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

[Phil Elmore]

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]

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]

Royt! Cheerio, and all that rot!

 

[WingChun Lawyer]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[elder999]

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.....

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

Explain, exactly, how it's 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.

..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-defense. Explain, again, how that's a "moral" issue- I'm not at all troubled by it, morally.....

 

[WingChun Lawyer]

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]

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.

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.

. 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.

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

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-defense, in places where it's illegal (somehow) to do so, is morally wrong.

 

[WingChun Lawyer]

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-defense, 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]

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]

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]

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

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 “it depends…” 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 – 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 – if someone is threatening you with a blade, then putting them in hospital or worse is generally thought of as justifiable as “self-defence”. 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 – 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 “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 “s” in self-defense in bold?

 

[elder999]

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....

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.

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).

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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”.

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.

PS. Why do you put the “s” in self-defense in bold?

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