rmcrobertson said:
I see that there isn't going to be a response to the question about martial arts and the duty to retreat. Oh well.
Ummm???
My response wasn't sufficient?
Tulisan said:
For the record, we all have to duty to use violence as a last resort, regardless of what the law says. This means avoidence, and retreating as first options; unless doing so would put an innocent or yourself in danger.
I am sure you'll agree....
I would say that this applies to all people, especially martial artists.
Dumb laws like this can have unintended consequences. For example, extending this, "castle," nonsense to a private car can easily mean that a) a cop can't arrest somebody she or he catches speeding with a loaded gun on the seat, b) drivers can start claiming a right to privacy in their cars--as a moron at a college I taught at once (a member of the student government!) did a few years back, when he got caught sitting across from a grade school, naked....claimed that seeing him and arresting him violated his right to privacy.
Sorry sir, but you need to actually read the laws and how the castle doctrine applies to self-defense. It does not mean that a cop can't arrest someone for speeding with a loaded gun on their seat. If a cop has reason to believe that someone has intent to harm another, they can act on that belief. People still have to maintain "reasonableness" under the law. One could argue that speeding down the road with a loaded weapon on the seat violates reasonableness.
Also, drivers cannot start claiming a right to privacy in their cars. The castle doctrine has NOTHING to do with that. I couldn't drive naked in Florida any more then I could sit on my balcony naked in a hotel, or dance around naked in the window facing the sidewalk.
Not to offend you, but this is an incredably goofy and inacurate way of interpreting these laws, with absolutely no basis behind them.
But beyond that, this is nuts. It's the fantasy that A Gun Will Solve Everything come back again--make it legal for fools to have loaded pistols at hand while they're driving, and guess what happens?
Again, it goes back to reasonableness - people still have to abide by that standard. Not to mention, if your implying that more people are going to road rage open fire, I would argue not. I don't think that people need a law to limit their ability to open fire on the road. If someone is mentally unstable enough to open fire or brandish a weapon while driving, then they will do so regardless of what the law says. A reasonable person will not do this, regardless of what the law says.
And, I would argue that a mentally unstable person is more likely to be disuaded from brandishing a gun in their cars by the idea that other drivers may also be armed to fire back on them, not by anything the law says. It is a proven fact that sociopaths (and this is what we are dealing with when we are talking about the guy who would brandish a weapon or fire on the road) often have little concept of long term consequence. A law saying "you can't" and possible penalties if caught is to "far away" in the minds of a sociopathic criminal. However, they do understand immediate consequence. This is why a sociopath is more likely to think twice if he knows that there is a good chance that their fellow citizen could be armed as well; the consequence of an armed citizen defending themself is far more immediate then the possibility of going to jail if caught.
Another embarassing question that won't get answered: what do martial arts teach about the reason to learn a martial art rather than simply getting a gun, a quicker and more-efficient road to self-defense?
#1. The gun isn't the answer to everything, so other methods of combat need to be addressed.
#2. If you don't address the issue of firearms (both defense and use) in a day and age when firearms are commonly used by societies preditors, then your self-defense is insufficent, in my opinion.
#3. There are a lot of great reasons to take a martial art besides self-defense, like personal development and such.
That all said, I don't take the firearm out of my "martial art." For me this is a non-issue, as firearm training is a staple part of my martial arts training, and my training group for that matter. Beyond that, I am not sure how to answer that question.
But if you have a better answer, I would like to hear it.
I hope that adequetly addresses some of your concerns...
Paul
