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

[kickcatcher]

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]

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, 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

"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...

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]

That's....interesting.



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.....

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.