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

[Cruentus]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Why I Stopped Arguing Gun Control on the Internet

And apparently you started again.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

I was getting that impression.

Thank You