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

[SFC JeffJ]

Weapons, be they firearms, knives, or an M1A1 Abrahms, are tools. In themselves, and in carrying them, they are neither moral nor immoral. It's all in the intent. Carrying to defend yourself, loved ones, and others is I think would meet any moral standard. Doing so to threaten or cause harm would of course be immoral.

[maunakumu]

I think that we can all agree that it is morally defensible to defend oneself. And I think that the law would protect us if we could show that it was neccessary to use a weapon in order to defend ourselves.

I think part of this discussion is the attitude that has when one carries a weapon. I believe that people should carry weapons reluctantly. It shouldn't be something that someone wants to do, it should be something that one needs to do. I would like to live in a world in which I don't have to carry a weapon, but I don't live in that world, so sometimes I carry.

Another interesting aspect of this discussion is the difference between a carried weapon and an improvised one. Is there a moral difference in this situation? I can definitely see a legal difference...

[KenpoTex]

Originally Posted by Flatlander

Can you reference this? If true, that's a disconcerting turn of events.

Unfortunately it's not a "turn of events," it's been this way for quite a long time.

Warren v. District of Columbia

Riss v. City of New York The lone dissenting judge in this case had this to say: ""What makes the City's position [denying any obligation to protect the woman] particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law [she] did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus, by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York which now denies all responsibility to her."

There are many more cases but these serve to make the point.

[WingChun Lawyer]

Originally Posted by Technopunk

So, does this attitude take into consideration the fact that several recent court cases have ruled that the police and government have no actual obligation to do anything to help you if you are being attacked? PERSONALLY I consder that absolute failure in society's job of protecting me... but I acknowlage that some people still consider that wrong.

Well, in Brazil the police does have this obligation. I thought the same applied in the US: can you provide some reference for that statement of yours?

It does sound strange. I mean, suppose you are getting beaten to death in the street, a cop is allowed to just sip his coffee and enjoy the show? In Brazil said cop would be tried for murder along with the people who administered the beating if he didn´t provide help, or at least called for backup if he needed it.

[WingChun Lawyer]

Kenpotex, thanks for the links. I read the first case and indeed those judge´s attitude was absurd - I suppose in THAT case carrying a concealed, illegal weapon might indeed be morally justified.

Well, at least in Brazil I know the police officers would be held criminally responsible, and the government itself would be held accountable for damages and losses, moral and otherwise.

[Xue Sheng]

Originally Posted by Phil Elmore

Why I Stopped Arguing Gun Control on the Internet

And apparently you started again.

Originally Posted by Phil Elmore

That's fair, given that I'm saying someone who disputes it has a serious lack of understanding about martial arts.

Now your just predictable.

You chose not to answer specific questions or defend some of your points and I have seen this before in other posts. So the best thing for me to do here is just let you go on spouting your dogma and leave you to your agenda and simply stop wasting my time and everyone else’s, and I will kindly exit the post.

[Phil Elmore]

I chose not to bother with questions I didn't feel like answering because I thought they were silly (or I plain missed them in the rush of text), that's true. I'm breaking my own rules by having the argument now, even in part. The number of times you tell me I'm predictable is starting to become predictable -- and I'll say again that I would hope I am predictable, as I try to apply my philosophy (itself a rational one) logically and consistently.

(Didn't you already say you were done with the conversation, if we're going to start holding ourselves to that standard?)

As for "dogma" and "agendas," my only agenda is to further the cause of pragmatic, successful self-defense. My "dogma" is the philosophy of martialism, the promulgation of which I am quite proud. I will never be successful in convincing many "martial" artists that they've forgotten the purpose and the character of what they think they are doing, but I'll keep trying nonetheless. Some battles are worth fighting.

[rutherford]

HI! Let me remind everybody that you don't need a permit to carry in Vermont.

Come on up to the Green Mountain state, and go ahead and bring your properly registered gun. However, chances are you won't need it. Our violent crime rate is extremely low, which is why I carry a knife for fun and spontaneous training instead of Self Defense.

I think the moral responsibility of carrying a weapon is simply knowing how to use it.

[WingChun Lawyer]

Originally Posted by Xue Sheng

You chose not to answer specific questions or defend some of your points and I have seen this before in other posts. So the best thing for me to do here is just let you go on spouting your dogma and leave you to your agenda and simply stop wasting my time and everyone else’s, and I will kindly exit the post.

Smarter people than you or I have failed in forcing Phil to face his own mistakes, inconsistencies, and prejudices. Phil does not win by force of argument, he wins by patience - he will keep writing and writing and writing until people give up arguing with him, without ever actually debating.

Phil will simply ignore all your relevant points, while erecting a wall of strawmen arguments. He will also quote himself ceaselessly to prove his points, even though his previous arguments are as unconvincing as his present ones.

So just give up, it´s not worth your time. Phil is not here to debate, he is here to sell himself as an authority on self defense, despite having no credentials.

PS: and don´t point at his inconsistencies too much, or he will cry to the mods and have the thread locked even though no PERSONAL attack was made.

[Xue Sheng]

Originally Posted by WingChun Lawyer

Smarter people than you or I have failed in forcing Phil to face his own mistakes, inconsistencies, and prejudices. Phil does not win by force of argument, he wins by patience - he will keep writing and writing and writing until people give up arguing with him, without ever actually debating.

Phil will simply ignore all your relevant points, while erecting a wall of strawmen arguments. He will also quote himself ceaselessly to prove his points, even though his previous arguments are as unconvincing as his present ones.

So just give up, it´s not worth your time. Phil is not here to debate, he is here to sell himself as an authority on self defense, despite having no credentials.

PS: and don´t point at his inconsistencies too much, or he will cry to the mods and have the thread locked even though no PERSONAL attack was made.

I was getting that impression.

Thank You

[Phil Elmore]

He's a stalker; I wouldn't put too much faith in his interpretation of events.

Look, I'm sorry if it frustrates you that you cannot persuade me or that I know my point of view to be correct; I'm sorry if the fact that I ruthlessly apply a logical and consistent philosophy means that it's difficult to argue with me. I'm not trying to annoy you; I am passionate about what I believe. I am also not trying to ignore you specifically (unlike some of the folks whom I do have on "ignore"), but if I'm going to address something it's got to be worth addressing because I don't have the time to argue this all day (and, like I said, I'm bending my own rules about having the argument at all, given how pointless it is, ultimately).

Don't fall into the rather seductive trap of thinking that simply because I don't answer a specific query it must mean you've scored some telling and irrefutable point, however. Quite the contrary; usually it means that point's not worth the effort or the dignity of a reply.

[Edmund BlackAdder]

Here we go again.

Rather than turn this into (yet another) "PhilBate", how about we let Phil have his opinion, and everyone else have their opinions, and we just go back to the topic? Otherwise the bloody mods will pop in, start posting "stickynotes" all over the thread, and people will get sent to their holes without tea. MKay?

[Phil Elmore]

Royt! Cheerio, and all that rot!

[WingChun Lawyer]

Very well, then. Back to the topic at hand.

Anyone read the links provided by Kempotex? I read the first one, and the ruling in that case was absurd. If that sort of ruling is common, I can´t help but agree that that consitutes an exceptional situation, one that morally justifies citizens in breaking the law to provide for their own safety.

There was a case in Brazil, some years ago, about an elderly man who was carrying an unlicensed weapon and was arrested for it. The court recognized he lived in a dangerous area, and that the state did not provide him the safety he needed to go from his work to his home everyday: he also had no criminal records of any sort.

He eventually was acquitted. I suppose this is one of the special circunstances which allows one to morally break the laws.

[Chris Thompson]

I have no moral objection to anyone carrying a weapon for self-defense, whether it's legal or not. (Sorry, but in my experience equating the law with morality is just not feasible).
However, I no longer carry one. It's a simple matter of weighing the pros and cons. How many times have I felt the need to draw a weapon in a self-defense situation? Not once. In each case I was able to resolve the issue with my hands or my head. This is not a very violent place I live in. How many times have I been stopped and searched by the police for some reason or other? Several times. What's the penalty for carrying concealed? A year in county. So, based on my experience in the area I live in, the odds of something unfortunate happening to me are a lot higher if I carry a concealed weapon than if I don't, as the probability of getting searched by the police is higher than the probability of getting in a fight I can't resolve without a weapon. I think a lot of people make this sort of decision every day.

-Chris Thompson