Britain: don't hit criminal twice


PDA






telomerase
June 7, 2004, 10:33 PM
http://www.ncpa.org/newdpd/dpdarticle.php?article_id=133&PHPSESSID=a293fbeec324e52af29a6e29e4e03bce

If you enjoyed reading about "Britain: don't hit criminal twice" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
R.H. Lee
June 7, 2004, 10:44 PM
A once great nation and a world power, reduced to a land of quivering blisninnies. Remember, it started with gun "control". Don't let it happen here.

Antlurz
June 7, 2004, 10:51 PM
I cannot, under any circumstances understand why they don't want people to protect themselves. That goes TOTALLY against all normal human instincts...:uhoh:

Ron

AZRickD
June 7, 2004, 11:03 PM
From that URL

BRITONS RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENSE PRACTICALLY ELIMINATED

Daily Policy Digest

CRIME AND GUN CONTROL /

Monday, June 07, 2004

The withdrawal of Englishmen’s right to self-defense is having dire consequences in Great Britain: higher crime rate, weak sentences for assailants, and even the victims end up thrown in jail, says historian Joyce Lee Malcolm.

This did not happen all at once. The people were weaned from their fundamental right to protect themselves through a series of policies implemented over some 80 years, she says. Those include the strictest gun laws of any democracy, legislation that makes it illegal for individuals to carry any article that could be used for personal protection, and restrictive limits on the use of force in self-defense. The impacts have been stark:

* One is six times more likely to be mugged in London than in New York City.
* More than half of English burglaries occur when someone is at home, while the frequency of such “hot burglaries” is only 13 percent in America.
* Since handguns were banned in 1998, handgun crime has more than doubled.
* Offenders under the age of 21 are almost never sent to prison; criminals that end up in prison are routinely released after serving half the sentence.
.

Overall, with the exception of murder, violent crime in England and Wales is far higher than in the United States. The British police are now, for the first time in their history, routinely armed, and have even sought the advice of American policemen to deal with gun crime

Victims of crime risk imprisonment for defending oneself. Fending off robbers in one’s home with toy pistols will get one charged by the police; killing an assailant results in a life sentence, while if one manages to knock an attacker down, you must not hit him again or you risk being charged with assault, says Malcolm.

Source: Joyce Lee Malcolm, “Self-Defense: An Endangered Right,” Cato Institute, Policy Report No. 2, March 2004.

For text http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/pr-index.html

For more on Self Defense and Gun Control http://www.ncpa.org/iss/cri/

Standing Wolf
June 8, 2004, 12:04 AM
Overall, with the exception of murder, violent crime in England and Wales is far higher than in the United States.

Rarely does a day pass when I fail to feel grateful to our forefathers for rebelling against the English and founding a republic.

longrifleman
June 8, 2004, 12:53 AM
Antlurz, maybe this will help explain it.

.I cannot, under any circumstances understand why they don't
want people to protect themselves.

Sunday, June 06, 2004

Violence and the Social Contract

In the previous piece immediately below, "(I)t's most important that all potential victims be as dangerous as they can," I put forward the concepts of violent and predatory and violent but protective, and their antithesis, non-violence or passivity. I also noted that the pacifist culture in general holds a logical disconnect in that it still supports violence, so long as that violence is threatened or performed by duly authorized agents of the State.

I found this link at Rev. Sensing's that illustrates why that logical disconnect, that dichotomy, exists. It's a quote from Christian philosopher-ethicist Jacques Ellul:
Violence is to be found everywhere and at all times, even where people pretend that it does not exist. . . every state is founded on violence and cannot maintain itself save by and through violence. . . . Everywhere we turn we find society riddled with violence. Violence is its natural condition, as Thomas Hobbes saw clearly.
Pacifists reject Hobbes's belief that the natural state of man is one of conflict, but in general hold his belief that governments are formed to protect people from their own selfishness and evil. And how do they do that? Rev. Sensing:
Ellul disagrees with the classic distinction between violence and force: it's lawyers who have invented the idea that when the state uses coercion, even brutally, it is exercising "force" and that only individuals or nongovernmental groups use violence. All states are established by violence. A government stays in power by violence or its threat and the threat is meaningless unless it can be and is employed.

The fact is that society depends on violence or its threat simply to exist. That's why there are police departments in every city. But there is no moral difference between the homeowner who protects his life or property with a gun and one who does not but summons a police officer. The police use violence or its threat to protect the law-abiding. The unarmed homeowner has merely "contracted out" his use of violence.

If using violence is sinful, the blunt reality is that there are no sin-free choices.
Note that critical point: "...it's lawyers who have invented the idea that when the state uses coercion, even brutally, it is exercising "force" and that only individuals or nongovernmental groups use violence." And that is, in my opinion, an insidious form of self-deception, because it draws a moral difference between a citizen who defends himself, and one who does not but instead summons a police officer.

This is a recent philosophical change. When Sir Robert Peel formed London's Metropolitan Police Force - the first of its kind in London - he set down his Nine Principles of policing:
The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.

The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions.

Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.

The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.

Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.

Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient.

Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.

The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.
Note Principle #7: "Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence."

Now look back at Principle #1. The prevention of crime and disorder is incumbent on every citizen in the interest of community welfare and existence. But when a society, step by slow deliberate step, deceives itself into believing that there is a moral difference between defending oneself and one's community and "contracting it out" to the State, then that society will lose the majority of its defenders and risk descent into chaos. The converse is also true - when there is no reliance on the State, you risk anarchy as well,
Discourage self-help, and loyal subjects become the slaves of ruffians. Over-stimulate self-assertion, and for the arbitrament of the Courts you substitute the decision of the sword or the revolver. - The Law of the Constitution, by A.V. Dicey (MacMillan, London 1885).
(Quotation found at Samizdata. I recommend you read the whole piece.)

The concept of pacifism as it pertains to crime is generally predicated on the concept that all life is of value, and that using violence to injure or kill in defense of mere property is disproportionate - the value of the material is much less than the value of the life of the person attempting to take the material. Surprise! I concur. The life of a human being is of greater value than, say, the contents of my wallet. But this ignores something more important - the fact that the contents of my wallet are the least things at risk. Because someone willing to threaten bodily injury or death in order to take my wallet violates the tenets of the society in which both of us live. He puts in fear not only me, but the entire society. He has proffered a new social contract - "Give me what I want, and I won't hurt you."

The pacifist culture tells us that we should not resist, that we should call the authorities who are empowered to deal with social miscreants. At most, we should respond (as the British are required) proportionally. Yet a proportional response requires us, the defenders, to read the mind of the assailant. If he holds a knife, are we to ask "Do you actually intend to use the knife, and if so is your intent simply to wound or would you be intending a killing blow?" A proportional response requires the defender to reason cogently in a situation wherein our lives, or at least our health may be at risk. The advantage belongs to the attacker, and that is a recipe for social disaster.

To prevent that social disaster, the new social contract offered by the criminal should be understood by all parties to be: "Whatever it is I want, I have decided that it is worth risking my life for." And we, the potential victims, should be as dangerous as possible.

So long as a sufficient number of us are, the rest of society will enjoy the benefit of our protection. When there are too few of us, or when those of us who are willing to resist are restricted by law from doing so, there remain only two options: suffer the onslaught of criminals, or increase the police forces to overly burdensome levels. With the second option, assuming that a sufficient level is attained to reduce crime, the officers of the State required to accomplish that task will not then be reduced, they will be reassigned to other tasks, and a de facto police state will exist.

Those are the choices. It seems apparent which Britain has decided on
http://smallestminority.blogspot.com[/URL]

This guy is good. I check him out almost every day.
LR

Antlurz
June 8, 2004, 01:36 AM
Unfortunately, a proportional response, by it's very definition requires you NOT to "win" or to "defeat" your attacker, but merely to MATCH his moves. All the gobbledygook aside, What good is a Mexican standoff when your opponent may want to kill you?

Ron

TarpleyG
June 8, 2004, 11:28 AM
It would be an interesting laboratory experiment to allow folks to pick up arms again and highly publicize it. I think the results would speak for themselves. Although, this is the real world an this is England we are talking about so it will never happen.

Greg

erbo_CO
June 8, 2004, 10:00 PM
Victims of crime risk imprisonment for defending oneself. Fending off robbers in one’s home with toy pistols will get one charged by the police; killing an assailant results in a life sentence, while if one manages to knock an attacker down, you must not hit him again or you risk being charged with assault...
So what are you supposed to use against a bad guy in England? Harsh language?

Or will they nail you for that, too? Mustn't hurt the poor widdle robber's feelings, now... :fire:

I think England is pretty securely on my "must-miss" list at this point.

sturmruger
June 8, 2004, 10:35 PM
After reading a story like that it makes Cali seem like Montana!! Those poor people are nothing but slaves of the Goverment. They are not allowed even the most basic right to protect themselves!!!! :fire: :cuss:

They are all so brainwashed that they are all proud of how little guns they have! I hope we never get that bad here in the US.

Antlurz
June 8, 2004, 11:37 PM
Those poor people are nothing but slaves of the Goverment.

..and probably run on three "D" cells.

Ron

Dave R
June 9, 2004, 12:42 AM
Sounds like they are approaching the point where criminals have more rights than their victims. A very dangerous situation.

CGofMP
June 9, 2004, 02:58 AM
Those poor people are nothing but slaves of the Goverment.


It only took the rest of us +-225 years to discover what John Adams and the rest of our forefathers knew.


Sadly we are too stupid to see that is exactly what we too are becoming.


With the restrictions, taxes, and usurpation of our own natural rights, it is my opinion that even the most English-Leaning Torry in the 13 states would be rolling in his grave wonderign why we do not throw off (if only by a simple bloodless election) the opression that we have incrementally shackled ourselves with.


Charles

RevDisk
June 9, 2004, 03:02 AM
A while ago, a British gentleman meantioned "Americans are deeply, deeply suspicious of authority in general and government authority in particular in a manner and degree that people from other countries often find borderline pathological." (Direct quote, so funny I had to write it down.)

The responces from the Americans?

"Damn right!"
"Thanks for the compliment!"
"Yeppers!"


Mind you, the Brits today are decendents of people we fought (and killed) in order to be free of foreign occupation. Don't forget that.

agricola
June 9, 2004, 04:52 AM
yawn

murder, rape and serious assault (ie what would be a GBH/GBH W/I) are higher in the US than the UK, both in terms of numbers and rates.

British Police are not "routinely armed".

Killing assailants does not result in "a life sentence" - the three cases I suspect Malcolm refers to were clearly not done in self defence.

There is also no restriction on the right of self defence (aside from that the force used must be reasonable).

atek3
June 9, 2004, 05:22 AM
the tony martin case wasn't self defense?:confused:

atek3

agricola
June 9, 2004, 05:37 AM
no, it wasnt.

he tried to claim self defence, but that was clearly nonsense (as the jury and the appeals court found).

La Pistoletta
June 9, 2004, 06:01 AM
If he wouldn't have been attacked, he would never have defended himself. You ask for more and you get more. Too bad for the poor little criminal, he could've been given a warning, right?

agricola
June 9, 2004, 06:36 AM
i) he didnt defend himself

ii) he wasnt attacked - his home was broken into

Iain
June 9, 2004, 07:07 AM
The Martin case is a bad example all around. It really seems to polarise people, leading to accusations of 'you don't believe in self-defense' or 'you'd kill a man for a stereo?'

The reason it is a bad example is because it is an extreme. I'd be willing to bet that if Martin was an American there would be quite a few states who would have convicted under those circumstances. Whether or not he should have gone to jail is a different issue.

As Ag has pointed out, instances of self defense do happen here and people do not go to jail for them.

I worry about the inclination of some to believe the worst about Britain and criticise when not in possession of the full facts - does anyone remember the Manchester case recently? Try this thread (http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=72745&perpage=25&highlight=manchester%20sword&pagenumber=3) for size - lot of people screaming about how the right to self-defence is denied Brits, then it turns out their 'hero' was a drug dealer who stabbed a man in the back in the street.

Antlurz
June 9, 2004, 11:39 AM
I worry about the inclination of some to believe the worst about Britain and criticise when not in possession of the full facts

Wow... talk about how the shoe fits on the wrong foot....

Britian might remember that when telling and explaining to us everything about our politics and the people we vote into office.

Ron

boofus
June 9, 2004, 01:39 PM
http://webs.tconline.net/jasonk/jignig/comicalali.jpg
There is no crime in Britain. It is a lie of the American satans.
I have seen no violent criminals here.
All the criminals commit suicide in the countryside.
No one is a victim of crime here.

sch40
June 12, 2004, 05:52 PM
HA!

I love it. That information minister joke still gets me.

OF
June 12, 2004, 06:09 PM
There is also no restriction on the right of self defence (aside from that the force used must be reasonable).No restriction (!). You must mean other than the fact that you are not allowed access to even the most modest self-defense utilities.


A question: Say, for instance, I was a UK subject and I wanted to prepare myself for the possibility that I may be assaulted. I would like to take some steps to prepare for my own defense. What items and training would I have available to me that I could carry strictly for the purpose of exercising my 'right to defend myself' (which is repected and in full force in the UK, don't you know)?

- Gabe

agricola
June 12, 2004, 06:36 PM
GRD,

Its a question you know the answer to:

public carriage of any weapon is forbidden here (though of course this does not apply in private, so in essence on private premises you could be as tooled up as you wish). firearms are covered separately, but you can still obtain shotguns and rifles if you wish, by showing good reason for having them (being a member of a gun club is "good reason").

if by "training" you mean the martial arts, then there are no restrictions to what training you could have, even weapons training, fighting with sticks etc.

even if you did carry a weapon in defiance of the law, then (despite its illegality) the use of it in self defence would not be "illegal" (ie: negating the self defence aspect).

as St Johns says, it is worrying the level of ignorance and bias that appears whenever the UK is mentioned here. As evidence (if any were needed), check these two threads:

sickening anti-gun media harm the cause by lies!

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=86238

heartening pro-gun media further the cause by lies!

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=86472

OF
June 12, 2004, 10:34 PM
...public carriage of any weapon is forbidden here My point is only that your statement above contradicts your statement below.There is also no restriction on the right of self defence (aside from that the force used must be reasonable).If you cannot arm yourself in any meaningful way your right to self-defence is indeed restricted.

We've been up and down this road a million times, Ag. Suffice it to say, Americans on the whole see things differently from our British cousins, especially as it relates to freedom and rights. We may get alot of the particulars incorrect from a biased media, or just from our own attempts to make things black-and-white, but the meat of it is on the mark: the right of self-defense in Britain is severely restricted and in danger of being extinguished.

Denial of the means to exercise a right is denial of the right. Wouldn't you consider your right to vote 'restricted' if all the polling places were closed by gov't order? If the only realistic vehicle a person would have to exercise their inalienable right to defend themselves from attack would be to carry a weapon of some sort, and they are denied the ability to carry said weapon, they are very clearly restricted in their right to self defense.

You have every right to point out innacuracies in our assaults on Britain (and I am glad you do), but to state that the right of self defense is not restricted in the UK is demonstrably false. It undermines your credibility to continue to insist it is so when it is not.

- Gabe

telomerase
June 12, 2004, 10:56 PM
>ii) he wasnt attacked - his home was broken into

Oh, that's all right then. We should never assume that there is any chance that someone might wish us harm just because they are breaking into our house. (Note to home invaders, soccer hooligans, etc.: this is sarcasm. Home invasion may be socially acceptable in London, but not in the wilds of Dallas.)

telomerase
June 12, 2004, 10:56 PM

AZRickD
June 13, 2004, 12:29 AM
In Arizona, if someone breaks into my house, I get the benefit of the doubt.

Rick

agricola
June 13, 2004, 04:59 AM
GRD,

If you cannot arm yourself in any meaningful way your right to self-defence is indeed restricted.

would you like to show us a case where the carriage of an illegally held weapon removes the aspect of self-defence?

R32
June 13, 2004, 06:58 AM
Agricola,
Let me get this straight. You are saying the right to self defense is not restricted, because one can still illegally carry a weapon and defend themselves with that illegal weapon?? One other quick question :) , after using your illegal weapon for self defense, wouldn't you then be prosecuted for carrying that illegal weapon??

agricola
June 13, 2004, 07:36 AM
R32,

Carrying of weapons on the off-chance is not self defence, however much you would like it to be.

telomerase,

I think you'll find that those burglars were running away from Martin when he shot them, which is why he was convicted.

R32
June 13, 2004, 07:48 AM
Great! I just need to get those criminals schedules so I know when to carry my illegal weapon (do they have a website??). Seriously though, the point GRD was making is that NOT being able to carry a weapon on the "off-chance" of being assaulted DOES constitute a major restriction on ones right to self defense. Obviously on this point you disagree though. I was always taught as a child "better safe then sorry" which is why I choose to protect myself on the "off-chance" something will happen.

agricola
June 13, 2004, 07:54 AM
R32,

Seriously though, the point GRD was making is that NOT being able to carry a weapon on the "off-chance" of being assaulted DOES constitute a major restriction on ones right to self defense.

in that case, not being able to kill everyone you see on the street constitutes a major restriction on the right to self defence, because you cant read minds and you dont know whether or not they'll harm you.

R32
June 13, 2004, 08:00 AM
Would you really compare being able to carry a concealed weapon for self-defense, the same as killing everyone you see?? That's quite a stretch don't you think?

agricola
June 13, 2004, 08:08 AM
R32,

no, because both carrying a weapon, and the more extreme method, are ways in which self-defence can be made easier, and made more effective - but they are not part of self defence.

R32
June 13, 2004, 08:19 AM
If I may use my own extreme example: Making everyone wear hand-cuffs (except criminals) wouldn't necessarily prevent someone from defending themselves, but it would sure be hard, wouldn't you agree? The same logic applies when dealing with concealed weapons, the criminals who you would need to defend yourself against already have weapons, so how would one expect to have any sort of luck defending themselves if they are not even able to properly equip themselves to deal with such a situation (ignoring the fact that most assaults take place against a weaker opponent, therefore needing even more help to properly defend themselves). This is why GRD and others make the point that: making concealed weapons illegal to carry, seriously hurts ones right to self-defense.

agricola
June 13, 2004, 08:43 AM
R32,

thats the thing though - in the UK at least, the evidence is that most criminals do not habitually carry weapons - our armed robbery ratio (viewed against the overall) is 10%, whereas the same ratio in the US is greater than 50%.

secondly i'd like to see the evidence that "most assaults take place against weaker opponents", because, again, the evidence over here is that most assaults are reported by young men (the suspects being other young men).

R32
June 13, 2004, 09:01 AM
That's the problem with statistics though, they often make things seem better (or worse) then they really are. I bet those 10% that got robbed by criminals using weapons didn't feel any better just because 90% of criminals don't use weapons. Personally I don't like to play the odds.
I have to admit on my second point I don't have the facts to back that up, so I shouldn't have said it. What I was thinking about at the time though was women being attacked (rape, muggings, ect) by physically stronger men. That scenario is probably not the majority though, so I should not have said "most assaults".

AZRickD
June 13, 2004, 11:59 AM
Utitlitarian Theory is the hallmark of socialism. No, thanks.

in that case, not being able to kill everyone you see on the street constitutes a major restriction on the right to self defence,
That's an unbelievably stupid (or is it just desperate) argument to use here in a forum where people understand that peacefully carrying a weapon for self defense is in no way related to the act of violating another's rights by randomly killing.

Either way, you should be ashamed for offer up such nonsense.

The true violation of rights is by the brit.gov who has taken the right to keep and bear key tools to fight not only crime, but thuggish Tyrants (such as brit.gov). As we all know, if you were to poll the thugs (criminals and criminals.gov) the vote would be overwhlemingly in favor of reducing the ability for peons to defend themselves with the proper tools for the job.

Rick

Antlurz
June 13, 2004, 12:16 PM
in that case, not being able to kill everyone you see on the street constitutes a major restriction on the right to self defence,

If that is the thought process of the average Brit, then I guess maybe your minders have a valid point.

Ron

grislyatoms
June 13, 2004, 12:23 PM
Here is what I am hearing, someone please correct me if I am mistaken.

In the UK, you can own a weapon of whatever sort (firearm, knife, club, whatever) but you cannot use it to defend yourself? And this is thought not to be a restriction on right to self defense?

Assuming the above is correct,

What if the UK govt. said that the people could own vehicles but were not allowed to drive them. (Essentially making them useless as they have done with weapons)

Using the same logic, would this be considered a restriction?

AZRickD
June 13, 2004, 12:24 PM
I think AngriCola fancies himself as one of the "Minders."

How special.

Rick

OF
June 13, 2004, 12:49 PM
would you like to show us a case where the carriage of an illegally held weapon removes the aspect of self-defence?Irrelevant to the point, and you know it. We're discussing the restriction or lack thereof of the right of an individual to defend him or herself from crime. The 'restrictor' is the gov't, the 'restrictee' is the subject (individual). If you have to break the law to exercise your right to defend yourself, your right has been restricted by the gov't. Of course you can break the law to exercise your right, but the simple fact that you have to do so proves the point.Carrying of weapons on the off-chance is not self defence, however much you would like it to be. because both carrying a weapon, and the more extreme method, are ways in which self-defence can be made easier, and made more effective - but they are not part of self defence.Not easier, Ag, but in many many circumstances, possible. This may be one of those Brit-US semantic misunderstandings or it may just be your attempt to skirt the issue, either way, we need to clear this up: denial of the means is denial of the right. I know you read my voting analogy earlier: if the polling places are closed, your right to vote is restrited is it not?. Carrying a weapon on the off-chance is inextricably linked to the right of self-defence. The right is an individual right, Ag. Not some social group-right that can be denied or allowed to the individual at the will of the gov't based on the numbers the home office comes up with for crime stats.

Carrying a weapon causes no harm. Killing everyone you see, as per your absurd comparison, bears absolutely no connection to carrying a weapon to defend yourself (I can't even believe we are discussing this). I carry a gun every day, Ag, as do large (large) numbers of the people you are talking with here. Your 'comparison' is extremely insulting, to a point I can't even describe. To us it's as if you'd said that being German is only a matter of degree from being a Nazi and stuffing people into ovens. It's that offensive. I hope when you made that comparison you did not, and I hope that now you do, understand that. secondly i'd like to see the evidence that "most assaults take place against weaker opponents", because, again, the evidence over here is that most assaults are reported by young men (the suspects being other young men).Another Brit-US communication breakdown. You look at the numbers and see that 'most' assaults are not against the weak, and then disregard the minority from your policy and decision-making process. We look at those numbers and see that some assaults are against the weak and are compelled to include them in our policy and decisions. You are willing to offer them up to the wolves on your road to the perfect society, I guess as long as there are 51% who find it 'perfect', that will do.

Here's the point: Allowing those weaker than yourself to defend themselves from you will not cause you any harm so long as you do not attack them. 'You' being either you, specifically, or the gov't.

Denying anyone the ability to defend themselves is unconscionable, especially those most vulnerable.

- Gabe

OF
June 13, 2004, 12:52 PM
PS: I want to look at this more closely:because both carrying a weapon, and the more extreme method, are ways in which self-defence can be made easier, and made more effective - but they are not part of self defence.Are we even on the same page as to what 'self-defense' means? Self-defense, as we're using the term, refers to a reaction to another's action. Just so we've got that clear.

agricola
June 13, 2004, 01:00 PM
GRD,

Youre committing the fallacy of assuming that the premise you hold - that self defence isnt really self defence unless you hold the means to do it effectively - is correct. It isnt, for the reasons below.

If that was the case, then surely the most effective method is to kill everyone else you come across walking down the street - since you cant predict which one of them (if any) would attack you. As you say, such a situation is absurd (that said, its no more absurd than the idea that RKBA permits the individual to bear nukes), but its logical if you accept that any restriction of "your right" to self defence cannot brook any interference.

Or are you saying that certain limitations can exist, just as long as you agree with them?

agricola
June 13, 2004, 01:02 PM
GRD,

Its quite clear. Defending yourself is just that, defending yourself. Carrying a weapon is a separate act designed to make defending yourself easier; it is not the same thing.

grislyatoms
June 13, 2004, 01:08 PM
Carrying a weapon is a separate act designed to make defending yourself easier; it is not the same thing.

But taking away your ability to carry a weapon restricts your ability to defend yourself. Isn't that clear?

OF
June 13, 2004, 01:15 PM
since you cant predict which one of them (if any) would attack youUntil they attack you, your actions against them are not self-defense, they are assault. Your comparison is irrelevant, completely. It has absolutely no bearing on this discussion. Self defense is a reaction to another's action. Attacking people because you think they might mean you harm is not self-defense. I don't know why you insist on using that as some kind of lynchpin to your argument, it's bizarre.any restriction of "your right" to self defence cannot brook any interference.More UK-US communication problems. Not only do we not share a definition of the term 'self-defense', we also don't share an understanding of the term 'right' (!). No wonder this conversation makes no sense.

I have a right to defend myself from harm. As does everyone else. If I attack them, they are within their rights to defend themselves from me. Them defending themselves from my attack is not them 'interfering' with my right of self-defense (!?). You seem like an intelligent guy, Ag. I am having a seriously hard time believeing that you see mass murder and self-defense as just a matter of degree...but you keep up with it nonetheless.Carrying a weapon is a separate act designed to make defending yourself easier; it is not the same thing.Not easier, Ag, possible. Again we have the example of the weak: I have a good friend, who shoots with us at our combat pistol club, in a wheelchair. Tell me that denying him the ability to carry even the most modest defensive weapon is not denying him the right to self-defense any moreso than denying someone the ability to travel to the polling place is not denying them the right to vote.

- Gabe

agricola
June 13, 2004, 02:06 PM
GRD,

So now public carriage of weapons gives people self defence? I dont think killing everyone in the street is acceptable, but it is the logical end to the idea that possessing weapons (or, more importantly, opposing restrictions on them) is a part of self-defence; it isnt (this isnt semantics - its fact)


Besides, what if your friend had no arms? No hands? What does he/she do then?

DesertEagle613
June 13, 2004, 02:48 PM
Here's an analogy which might be better suited to the discussion (I just thought of it, so there might be flaws. If so, please let me know):

A community has a sudden rash of violent fistfights, in which several people are quite badly injured. The government, in response, decrees that all residents must henceforth wear manacles to restrict their ability to attack each other. The manacles are chained together loosely enough to permit normal daily activity, but not typical fistfighting techniques.

The problem is that now if some enterprising hoodlum should cut his chains, no citizen will be able to fight him.

Has self-defense been restricted here?

AZRickD
June 13, 2004, 03:22 PM
Or, since the chains were designed to be long, so as to permit other activities, I predict that these same chains will be used for stranglings.

They'll have to be shortened, one link at a time until the serfs start acting right.

As Sam Adams said,If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace.

We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand
that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity
forget that ye were our countrymen.

Dang, that's appropriate.

Rick

agricola
June 13, 2004, 04:33 PM
DE,

er... no, though it does reinforce my point that we arent talking about self defence, but rather the ease with which it is performed.

Art Eatman
June 13, 2004, 05:13 PM
ag, I'm 70 years old come July 6th. I have some arthritis problems and a bad back. Plus, I've had a colonoscopy.

What this means is that some two or three unarmed but healthy young hoodlums would find me relatively helpless against them.

It is my belief that no government can morally deny me the right to remain unhospitalized. No government can morally deny me the means to maintain my present level of health.

Governments have the physical power to render me helpless to the point of my injury or death at the hands of hoodlums, but they no moral right to do so, no moral right to say that I should consider my life as thereby worthless.

Now, you may see all this in a different light. However, in the last thirty-seven years I think I've heard about every argument as to removal of my firearms that can be made. I've heard from the Pacifists, the Passivists, and those who would create total power over the citizenry by the State.

As usual, Shakespeare said it best, as to these arguments: "Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Art

DesertEagle613
June 13, 2004, 06:03 PM
Agricola,

Practically speaking, restricting the ease of performing an act is restricting the act. Our disagreement may well have to do with different historical traditions. Over here, for a long time civics tests were used to ensure that the black population could not register to vote. Yes, anyone who could pass the test was allowed to register, but the test was only administered to blacks.

The present situation is analogous. "The right to vote" equals "the right to defend yourself," "passing the test" apparently equals "becoming a nth-degree blackbelt in jujitsu," and "blacks" equal "anyone without a gun (i.e. anyone who must learn jujitsu to even have a hope of surviving a lethal encounter)."

I'm speaking broadly, but the point still stands. Does it matter that I have the theoretical right to self-defense if it is practically out of my reach?

This discussion is making me a bit nervous, since I'm traveling to London in a week and a half, and I'd enjoy knowing that the authorities actually have my welfare in mind. Unfortunately, it doesn't look that way.

AZRickD
June 13, 2004, 06:18 PM
Practically speaking, restricting the ease of performing an act is restricting the act.
Ah, yes. Too bad "shall not be impaired is nowhere to be found in the brit.gov ever-changing small-C constitution. Whatever the Parliament says, goes.

Art, between your bad joint and my bad back, I'd think a small troop of Girl Scouts, properly motivated, could give us a run for our money.

:D

Rick
Haplily on AngriCola's ingore list.

agricola
June 13, 2004, 06:45 PM
DE,

Practically speaking, restricting the ease of performing an act is restricting the act.

no, its just that - restricting the ease of performing an act.

the various voting analogies that people have been coming up with are (clearly) nowhere near (the closest would be saying to people that you couldnt take the train to vote, or something like that) an adequate comparison.

art,

i dont want to remove your firearms, what you do in your country is your business - but (and this is not aimed at you) kindly leave me to mine. Once again we see THR filled with badly written, ignorant pieces of "journalism" about the UK that are so easily dismantled (ie: can be done within two minutes at a keyboard) that you really wonder (a) how these people make money doing it and (b) why people believe it.

azrickd,

I think you flatter yourself.

iapetus
June 13, 2004, 06:52 PM
agricola
Senior Member

Registered: Dec 2002
Location:
Posts: 1119


GRD,

So now public carriage of weapons gives people self defence? I dont think killing everyone in the street is acceptable, but it is the logical end to the idea that possessing weapons (or, more importantly, opposing restrictions on them) is a part of self-defence; it isnt (this isnt semantics - its fact)


Does that mean the logical end of allowing people to study martial arts is that everyone goes around beating up everyone they see, just in case they were going to attack them?

agricola
June 13, 2004, 06:55 PM
iapetus,

please, thats the end of their little logical train, not mine. do try and keep up.

AZRickD
June 13, 2004, 07:00 PM
AngriCola, you promised me I was going to be added to your ignore list. You disappoint me.

iapetus:
Does that mean the logical end of allowing people to study martial arts
You're under the impression that AngriCola is of the mind to care. Don't think of this as needing to make AngriCola cry uncle under the weight of your logic. It would be like waiting for Fidel Castro to bow to the economic wisdom of Lou Dobbs (let alone, Milton Friedman).

All you really have to do is to give we here at THR some points of wisdom so we can debate those who think gun prohibition laws are good and use Angri's debate points without knowing how flawed they are. If they are not Authoritarians like Angri, you'll have some measure of success with them. Let's not kid ourselves that Angri has any say over anyone here.

The key is to know when Angri is backed into a corner and begins to howl at the moon. That is the time to disengage, knowing that Angri is out of anything even remotely resembling a rational argument, even for England, let alone for the US of A.

Hint: That point was many posts ago. :D

Rick
Cheese burgers await me.

OF
June 13, 2004, 07:16 PM
I'd forgotten why I quit debating rights and freedom issues with Ag. We just don't even talk to the same language. When this:I dont think killing everyone in the street is acceptable, but it is the logical end to the idea that possessing weapons (or, more importantly, opposing restrictions on them) is a part of self-defence; it isnt (this isnt semantics - its fact)is held up as logical, it's time to shake your head and move on.

The talking in circles is making me dizzy. If you feel like addressing any of the points that have been made here, Ag, be sure and let me know.

- Gabe

iapetus
June 13, 2004, 07:25 PM
Agricola:


GRD,

Youre committing the fallacy of assuming that the premise you hold - that self defence isnt really self defence unless you hold the means to do it effectively - is correct. It isnt, for the reasons below.



I can't speak for GRD, but:

I would say that for self defence to actually be "self defence", it has to be successful. Otherwise it is just "attempted self defence".

If someone can only defend them selves against a certain attack if they are armed, then preventing them from being armed doesn't make self defence harder, it makes it imposible.

So preventing them from being armed means they cannot defend themselves.

So even if the law still says "You may defend yourself", in effect it prevents them from doing so.

P95Carry
June 13, 2004, 07:49 PM
Indeed - a lot of going in circles .. in fact Iapetus has just added what really is the case, as have others. And, I think I share Gabe's dizziness also!

I really fail to see how having a right of self defence ... as all people should by basic right (whether you consider it ''God given'' or not) ... should not be seen as an innate right across the board.

Therefore, without means to excercize this right (being ''permitted (sic) ) it is not far off a denial of that right.

It has to be born in mind that .... carrying of a firearm (weapon) for self (and family )protection does NOT lead to blood running in streets and monstrous homicide figures ... these features are what criminals get up to. It is against the criminal's potential for aggressive and threatening behavior - often with lethal force at their disposal ... that some half ways decent means of response is needed. In a huge majority of cases even presentation of a firearm stops the problem cos even bad guys have no wish to get shot.

To achieve this ''de-escalation'' .. requires means .... having no means will not. It is maybe something we can label ''victim impotence''. Something Ag' seems to prefer.

I used to be a Brit .. ( used to be!!! )..... and find much of the attitudes toward people defending themselves desultory .. no matter what ''theory'' seems to suggest. People there are for the most part AFRAID to envisage a situation where they need to defend themselves. In part because they still have this feeling that the victim almost always seems to come out smelling of roses ... AND .. they are not allowed the tools for defence ... other than in the home.

Bag snatches, muggings, rapes .. occur in streets and dark places .... places where there will not usually be a cop to help .... where it is necessary and desirable for the potential victim remain just that .. potential .... no more.

Sorry - rambling ... I doubt there will be agreement over this great divide, judging by the thread thus far, so Ag' ... it might be there will have to simply be an agreement to disagree.!

Moparmike
June 13, 2004, 08:38 PM
Ag, before we continue this migrane-inducing thread, please answer a couple of questions I have:

How does my carrying of an inanimate object (a firearm, a knife) to be used only when attacked infringe upon anyone else's rights? How is it different from the inanimate object I carry concealed to open my car and house doors? Neither will hurt anyone.


Do you ban keys in the UK to prevent cars from being "keyed?" Its for the paint jobs, you know.:scrutiny:

atek3
June 13, 2004, 10:06 PM
Are all brits insane? (NB: thousands of brits look at this thread saying to themselves "Are all yanks insane?") :evil:

atek3 <---- Insane American who believes carrying weapons is an important part of self-defense

AZRickD
June 13, 2004, 10:13 PM
is held up as logical, it's time to shake your head and move on.
Ya think? :D

Rick

Stand_Watie
June 14, 2004, 02:08 AM
I think the whole problem here is simply radically different notions of what a right to "self defense" actually is.

By and large it appears the members of this board include the right to carry with them the means of self defense as part of the right, with several notable exceptions - I don't believe all the arguing in the world is going to change the mind of the exceptions - they simply hold a radically different worldview towards private carriage of weapons.

I saw a UK tv show called "Thin blue line" recently, that is sort of a parody of an English police department (kind of like 'Reno 911' I guess), where the police inspector in charge of issuing shotgun permits refused to issue them, and compared owning a weapon to an ant owning an aardvark. You can't argue with people like that.

So when someone says "we do too have the right to self defense" it's best to remember that he doesn't mean the same thing by self defense that you do.

Perhaps there is a community of people somewhere, who believe that the absolute maximum "self defense" you may use against lethal assault is harsh language or to run away or to summon the police. These people might argue until they are blue in the face that they indeed "do have the right to self defense" because they are allowed to do these three things, but that any private citizen using any force whatsoever against an assailant could logically be extended to indiscriminate murder.

Now, does our hypothetical ultimate pacificist society have the right of self-defense? They certainly have less of it than the English, but I doubt if you'd be able to convince them of that.

Stand_Watie
June 14, 2004, 02:13 AM
Are all brits insane? (NB: thousands of brits look at this thread saying to themselves "Are all yanks insane?")

We've got at least one on this very thread arguing the pro-RKBA viewpoint it looks like to me.

agricola
June 14, 2004, 03:08 AM
azrickd,

Its nice to know that your debating "skills" remain in the playground. made up any more stories for KABA yet?

GRD,

I have been addressing the issues - you are the one that has held RKBA as being part of self-defence (if you can find a legal definition of self defence as including RKBA, please share it with us), which is clearly wrong.

Or is it, as I have been saying all along, something that is only linked to self defence, not self defence itself?

iapetus,

no, because there are always going to be some cases where self defence is never going to be possible. do you therefore legislate for the SHTF scenario, or for the person who cannot defend themselves due to disability?

Stand_Watie
June 14, 2004, 04:18 AM
you are the one that has held RKBA as being part of self-defence (if you can find a legal definition of self defence as including RKBA, please share it with us), which is clearly wrong

http://www1.law.ucla.edu/%7Evolokh/beararms/statecon.htm

Alabama: That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Art. I, § 26 (enacted 1819, art. I, § 23, with "defence" in place of "defense," spelling changed 1901).

Alaska: A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State. Art. I, § 19 (first sentence enacted 1959, second sentence added 1994).

Arizona: The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men. Art. II, § 26 (enacted 1912).

Arkansas: The citizens of this State shall have the right to keep and bear arms for their common defense. Art. II, § 5 (enacted 1868, art. I, § 5).
1836: "That the free white men of this State shall have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence." Art. II, § 21.

Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Art. I, § 15 (enacted 1818, art. I, § 17). The original 1818 text came from the Mississippi Constitution of 1817.

Delaware: A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use. Art. I, § 20 (enacted 1987).

Florida: (a) The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law.

Georgia: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne. Art. I, § 1, ¶ VIII (enacted 1877, art. I, § XXII).
1865: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Art. I, § 4.
1868: "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free people, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but the general assembly shall have power to prescribe by law the manner in which arms may be borne." Art. I, § 14.

Hawaii: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Art. I, § 17 (enacted 1959).

Idaho: The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged; but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to govern the carrying of weapons concealed on the person nor prevent passage of legislation providing minimum sentences for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm, nor prevent the passage of legislation providing penalties for the possession of firearms by a convicted felon, nor prevent the passage of any legislation punishing the use of a firearm. No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony. Art. I, § 11 (enacted 1978).
1889: "The people have the right to bear arms for their security and defense; but the Legislature shall regulate the exercise of this right by law." Art. I, § 11.

Illinois: Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Art. I, § 22 (enacted 1970).

Indiana: The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State. Art. I, § 32 (enacted 1851, art. I, § 32).
1816: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State, and that the military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power. Art. I, § 20.

Iowa: No provision.

Kansas: The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power. Bill of Rights, § 4 (enacted 1859, art. I, § 4).

Kentucky: All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned:
First: The right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties. . . .
Seventh: The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons. § 1 (enacted 1891).
1792: "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." Art. XII, § 23.
1799: "That the rights of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." Art. X, § 23.
1850: "That the rights of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned; but the General Assembly may pass laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed arms." Art. XIII, § 25.

Louisiana: The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person. Art. I, § 11 (enacted 1974).
1879: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged. This shall not prevent the passage of laws to punish those who carry weapons concealed." Art. 3.

Maine: Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned. Art. I, § 16 (enacted 1987, after a collective-rights interpretation of the original provision).
1819: "Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence; and this right shall never be questioned." Art. I, § 16.

Maryland: No provision.

Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it. Pt. 1, art. 17 (enacted 1780).

Michigan: Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state. Art. I, § 6 (enacted 1963).
1835: "Every person has a right to bear arms for the defence of himself and the State." Art. I, § 13.
1850: "Every person has a right to bear arms for the defense of himself and the state." Art. XVIII, § 7.


Minnesota: No provision.

Mississippi: The right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but the legislature may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons. Art. III, § 12 (enacted 1890, art. 3, § 12).
1817: "Every citizen has a right to bear arms, in defence of himself and the State." Art. I, § 23.
1832: "Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defence of himself and of the State." Art. I, § 23.
1868: "All persons shall have a right to keep and bear arms for their defence." Art. I, § 15.

Missouri: That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons. Art. I, § 23 (enacted 1945).
1820: "That the people have the right peaceably to assemble for their common good, and to apply to those vested with the powers of government for redress of grievances by petition or remonstrance; and that their right to bear arms in defence of themselves and of the State cannot be questioned." Art. XIII, § 3.
1865: Same as above, but with "the lawful authority of the State" instead of "the State." Art. I, § 8.
1875: "That the right of no citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereto legally summoned, shall be called into question; but nothing herein contained is intended to justify the practice of wearing concealed weapons." Art. II, § 17.

Montana: The right of any person to keep or bear arms in defense of his own home, person, and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. Art. II, § 12 (enacted 1889).

Nebraska: All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights; among these are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the right to keep and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use, and all other lawful purposes, and such rights shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof. To secure these rights, and the protection of property, governments are instituted among people, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Art. I, § 1 (right to keep and bear arms enacted 1988).

Nevada: Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes. Art. I, § 11(1) (enacted 1982).

New Hampshire: All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state. Pt. 1, art. 2-a (enacted 1982).

New Jersey: No provision.

New Mexico: No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms. Art. II, § 6 (first sentence enacted in 1971, second sentence added 1986).
1912: "The people have the right to bear arms for their security and defense, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons." Art. II, § 6.

New York: No provision.

North Carolina: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained, and the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice. Art. 1, § 30 (enacted 1971).
1776: "That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." Bill of Rights, § XVII.
1868: "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up, and the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." Art. I, § 24.
1875: Same as 1868, but added "Nothing herein contained shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the Legislature from enacting penal statutes against said practice."

North Dakota: All individuals are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation; pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness; and to keep and bear arms for the defense of their person, family, property, and the state, and for lawful hunting, recreational, and other lawful purposes, which shall not be infringed. Art. I, § 1 (right to keep and bear arms enacted 1984).

Ohio: The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power. Art. I, § 4 (enacted 1851).
1802: "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State; and as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be kept up, and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to the civil power." Art. VIII, § 20.

Oklahoma: The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons. Art. II, § 26 (enacted 1907).

Oregon: The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.] Art. I, § 27 (enacted 1857, art. I, § 28).

Pennsylvania: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. Art. 1, § 21 (enacted 1790, art. IX, § 21).
1776: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power. Declaration of Rights, cl. XIII.

Rhode Island: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Art. I, § 22 (enacted 1842).

South Carolina: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. As, in times of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained without the consent of the General Assembly. The military power of the State shall always be held in subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it. Art. 1, § 20 (enacted 1895).
1868: "The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence. As, in times of peace . . . ." Art. I, § 28.

South Dakota: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be denied. Art. VI, § 24 (enacted 1889).

Tennessee: That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime. Art. I, § 26 (enacted 1870).
1796: "That the freemen of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence." Art. XI, § 26.
1834: "That the free white men of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence." Art. I, § 26.

Texas: Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime. Art. I, § 23 (enacted 1876).
1836: "Every citizen shall have the right to bear arms in defence of himself and the republic. The military shall at all times and in all cases be subordinate to the civil power." Declaration of Rights, cl. 14.
1845: "Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in lawful defence of himself or the State." Art. I, § 13.
1868: "Every person shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defence of himself or the State, under such regulations as the legislature may prescribe." Art. I, § 13.

Utah: The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as for other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall prevent the legislature from defining the lawful use of arms. Art. I, § 6 (enacted 1984).
1896: "The people have the right to bear arms for their security and defense, but the legislature may regulate the exercise of this right by law."

Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power. Ch. I, art. 16 (enacted 1777, ch. I, art. 15).

Virginia: That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Art. I, § 13 (enacted 1776 without explicit right to keep and bear arms; "therefore, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" added in 1971).

Washington: The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men. Art. I, § 24 (enacted 1889).

West Virginia: A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, and for lawful hunting and recreational use. Art. III, § 22 (enacted 1986).

Wisconsin: The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose. Art. I, § 25 (enacted 1998).

Wyoming: The right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the state shall not be denied. Art. I, § 24 (enacted 1889).

OF
June 14, 2004, 11:15 AM
Or is it, as I have been saying all along, something that is only linked to self defence, not self defence itself?This is insane. And forget RKBA. We're not even close to discussing firearms. Long way to go before we get there, we're only talking about the basic exercise of the right to defend oneself, at the most introductory level: the carriage of any weapon, no matter how modest. Please elaborate on how one is to defend oneself without any means to do so?!.

OK, let's define self-defense. I was under the impression that it had something to do with defending yourself from the assaults of another. What would your definition be, Ag? I'm interested to hear a definition of self-defense that manages to include your repeated statements that the right to self-defense is full and intact in the UK, even though the gov't prohibits it's subjects from carrying even the most rudimentary self-defense tools. Is your definition of self-defense defending oneself from attack without tools?

Or is it all just a semantic slight-of-hand? Self-defense is the actual act of attempting to defend yourself from attack, and the fact that you will have no chance of success is irrelevant, and allows people like yourself to continue to parrot "The right of self-defense is intact!", because you see, the tools required for self defense are not actually the act of 'self-defense', just linked to it, so we can deny you the tools and still feel good about ourselves when we tell you that your right to self defense is uninfringed.the various voting analogies that people have been coming up with are (clearly) nowhere near (the closest would be saying to people that you couldnt take the train to vote, or something like that) an adequate comparison.I'd also like to continue with this. Denying people any and all tools to defend themselves would not be akin to denying people one method of transportation to the polls, but all methods. The polling place is there, and it's open, but you are prohibited from travelling to it by any means. Have fun voting! You see, Ag, transporting yourself to the polling place is not part of the right to vote. It's only linked to voting. Two completely different things. So when I deny you the ability to get to the polling place, oh you could still break the law and travel there illegally - even more evidence that your right to vote is not impaired! - I have not actually infringed on your right to vote one bit! You can still pull the lever, and your vote will still be counted! How do you get there? Well, your right to vote is intact, how you get there is irrelevant, it's only linked to your right, you see. Tough luck that.

- Gabe

iapetus
June 14, 2004, 11:56 AM
agricola:

iapetus,

no, because there are always going to be some cases where self defence is never going to be possible. do you therefore legislate for the SHTF scenario, or for the person who cannot defend themselves due to disability?


If you (or your friend/family member/community/etc) is attacked, there are three possible situations:

1) You can successfully defend yourself/them without the use of weapons.

2) You can successfully defend yourself/them if you use a weapon, but cannot do so if you are unarmed.

3) You cannot successfully defend yourself/them, even if you are armed.


Now, a law banning the possession of weapons will make little difference in cases 1 and 3.

But in case 2, a law banning the possession of weapons will prevent anyone (who obeys that law) from successfully defending themselves.

Antlurz
June 14, 2004, 01:29 PM
Maybe the British take on it is acceptable after all. As long as they have soccer games, they will have out of control people, and those people must be controlled at all costs. I have little doubt that firearms would enter into such a target rich environment.

Ron

http://au.news.yahoo.com/040614/15/pfyk.html

agricola
June 14, 2004, 01:56 PM
GRD,

Your analogies seem to agree more with my standpoint than yours.

Please remember:

i) we forbid the carriage of weapons in public. In private premises, especially the home, you can bear what you like (in terms of melee weapons);

ii) self defence is "full and intact" in the UK, as repeated cases have shown. Of course, since - by being American - you are always right (one recalls St. Johns sig), I appreciate I am on shaky ground (only coming from this country, and working within its criminal justice system, oh and not basing my theory on articles whose truth quotient is rather on the low side).

You also show your argument well by totally redefining the definition of "self defence" (like stand watie, who has similarly confused RKBA with self defence) in order to justify your theory (for which you have presented no evidence. Here is a good definition of what English law terms "self defence" as:

http://www.free-definition.com/Self-defence-law.html

http://www.spr-consilio.com/Forum/app_masteradl.cfm?PostNum=168&action=detail

OF
June 14, 2004, 07:31 PM
Your analogies seem to agree more with my standpoint than yours.I must be missing something, I fail to see how this is the case (obviously, or I wouldn't be using the analogies), yet you refuse to enlighten me. Have at the voting analogy, if you want. That's the only one I've proposed.i) we forbid the carriage of weapons in public. In private premises, especially the home, you can bear what you like (in terms of melee weapons);Well, I guess that settles that! Just don't leave your home and everything is AOK. But if a weapon is not necessary for self-defense, why even allow people to carry them in private? Couldn't you remove all the weapons from the private residences also and still tell people their right to self defense is intact? That way all those people, who are now only disarmed in public, could reap the benefits of being disarmed in private as well. Quite an injustice to let them have those melee weapons in private...every day more damage is done.Of course, since - by being American - you are always right (one recalls St. Johns sig), I am not St. John, nor have I ever once pretended to be 'always right'. You can lose the uncalled-for snide little barbs.I appreciate I am on shaky ground (only coming from this country, and working within its criminal justice system, oh and not basing my theory on articles whose truth quotient is rather on the low side). I'm not debating what is in the UK. You know how it is. I am not debating from any 'articles' that may or may not be truthful. I have quoted no authors and cited no references. So what is your point, exactly?You also show your argument well by totally redefining the definition of "self defence" So my definition, simply 'defending oneself from attack' is a fabrication of my own mind? Self-defense means something else? Your links seem to be a pretty good definition, and I would object only to the 'proportionality' clauses.in order to justify your theory (for which you have presented no evidence. My theory. The question is: is the right to self-defense restricted in the UK. Pretty simple. You have provided us with a data point: you may not carry a weapon in the UK (outside of your home). We postulate that it is not possible to defend yourself in the absence of a weapon. Are we all following along so far? I think this is where we start to disagree...you believe that you don't need a weapon to defend yourself, or is it that 'defending yourself' is an act and only the success of that act depends on the weapon. Therefore allowing self-defense, but not the weapon, means that the right to self-defense is intact?

Drop the RKBA angle. I'm not talking about guns. I'm having a hard time understanding how denying a subject the ability to carry even the most modest weapon can be reconciled with "self defence is "full and intact" in the UK". But then I'm just a dumb American, as you pointed out.

What evidence is it you are looking for to support the theory that in many cases you can't defend yourself without the proper weapon? I'd think it would be pretty obvious and not requiring an extensive case history to see that if you are attacked, your chance of successfully defending yourself is increased, or simply made possible at all, by the presence of the appropriate tool in your hand.

But this is back to the top of the circle again isn't it. And my migraine is kicking in.

Tell you what, do me a favor...please. You're going to have to explain this to me like I'm a child. I am not following your argument. Not at all. It, literally, makes no sense to me. And I know you're not an idiot, and I don't think I'm an idiot, so there must be something there that I'm missing. Just walk me through it, one step at a time, defining terms clearly as you go.

The big question: Is the right to self-defense infringed in the UK?

Part 1 of the crap I don't understand that I'd like you to explain to me: How is it possible to defend oneself from criminal assault in the absence of even the most rudimentary weapon? For the sake of argument, lets assume a little old lady is the victim a young armed thug is the attacker.

Go slow.

- Gabe

Moparmike
June 14, 2004, 07:41 PM
England
The act of protection must fulfill a number of conditions in order to be lawful. The defendant must believe, rightly or wrongly, that the attack is imminent. While a pre-emptive blow is lawful the time factor is also important, if there is an opportunity to retreat or to obtain protection from the police the defendant should do so - demonstrating an intention to avoid violence. However the defendant is not obliged to leave a particular location even if forewarned of the arrival of an assailant. Ok, so if the cop is standing around the corner and you know it, get him. Fine, its reasonable.

The other key factor is reasonableness - the defendants response must be necessary and in proportion to the nature of the attack.Umm, this I dont understand. It is my life I am protecting, and I will be damned if I am going to give my assailant a "sporting chance" to hurt me by playing fair. The harm inflicted on the assailant must not exceed the harm being avoided by the defendant.So in this case, my use of an ASP or knife would probably be legit, because of the larger proportion of knife/club crimes compared to gun crime. Actually, this "equal harm" clause is perfectly fine. The criminal probably wants to incapacitate me for a while so he can take my cash or whatever, so I am going to "defend until the threat is stopped" as well. Lots of people do this with any means of defense, like clubs, knifes, and guns. However like imminency the nature of the defence rests on the defendant's belief, whether their actions were in proportion to the circumstances they believed existed.

It has been argued, with some force, that the above qualifications contain a gender-bias. If the attacked party is considerably weaker than the assailant then to offer an immediate response would be effective in only encouraging greater harm to be inflicted upon the defendant. While if the defendant waits and strikes back later then self defence cannot be applied under current law. Certain groups propose a self-preservation defence.

What I continue to mis-understand is why it seems that the UK government does not want to make crime a dangerous business.

And I ask you again, Agricola. Please address my points above. I will repost them:
How does my carrying of an inanimate object (a firearm, a knife) to be used only when attacked infringe upon anyone else's rights? How is it different from the inanimate object I carry concealed to open my car and house doors? Neither will hurt anyone.


Do you ban keys in the UK to prevent cars from being "keyed?" Its for the paint jobs, you know.:scrutiny:

Stand_Watie
June 14, 2004, 07:43 PM
(like stand watie, who has similarly confused RKBA with self defence)

You have simply confused "unarmed self defense" with "self defense"

edited to add that I don't actually believe you are confusing anything, but rather defining self-defense differently than the majority of the members of this board - simply putting the shoe on the other foot to your response.

AZRickD
June 15, 2004, 01:41 AM
GRD said: My theory. The question is: is the right to self-defense restricted in the UK. Pretty simple.
Not really simple at all. For example, the Taliban thought that assuring that women covered themselves and were not subjected to the rigors of education actually enhanced their womanhood. So, no rights violation in Afghanistan (or parts of Pakistan).

Angri is taking issues with the notion of RKBA and self defense, yet, after S-Waite took up Angri's laughable challenge and posted the words of the Constitutions of several States, including mine own Arizona ("Section 26. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired..."), Angri has no comment.

For myself, "self defense" is a minor issue in the arguments of the Right of the Individual Citizen to Keep and Bear Arms. RKBA as it relates to the Bill of Rights (which is designed to limit governemnt power) concerns itself mainly with, but is not limited to defense against Tyrannical Government. This is a concept no British Subject can tolerate, let alone a British Lord.

RKBA as defense against crime is all well and good, but it lends itself to a discussion of the socialist concept of "Utilitarian Theory of Rights." If a majority thinks your right isn't beneficial enough society, the theory goes your right is subject to majority vote rather than protection of a Bill of Rights.

Bad mojo. Don't go there.

Rick

agricola
June 15, 2004, 03:29 AM
GRD,

Again, you keep assuming that self defence isnt possible without a weapon (thus repeating your error of confusing RKBA with self defence); I provided the links, the evidence that shows that self defence is alive, well and unrestricted in the UK (RKBA of course is restricted), to which you again ignore.

With regards to the old woman, what if the "young hoodlum" is several hundred metres away with a rifle? How does she defend herself then? Or what if the old woman is blind?

Moparmike,

We are talking about self defence here, not RKBA.

azrickd,

Please, keep the playground name-calling for that location, and try to recall that I did respond to stand_watie - he confused RKBA with self-defence, as are you.

carpettbaggerr
June 15, 2004, 05:34 AM
Besides, what if your friend had no arms? No hands? What does he/she do then?

I was going to post a reply. Then I remembered -- you shouldn't try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

Stand_Watie
June 15, 2004, 05:37 AM
.. and try to recall that I did respond to stand_watie - he confused RKBA with self-defence, as are you

No, he did not. He included RKBA within the definition of self-defense -something entirely different than "confusing" anything.

A nation may or may not choose to define maintenance or deployment of an army as being part of "national defense", but the differing definitions between the US and Pacifistia are differing definitions, rather than "confusion".

Moparmike
June 15, 2004, 06:37 AM
Umm, I mentioned the RKBA as one of the methods of self-defense. I also mentioned knives, and I will now mention clubs as well.



Ag, are you honestly trying to tell us that you believe that one can have the right to perform an act, but if the government mandates that the tools necessary to perform that act are prohibited, the right is still intact?

If you have the right to write anything you want, but the government says no one may have hands, then is your right still alive and well? If the government says that you have the right of free speech but you must give up your tounge at birth, are you still free to speak?

Inquiring minds want to know. I simply dont understand how a right can be un-infringed with the confiscation or prohibition of the tools necessary to do the job.:confused: :scrutiny:

Stand_Watie
June 15, 2004, 06:48 AM
If you have the right to write anything you want, but the government says no one may have hands, then is your right still alive and well? If the government says that you have the right of free speech but you must give up your tounge at birth, are you still free to speak?

An even better analogy I think would be to claim that government restrictions upon media technology are not infringements upon freedom of the press.

Believe it or not, I have seen people from countries which outlaw a broader array of speech than does the US - make the claim that these laws are not an infringement upon their "free speech". Matter-of-factly stating that "Our freedom of speech is fully intact, we simply have to be willing to accept the consequences of saying xxxxx".

OF
June 15, 2004, 09:40 AM
I see. If there is the possibility that someone might not be able to defend themselves, then no one will be able to. After all how can we arm a little blind old lady against a hidden thug with a rifle 200 yards away? Impossible. So nobody gets to defend themselves. Good plan.

I asked you to explain your position more thoroughly, Ag. You have steadfastly refused to do so, instead parrotting the same sentance (are you just cutting-and-pasting your earlier posts?) over and over and over again as if I couldn't read it earlier. I can read it AG, I just don't get it, yet you refuse to elaborate or even engage in discussion beyond saying 'it is so and you don't get it'..

Fine. You had your chance to explain it, you refused. I guess the UK's side of the argument will have to go undefended here. I'm confident there is enough material in this thread for anyone reading to come to their own conclusions about the health of the right to self-defense in the UK and the 'logic' that perpetuates that status quo.

- Gabe

P95Carry
June 15, 2004, 09:51 AM
There is a great divide here ...... and I ain't meaning just the Atlantic!!

Ag has yet to address the aspect of self-defence .. WITH and WITHOUT ''tools'' available...... outside of home I mean.

Let's say a guy is waiting for a bus .. and is approached and threatened by a punk with a knife. He is no martial artist and has nothing to call a weapon apart from his fists. He will I guess meekly have to hand over his wallet - at the same time maybe being ''chivved'' - ''for the fun of it''. If however he had a useful knife then he might stand a chance of defending himself ... if he cannot run.

Oh heck ... there's no point in trying to get this across .. gabe .. it's a hiding to nothing!!:( We waste valuable keyboard time.!

Art Eatman
June 15, 2004, 10:32 AM
Well, obviously two schools of thought, here: agricola's, and everybody else's. I see no signs of any understanding on agricola's part, nor a change of views on the part of any on either side in the discussion.

So, it's pointless to continue...

Art

If you enjoyed reading about "Britain: don't hit criminal twice" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!