Britain: don't hit criminal twice

Status
Not open for further replies.
...public carriage of any weapon is forbidden here
Click to expand...
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).
Click to expand...
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
 
>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.)
 
In Arizona, if someone breaks into my house, I get the benefit of the doubt.

Rick
 
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??
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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).
 
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".
 
Utilitarian Theory of Rights, again, Agri?

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,
Click to expand...
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
 
in that case, not being able to kill everyone you see on the street constitutes a major restriction on the right to self defence,
Click to expand...

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

Ron
 
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?
 
I think AngriCola fancies himself as one of the "Minders."

How special.

Rick
 
would you like to show us a case where the carriage of an illegally held weapon removes the aspect of self-defence?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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).
Click to expand...
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
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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?
 
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?
 
since you cant predict which one of them (if any) would attack you
Click to expand...
Until 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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
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?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top