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

[kickcatcher]

Specific question: Do you believe that carrying a concealed weapon of some sort, whether a firearm, blade, kubutan or whatever*, for the purposes of self-defence, in circumstances where a) you are not aware of any higher than normal risk and b) it is prohibited by the local laws, is morally acceptable?

*for the purposes of the question, it doesn't matter how explainable the item is as not a weapon, if you are carrying as a weapon it is.

Yes?
No?

 

[Andrew Green]

Morally is tricky question. If someone was carrying purely for self-defence, despite having no reason to do so, internally I think they'd be morally ok.

However, a defensive weapon that is portable can very easily become a offensive weapon. And if people believe you are carrying a weapon when you are not supposed to I think they will look at you differently. Lots of people carrying lots of weapons is not very "friendly", and since I prefer friendly, I'd never carry a weapon unless I had good reason to do so, and would really prefer everyone else not carry one as well.

Truthfully, people that feel the need to have a weapon on hand 24 / 7, regardless of what they are doing and where they are really creep me out. That, to me, smells of paranoia and a unstablle person who I'd really rather not have any weapons ever...

 

[KenpoTex]

I guess it boils down to whether you value your personal safety more than you value always being on the "right side" of the law. Thankfully I live somewhere where I don't have to be worried about the legality of being armed. If I lived in some parts of Europe (for example), or for that matter, some of the more "freedom infringed" parts of the US, I'd still find something to carry even if it wasn't a purpose designed weapon.

Lots of people carrying lots of weapons is not very "friendly", and since I prefer friendly, I'd never carry a weapon unless I had good reason to do so, and would really prefer everyone else not carry one as well.

Truthfully, people that feel the need to have a weapon on hand 24 / 7, regardless of what they are doing and where they are really creep me out. That, to me, smells of paranoia and a unstablle person who I'd really rather not have any weapons ever...

okayyyy...You'd PREFER that no one carry weapons? I'd PREFER that violent crime never happened and that everyone was perfectly safe from threats. However until that happens (and no, banning weapons is not EVER going to help). I'll "stick to my guns" (pun intended).

On second thought...you're right. I guess I'm not a very "friendly" person. Tell you what...I'll give away all my guns, knives, and various other "toys" and we can all hold hands and sing kum-bye-ya. :rofl:

 

[WingChun Lawyer]

Not at all. Laws should be obeyed, that is the most simple answer in moral terms: you agree to uphold the laws of the society you live in.

So you do not break the law, UNLESS YOU HAVE A DARN GOOD REASON FOR THAT. If there are no special circunstances justifying your attitude, you are not morally entitled to break the laws you or your representatives agreed to (mind you, I am speaking from the perspective of someone living in a democratic regime).

In short, unless society has absolutely failed in its job of protecting you, you should work within its governmental and social structures to see the changes you wish for implemented. You are not morally justified in breaking the law.

 

[Cryozombie]

Hmm. Tough question, because I would answer circumstance 1 yes, but not neccessarily so to question 2.

Overall, tho, since its a question of morality, I'd probably have to say yes... based 1) on the fact that you just never know, and 2) on the fact that recent events have proven that the "authorities" (i.e. cops) have no obligation to protect you. I personally wouldn't have moral qualms BENDING the law a little in a circumstance where if somthing unexpected happened I could only really count on myself to save myself.

If I can put a qualifier on it, however, given both of those circumstances, I would try to choose somthing that if randomly stopped by authorities would not arouse undo suspicion of its use as a weapon, regardless of my intention to use it as such... like a heavy duty metal ink pen, or bat AND a ball glove, a couple carabiners linked together AND a pocket reference on rock climbing, or a small length of rope with a knot in the end of it... or a couple golf balls... of course WHAT i'd choose would vary depending on the circumstances of where I am... but it would be a dual purpose item that wouldn't be illegal to carry in normal circumstances, hence my comment that I feel I am BENDING the law, not overtly breaking it.

 

[Cryozombie]

In short, unless society has absolutely failed in its job of protecting you, you should work within its governmental and social structures to see the changes you wish for implemented. You are not morally justified in breaking the law.

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.

Truthfully, people that feel the need to have a weapon on hand 24 / 7, regardless of what they are doing and where they are really creep me out. That, to me, smells of paranoia and a unstablle person who I'd really rather not have any weapons ever...

I dont know if Being prepared is neccessarliy paranoid and unstable. I carry a roadside emergency kit with me when I drive, and some jumper cables... I wear a helmet when I ride my yami MOST of the time... but I don't see that as paranoia, I just see it as preparation.

Oh well, to each his own I guess.

 

[Makalakumu]

Sometimes the decision of whether or not to carry is made for you. In my career, it is impossible to carry based on the regulations of my work place. This doesn't mean that some people aren't breaking the rules, though...

 

[KenpoTex]

In short, unless society has absolutely failed in its job of protecting you, you should work within its governmental and social structures to see the changes you wish for implemented. You are not morally justified in breaking the law.

Overall, tho, since its a question of morality, I'd probably have to say yes... based 1) on the fact that you just never know, and 2) on the fact that recent events have proven that the "authorities" (i.e. cops) have no obligation to protect you. I personally wouldn't have moral qualms BENDING the law a little in a circumstance where if somthing unexpected happened I could only really count on myself to save myself.

This, I feel, is an important point in the discussion. It is not the governments job to protect us on an individual basis. This has been established, and supported, time and again. If it is the government's job, we need to fire them for gross incompetence and find a better method. The only person you can count on to protect you is YOU.

edit: Technopunk, looks like we cross-posted

 

[Xue Sheng]

Specific question: Do you believe that carrying a concealed weapon of some sort, whether a firearm, blade, kubutan or whatever*, for the purposes of self-defence, in circumstances where a) you are not aware of any higher than normal risk and b) it is prohibited by the local laws, is morally acceptable?

*for the purposes of the question, it doesn't matter how explainable the item is as not a weapon, if you are carrying as a weapon it is.

Yes?
No?

Specific Answer, or as specific as I think I can be on the subject
(a) I don't think so (b) It is not legal, and I have no idea if it is moral.

But as an addition. Some people that carry weapons tend to be over confident and that can and has got people killed.

Others fail to recognize that there is a REAL BIG difference between carrying a weapon and using it.

While others know the difference and are capable of it and are highly trained in the use of said weapon.

Basically this is a hypothetical question that cannot be truly answered unless you have been in the situation, which I haven't. You can argue legality and morality until the cows come home and at the end of the day you truly have no idea.

I know people I can ask and I am certain they would not agree either, and yet they have been in that situation.

 

[Phil Elmore]

A "martial" artist who fears weapons is not a martial artist at all -- he or she is a hoplophobe projecting his or her fear while pontificating from ignorance.

 

[Phil Elmore]

Why I Stopped Arguing Gun Control on the Internet

 

[Xue Sheng]

A "martial" artist who fears weapons is not a martial artist at all -- he or she is a hoplophobe projecting his or her fear while pontificating from ignorance.

Phil

I still say; someone who makes a statement like that has a serious lack of understanding about martial arts.

Sorry about hounding you to another post, but I couldn't let that one go there and I can't let it go here.

You are spouting your own dogma and I am sorry but I just cannot agree nor do I expect you to agre with me. One visit to you website shows that would not be possible.

As for not arguing gun control on the internet, I find that doubtful, unless this means you are shutting down your webpage.

And I am not advocating that you should. It is always good to get other opinions.

My best to you

 

[RoninPimp]

I have no problem whatsoever with people protecting themselves however they see fit. Knife, gun, sap, brass knuckles, whatever. That said, there isn't much real reason to go armed to the teeth in most places in the developed world.

Arguing what MA are or aren't is a pointless sematical circle jerk.

 

[Flatlander]

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?

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

 

[still learning]

Hello, The safest way is to obey the laws. Make sense? If you carry ?..it is because of intent to use!

Best to practice "Awareness" and trust your "instincts". Remember Verbal Judo.

All things around you and on the ground can be use for weapons, if you need to fight back.

Things in our pockets can be converted too? (keys, coins-throw them). One dollar coins make powerful throwing object. Practice with them.

Have one credit card (one side sharpen) and learn how to strike with it? Did you see Steven Seagal use it in a movie? (I don't have any with sharp edges)

Think about it...how many times have you been in a serious situtions? and WHY? ...... ...........Aloha

 

[Phil Elmore]

I still say; someone who makes a statement like that has a serious lack of understanding about martial arts.

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

 

[Andrew Green]

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

Well, since I have no intention of ending up on a battlefield when I go to get groceries, I don't think I need a weapon...

When I was wearing the green suit and kevlar hat, I did carry a rather large gun though.

Martial, on it's own, refers to military. Would you consider what you do Military arts Phil?

 

[Phil Elmore]

The problem is that you don't get to decide what you will or won't need. That is the dilemma of self-defense. Reality doesn't care how secure you feel and it doesn't care what you think is likely. All you can do is attempt to be prepared -- and hope that your preparations will ultimately be a waste of time.

"The crime rate right now (1999) is lower than it's been since the mid 1960s. However, the incidence of violence in those crimes is much higher -- less crime, more violence. The FBI has amassed statistics that tell us a person generally stands a six percent chance in his or her lifetime of being victimized in some way. Of course, all statistics are capable of manipulation and don't normally reflect the reality of any given situation. The fact is that if your experience in that six percent includes a stabbing which results in your requiring a colostomy, that mere six percent becomes pretty life altering. If it includes a nonconfrontational property crime -- your mailbox gets destroyed by vandals, for example -- you got off easy.

"This is not melodramatic, just truthful, prudent, and appropriately concerned."

- Kelly McCann, aka Jim Grover

 

[Andrew Green]

On second thought...you're right. I guess I'm not a very "friendly" person. Tell you what...I'll give away all my guns, knives, and various other "toys" and we can all hold hands and sing kum-bye-ya. :rofl:

I'll take em, providing I can get permits

I got nothing against "toys", and rather like shooting. I just don't like carrying weapons

 

[Phil Elmore]

Reality doesn't care what you like.