know what their intentions are if they're foolish enough to break into my home? Easier and more rational by far to assume the worst, and deal with it there-it's not even about "intention to kill" but about what's reasonable given the scenario-and, remember:* bird-shot.*



			
				kickcatcher said:
			
		

> We all know it would be an easy weapon to explain away, relative to say, a knife. BUT, in your scenario, you having the cane as a weapon is a criminal offense, irrespective of whether you use it for assault or defence:
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore, if you think carrying the cane in London is morally excusable, especially given most parts of London&#8217;s low violent crime rates, then you think that carrying weapons illegally when there is no real reason to, can be morally excused. That&#8217;s your call &#8211; at last you&#8217;ve answered the original question of the thread.


 
Well, thanks for putting words in my mouth-though I will say that carrying weapons illegally is morally excusable, as I said in the beginning.

The only "real reason" I need to is the _possibility[/o]-as I've pointed out, it isn't a weapon until I use it as one, and then the possibility, no matter how low the likelihood was, is no longer just a possibility, but a *fact. *

What do you mean by "most parts of London?" How do I know which parts of London? How much higher are the rates in "other parts of London?"_


----------



## Cruentus (Mar 21, 2006)

kickcatcher said:
			
		

> So trying to kill them is the always the only way. If your first defence, say a punch, only stuns them enough for you to escape, you should follow up until they are dead anyway? Cool, Mr Morally enlightened.


 
I'm sorry, but you are not dealing with the reality of violence here, and you falsifying my arguement.

First off, I never said stomp the incapacitated assailent until he stops breathing. Self-defense stops when the threat stops. I assumed everyone understood that, but my mistake so I'll explain through example. If you "punch" the attacker, as you say in your example, and he stops attacking you, then the threat is over, no need to continue. Same if you shoot the attacker. However, if you shoot the attacker 12 times and he is still trying to attack you, then you'd better reload. 

That said, the part that isn't dealing with reality here is the assumption that you would have the time to distinguish between what type of force you are going to use once the fight starts. If you are fighting for your life, that is all you have time to do, and you need to do so with the most force you have available. You can't think that your going to box the guy unarmed, and if your not winning then you can try a blunt weapon, and if your still not winning then you'll cut him, etc. The idea that this is what you will be able to do is far removed from reality.

In "real life," there isn't a ref to dictate where the force continuem will go.  

Paul


----------



## kickcatcher (Mar 21, 2006)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, but you are not dealing with the reality of violence here, and you falsifying my arguement.
> 
> First off, I never said stomp the incapacitated assailent until he stops breathing. Self-defense stops when the threat stops. I assumed everyone understood that, but my mistake so I'll explain through example. If you "punch" the attacker, as you say in your example, and he stops attacking you, then the threat is over, no need to continue. Same if you shoot the attacker. However, if you shoot the attacker 12 times and he is still trying to attack you, then you'd better reload.
> 
> That said, the part that isn't dealing with reality here is the assumption that you would have the time to distinguish between what type of force you are going to use once the fight starts. If you are fighting for your life, that is all you have time to do, and you need to do so with the most force you have available. You can't think that your going to box the guy unarmed, and if your not winning then you can try a blunt weapon, and if your still not winning then you'll cut him, etc. The idea that this is what you will be able to do is far removed from reality.


 
You have said that _if_ they are attacking you with lethal force then you should defend with lethal force - then you say that you cannot gauge the force level (lethal or non-lethal) during the 'fight'... which presumably means that you have to always assume the worst (?) &#8230; and use lethal force in ALL situations. Clearly that's ridiculous, so I assume that's not what you are trying to say. 

Maybe when you say "lethal force" you don't actually mean it at all -lethal force generally means force likely to kill someone, so to deliberately apply it you are trying to kill someone. Generally in self-defence you are attempting to escape &#8211; that is the aim. Therefore most people would believe that you should only resort to lethal force in an absolute worst case scenario &#8211; most places laws included. Therefore as self-defence students we should really be training to use SUFFICIENT force, which may or may not be lethal (though generally not). 

(EDIT: Just to clarify, lethal/deadly force is typically defined in American law as "force LIKELY to result in death or serious injury". I make the assumption that as martial artists we only use that level of force with INTENT since we should know roughly the _likely_ results of our moves. Punching someone in the face in itself is not lethal force. Even choking someone and releasing it as soon as they go unconscious isn't. Shooting or stabbing someone would be. )




			
				Tulisan said:
			
		

> In "real life," there isn't a ref to dictate where the force continuem will go.


 ? Is that a needless jibe a sports martial arts?


----------



## MJS (Mar 21, 2006)

*Moderator Note. *
*Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.*

*-MJS*
*-MT Moderator-*


----------



## Cruentus (Mar 21, 2006)

> which presumably means that you have to always assume the worst (?)  and use lethal force in ALL situations. Clearly that's ridiculous, so I assume that's not what you are trying to say.


 
Good assumption; no I am not saying that you have to use lethal force in all situations - that would be ridicules.

There is a difference in what is called "pre-incident," "incident," and "post-incident."

So, I'll use an example:

_Pre-incident: You hear a noise downstairs that sounds like breaking glass. You decide to grab your firearm and investigate while your wife calls 9-11 in the safe room. You turn on your kitchen light, and not even 15 feet in front of you is a guy with a ski mask and tire iron. You point your weapon and yell "Drop your weapon and back up, or I'll shoot! I have a gun!"_

_Incident: The guy runs at you swinging. You back up and fire rounds until he falls._

_Post incident: Hs is on the ground bleeding. You administer first aid as best as you can now that the threat is over. Then the police arrive._

Notice how short the actual incident is. During the pre-incident, you can make logical decisions, including what kind of force would be appropriate for the situation. During the actual incident, you will no longer be able to logically make those decisions with any reliability. This is why it is unreasonable and not fitting with reality to assume that during the incident you will be able to say to yourself, for example, "I'm grappling with him and he hasn't let go of his tire iron yet, and has hit me in the head. Now that I am losing consiousness, maybe I should try to pull a kitchen knife out of the drawer..." and then perform that action with reliability. 

What I am saying is that once the incident is taking place, you can't assume that you can change where you will be on the force continuem, and therefore must make the decision based on the facts available during the pre-incident.


----------



## kickcatcher (Mar 21, 2006)

Tulisan, your scenario has someone wearing a ski-mask and carrying a weapon attacking you - what about the drunk in the pub who mouths off at you for no apparent reason and takes a swing at you? 

This is why I personally believe in having a scalable response - that doesn't mean you have to be psychic, or reactionary, but it reflects the moral (and legal) need to fit your response to the threat. 


PS. Safe room? &#8211; the cold war stopped in 1990&#8230;


----------



## Cruentus (Mar 21, 2006)

kickcatcher said:
			
		

> Tulisan, your scenario has someone wearing a ski-mask and carrying a weapon attacking you - what about the drunk in the pub who mouths off at you for no apparent reason and takes a swing at you?
> 
> This is why I personally believe in having a scalable response - that doesn't mean you have to be psychic, or reactionary, but it reflects the moral (and legal) need to fit your response to the threat.


 
The fact that your in a public place means that your somewhat protected from being beaten to death by someone unarmed, first off. You will notice the guy mouthing off, his state, whether he is armed or not, etc. These are all things that you would have determined during the pre-incident; once the incident is occuring your response will be based off decisions you made before hand, and at that point you will only have time for reaction.

I am not saying that you can't scale your response; I am just distinguishing when this actually occurs, and asserting that you can't scale with reliability during the actual incident.




> PS. Safe room?  the cold war stopped in 1990


 
LOL...I live in mid-michigan, and here the cold war is still going on among other things.  Kidding obviously. A safe room is just a place with a phone, a lock on the door, some cover, and an escape route if you can. It is a place that everyone in the home goes to in case of a B & E emergency. Setting this up is no different then planning for a fire emergancy, or a natural disaster like a tornado. it is a very basic concept for home defense that is covered in any NRA approved CPL or CCW permit class.

Paul


----------



## kickcatcher (Mar 21, 2006)

We have come to some agreement then, there is _some_ common ground, at least in regard to scalable response. 

But going back to morals, I still cannot buy that a person should be morally _obliged_ to apply lethal force in circrmstances where they are facing (credible) threat of deadly force - though I'm not saying that they shouldn't - but the aim should still be to escape (assuming avoidance has failed). 

We then come across a moral/practical limitation with certain weapons, particularly firearms; these are by their nature lethal force in most contexts. They cannot be used in a scalable fashion unless, perhaps you pistol-whip someone which I wouldn't recommend. If you face the situation that Elder and I discussed earlier where you come downstairs to find two kids with your TV, if you are pointing a gun at them you cannot use the gun with non-lethal force - you could perhaps aim to miss just to give them a scare...  but if they attacked you with the TV, even though it is hardly them using lethal force... BANG! -guns are a one-size-fits-all approach and so limited within a scalable response. 


PS. NRA, guess I missed that course then....


----------



## kickcatcher (Mar 21, 2006)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> A safe room is just a place with a phone, a lock on the door, some cover, and an escape route if you can. It is a place that everyone in the home goes to in case of a B & E emergency. Setting this up is no different then planning for a fire emergancy, or a natural disaster like a tornado. it is a very basic concept for home defense that is covered in any NRA approved CPL or CCW permit class.
> 
> Paul


Paul, if in your scenario you have a safe room, why are you going downstairs into the danger?


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 21, 2006)

kickcatcher said:
			
		

> but the aim should still be to escape (assuming avoidance has failed).


 
I totaly agree wity that... BUT there are certain circumstances where you absoultley cant, or maybe, shouldnt flee...  I wouldnt flee from a home invasion and leave a child in the house with the invaders, for example.

As far as use of deadly force goes, the real _*fact*_ is, unless your name is Ms Cleo, you just never know.  Is the guy gonna be content to throw the TV at you and run?  Or are him and his buddy gonna knock you down with the TV and put the boots to you till you are dead or dying?  Same with the drunk in the pub... is he gonna swing a few times and be done, or decide to break a bottle and cut you with it? 

Fights of any kind on the street are NOT the fights we got into on the playground or in the schoolyard.  Teacher isn't gonna come break it up and send us to the principles office.  I would ALWAYS assume that if someone is starting a fight with me, and it escalates all the way to violence, that their intention isnt to punch me and be done with it.  Ive watched enough video footage of "street fights" and seen enough bar fights to know that dude often will put the boots to you when you are down just to make a point.   

Does it obligate you to shoot someone?  Of course not.  Someone commented earlier in this thread that the responsible thing in carrying a weapon is know how to use it.  I say thats only partially true... its probably more important, if you carry a weapon to know responsibly WHEN to use it.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Mar 21, 2006)

kickcatcher said:
			
		

> So trying to kill them is the always the only way. If your first defence, say a punch, only stuns them enough for you to escape, you should follow up until they are dead anyway? Cool, Mr Morally enlightened.


 
Dude Buy a CLUE will you. What you think and what is moral and what is legal are all different depending upon your back ground for morality, and location for legality. 

So while you have an opinion so do others, and you might get better results with people without the sarcasm or the attitude.

Just a note from a long time poster.

Peace


----------



## elder999 (Mar 21, 2006)

kickcatcher said:
			
		

> We then come across a moral/practical limitation with certain weapons, particularly firearms; these are by their nature lethal force in most contexts. They cannot be used in a scalable fashion unless, perhaps you pistol-whip someone which I wouldn't recommend. If you face the situation that Elder and I discussed earlier where you come downstairs to find two kids with your TV, if you are pointing a gun at them you cannot use the gun with non-lethal force - you could perhaps aim to miss just to give them a scare... but if they attacked you with the TV, even though it is hardly them using lethal force... BANG! -guns are a one-size-fits-all approach and so limited within a scalable response.
> PS. NRA, guess I missed that course then....


 
Uhh...I'll say it again:* birdshot*. Your ignorance in this regard is showing....my shotgun (primary home defense weapon) is loaded so that the first thing out of it will be birdshot, which is likely to be less-than-lethal, even with the 45 minute response time of the ambulance corps.
In fact, my shotgun is loaded for a scalable response, just as you put it.


----------



## elder999 (Mar 21, 2006)

Oh, and Mr. kickcatcher? I really admire your adept intellectual dishonesty in misinterpreting statements, substituting your conclusions for statments, and ignoring questions that are only looking for clarification. Well done.....


----------



## Cruentus (Mar 21, 2006)

kickcatcher said:
			
		

> Paul, if in your scenario you have a safe room, why are you going downstairs into the danger?


 
Lots of possible reasons.

#1. Just because you heard a noise, that doesn't mean that it is an intruder. I personally have had my cats knock down glass before, breaking it in the middle of the night. Cops don't want to come to your house unless you are sure that it is an an intruder, and not your cats. It is common to investigate if one is not sure, but assumes that it isn't someone breaking in.

#2. Depending on your circumstance, you may not want to let the intruder come to you, and you may want to create a barrier between you and them. This could mostly be the case if you have more vulnerable household members, like kids, that you don't want to get caught in a shootout.

That said, ordinarily it is better to stay in the safe room, especially if your SURE that there is an intruder, call the police, warn the intruder if they are coming near the safe room that you have a firearm and will shoot if the door opens.

Regardless, this is all sort of incidental to my previous point.

Paul


----------



## elder999 (Mar 21, 2006)

Your smart, professional burglars case their jobs carefully and hit empty homes. The ones who hit when you are there have to be considered dangerous. Either they know you and your loved ones are at home and are prepared to deal with you forcibly, or they are so incredibly stupid or spaced out that they are dangerous to themselves and others. 

You cannot, of course, use deadly force merely because the intruder is in your house, but , if he attacks you after forcing his way into your home, he is bought and paid for. The best thing, of course, is to keep him from getting in at all. 

Ive repelled burglary twice in my life; both times, the sound of my racking the slide on my pump action shotgunm and saying GET OUT OF MY HOUSE, was enough for the burglar to run for it. If he didnt, well, yes, Id have shot him.

Youd have to be truly crazy and dangerous to not run at the sound of that..

The locksmith will tell you its all about locks. The alarm salesman will tell you its all about alarms. The guy at the puppy mill may tell you that all you need is a watchdog, and the clerk at the gunshop may tell you that the gun is the be-all and end-all. 

Dont fall for it. I hate to sound like a yuppie here, but you need a holistic approach. You need it all. We live waaaay out in the woods, though, so the alarm isn't going to do much besides wake me up-average response time for the sheriff is about 45 minutes. We've got really good locks and motion-sensor activated lighting.

Dogs are great. They sense things you cant sense, they smell things you cant smell, and they intimidate people you may not be able to intimidate. A burglar climbing in a window was taken at gunpoint by a woman. He snarled at her, You aint got the balls to shoot me. Wrong sentiment. She blew him away. You know if shed had a slavering Rottweiler at her side, I really dont think that dude would have looked at the dog and said, You aint got the balls to bite me. 

You Brits are (imho) _royally_ screwed,


----------



## KenpoTex (Mar 22, 2006)

kickcatcher said:
			
		

> But going back to morals, I still cannot buy that a person should be morally _obliged_ to apply lethal force in circrmstances where they are facing (credible) threat of deadly force - though I'm not saying that they shouldn't - *but the aim should still be to escape (assuming avoidance has failed). *


In general, when faced with a situation in public places, I'd agree that escape is the desired option (although I don't feel that you should be _required_ to retreat if you are innocent of any wrongdoing...go Florida!). However, there are a variety of reasons why you might not be able to SAFELY escape. 1) The attacker(s) might be between you and your point of escape. 2) You might be physically incapable of escaping safely. 3) You might not be able to escape due to a responsibilty to protect a family member or friend who is unable to safely escape. If you cannot safely (without putting yourself further at risk or failing to eliminate the threat) escape, then your best option at this point becomes meeting the threat with *whatever level of force is necessary* to eliminate the threat, up to and including deadly force.

When it comes to defense within the home I have a different policy. I'm one of those "unenlightened" people who still believe that a man's home is his "castle" so to speak. NOBODY is going to run me out of my home, especially if there are also family members in the home. In other words, while I would try to escape if confronted with a threat in a public place, I am not going to retreat in my own home...period.
There have been a number of studies which show that most criminals go out of their way to avoid breaking into an occupied house. Why? because they are admittedly more afraid of the consequenses of running into an armed homeowner than they are of the "slap on the wrist" they will recieve if they're somehow caught by the police. (I'm not going to take the time to find the info. right now but it's easy enough to access if anyone cares enough to look).
Why is this relevant? Since criminals generally try to "case" the premises to ensure that no one is home, it seems logical to conclude that if they break in while you are there, they know you're there. If they decide to break in despite the fact that you are home, one can reasonably assume that they are fully willing to use force to carry out their goal whether it's burglary, rape, etc. (Elder mentioned a lot of this).  This being the case, I think that it's logical to treat any home invasion as a viable threat to your safety.  I'm not going to assume that the person is only there to steal my TV or computer.  I feel that in the case of a home invasion it is perfectly acceptable to immediately respond with the maximum amount of force available until the threat has been eliminated.  If I felt that I had time to warn them or give them a chance to surrender so be it, if this could not be done safely however, I'm wouldn't put myself at any further risk by hesitating.


----------



## WingChun Lawyer (Mar 22, 2006)

kickcatcher said:
			
		

> WCL, is there not an issue that the force being threatened must be proportional to the crime? Like if you dropped a chocolate bar wrapper on the pavement (where it is illegal) and someone pointed a knife at you and told you to await the police, even if you believed that they were going to stab you (despite their words) it would (/should) be illegal to attempt a disarm?
> 
> To take it full circle, is pointing a gun at an unarmed burglar proportional? Clearly some people think it is.


 
In Brazil, the amount of force used should be proportional to the threat, and should not exceed what is necessary to eliminate the threat. 

In the example you pointed, yes, it would be legal to attempt a disarm, because a threat in Brazil is a crime - dirtying the streets is not a crime here. That disarming attempt would constitute legitimate defense against a crime.

Pointint a gun at an unarmed burglar, in Brazil, is OK. Actually shooting is probably not OK, unless you have good reason to believe he was going to draw a weapon of some kind.

Incidentally, in Brazil self defense means you don´t have to retreat, even if you have the option to do that. Sure, the judge will consider that possibility if you are faced with excessive violence charges, but you are under no obligation to run away, even if you are not at home.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 22, 2006)

> Your ignorance in this regard is showing


 
Precisely.  With few exceptions, those who speak out most strongly against weapons simply _don't understand them_.  Their ignorance of the objects of their contempt and fear hamstrings these critics in their attempts to argue their ill-conceived opinions.


----------



## WingChun Lawyer (Mar 22, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> Precisely. With few exceptions, those who speak out most strongly against weapons simply _don't understand them_. Their ignorance of the objects of their contempt and fear hamstrings these critics in their attempts to argue their ill-conceived opinions.


 
So, Phil. Would you sell guns to the iraqis right now? I mean, I am sure they need all the protection they can get against those darned terrorists and criminals, and they probably need the democracy as well. I am quite sure many of them could be converted to martialism, since they do have families they would like to protect.

So, would you open a weapons shop in Baghdad?


----------



## kickcatcher (Mar 22, 2006)

elder999 said:
			
		

> Uhh...I'll say it again:* birdshot*. Your ignorance in this regard is showing....my shotgun (primary home defense weapon) is loaded so that the first thing out of it will be birdshot, which is likely to be less-than-lethal, even with the 45 minute response time of the ambulance corps.


I heard you the first time. If you think shooting someone at close range with birdshot is not deadly force, you need to stop kidding yourself. Phil says he understands guns, he will no doubt back me up on this. lol.


----------



## elder999 (Mar 22, 2006)

kickcatcher said:
			
		

> I heard you the first time. If you think shooting someone at close range with birdshot is not deadly force, you need to stop kidding yourself. Phil says he understands guns, he will no doubt back me up on this. lol.


 
It certainly _could_ be, but it's less than lethal enough to _legally_ demonstrate an intention not to kill, especially in the home-which is all the justification, legal, moral and otherwise, that I need to use deadly force, and the *law* backs me up on this.


----------



## Cruentus (Mar 22, 2006)

elder999 said:
			
		

> It certainly _could_ be, but it's less than lethal enough to _legally_ demonstrate an intention not to kill, especially in the home-which is all the justification, legal, moral and otherwise, that I need to use deadly force, and the *law* backs me up on this.


 
I'm not so sure about that; that is, bird shot being considered less then lethal by law. However, I agree that if your in your home, you are generally in the right to point a gun at an intruder.


----------



## elder999 (Mar 22, 2006)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> I'm not so sure about that; that is, bird shot being considered less then lethal by law. However, I agree that if your in your home, you are generally in the right to point a gun at an intruder.


 
I said legally demonstrate an _intention_; the same could be said of a baseball bat, and they could as easily wind up dead.....


----------



## Cruentus (Mar 22, 2006)

elder999 said:
			
		

> I said legally demonstrate an _intention_; the same could be said of a baseball bat, and they could as easily wind up dead.....


 
Even so, I am still not so sure about that. The law looks at lethal force alegorically like a line in the sand; once crossed it is hard to legally argue that intent wasn't present. A baseball bat to the head, for example, is still considered lethal force. There is no way that an arguement along the lines of, "I didn't want to kill him" would hold water. I understand what you are saying, and certianly hitting someone with bird shot and not killing them would be better (depending on the situation) then killing them with buck shot. However, I am not sure that your choice of bird shot will legally matter because a gun is brought into the fray, and a gun is a tool of lethal force.  

Paul


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 22, 2006)

Coming in from the side here, I have to say that to an extent all the arguments hold some merit here. There are cultural and other differences at play though. Someone from the Metro Chicago/NY/Detroit areas would have a different opinion than someone in rural America, or in a nation with low violent crime rates.

If you carry a weapon, regardless of what it is, knife, pepper spray, firearm, you had better know how to use it, when to use it, and why you use it. You also better know when to stop using it, otherwise you can become the badguy when the boys in blue arrive.

Good discussion, but, lets leave the little digs aside eh? Thanks.


----------



## elder999 (Mar 22, 2006)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> Even so, I am still not so sure about that. The law looks at lethal force alegorically like a line in the sand; once crossed it is hard to legally argue that intent wasn't present. A baseball bat to the head, for example, is still considered lethal force. There is no way that an arguement along the lines of, "I didn't want to kill him" would hold water. I understand what you are saying, and certianly hitting someone with bird shot and not killing them would be better (depending on the situation) then killing them with buck shot. However, I am not sure that your choice of bird shot will legally matter because a gun is brought into the fray, and a gun is a tool of lethal force.
> 
> Paul


 
A gun *is* a tool of lethal force-even with rubber bullets and other "less than lethal" rounds like the old rock salt thing, we're agreed on that-those things kill people all the time. I'll look around a bit, I'm certain that not only has the arument been used in New Mexico, but that it was nearly unecessary, as the shooting took place in the shooter's home....and he didn't kill him, of course...


----------



## Chris Thompson (Mar 22, 2006)

I have to agree with those who say there is no moral duty to try to escape from a person who has assaulted you or entered your home. In doing so, they have violated your most basic rights as a human being, and you are fully justified in standing your ground and responding aggressively to the violation.
Having said that, I wouldn't use lethal force against a burglar unless they forced me to, because I wouldn't want to have that on my conscience. In my city, there was case where a homeowner shot and killed three unarmed men who had come to his house to pick a fight with him after an argument in a bar. He was arrested and tried, but the jury refused to convict him. The general feeling was that if they hadn't gone to his home and threatened him they would not have gotten shot. People also felt that the guy was a loose cannon and no one much wanted him around after that, so he had to move away. 

-Chris Thompson


----------



## WingChun Lawyer (Mar 22, 2006)

Chris Thompson: THREE men against one guy, threatening him in his house? No wonder he was not convicted for using a gun.


----------



## Chris Thompson (Mar 22, 2006)

>Chris Thompson: THREE men against one guy, threatening him in his house? No wonder he was not convicted for using a gun.>

The situation was a little more complex than my brief summation. They came to his house, but I don't think they got in. If I remember correctly they were in his yard shouting threats and he came out with his gun. Exactly what happened after that was unclear. Some said that one of the guys was shot while taking a leak on his wall, but this wasn't publicly confirmed. The jury felt that whatever it was, it wasn't murder. The locals felt that he was a little too trigger-happy for their comfort. Basically he was acquitted and then run out of town.

-Chris Thompson


----------



## Hand Sword (Mar 24, 2006)

As it's said, "Better to be judged by twelve than carried out by 6" !


----------



## Kwiter (Apr 8, 2006)

Ever heard of an Indian that didn't have at LEAST a knife ;-)
only time I don't have a small pocket knife with me is if I'm going to the National Musuem of the American Indian, security is crazy there as a Government Building(arm of the Smithsonian) when going there I make sure to have a nice steel barreled Pen! Plastic Pocket combs are pretty good too if held rigid

---
http://www.urbanskinz.com


----------



## still learning (Apr 9, 2006)

Kwiter said:
			
		

> Ever heard of an Indian that didn't have at LEAST a knife ;-)
> only time I don't have a small pocket knife with me is if I'm going to the National Musuem of the American Indian, security is crazy there as a Government Building(arm of the Smithsonian) when going there I make sure to have a nice steel barreled Pen! Plastic Pocket combs are pretty good too if held rigid
> 
> ---
> http://www.urbanskinz.com


 
This is why it is good to have a "Indian" with you all the time!  We are known as " Indian givers"...................Just having fun  here...NO offense...Aloha


----------



## Kwiter (Apr 10, 2006)

No offense taken ;-)

Skennen Peace


----------

