Morality of Self Defense

The regular police do not carry guns here.


Society gives legitimacy to the police and military using weapons to protect us. They are trained and almost 100% of the time use guns responsibly.


Unfortunately... the same can not be said about citizens who buy guns. Noone can be sure what the reason why the gun is purchased.


As far as I can remember, the kid who was shot vandalised his property and stole some things... and had done so at least twice before. You hit the nail on the head with your comment... half the UK thought he should get a medal and the other half thought he should be locked away for good.

"Society gives legitimacy to the police and military using weapons to protect us. They are trained and almost 100% of the time use guns responsibly."


You need to get to know cops better.


I can also assure you that the police cannot protect you. They can collect evidence once you are attacked and haul your body off for a forensic pathologist to confirm that yes, you died as a result of the hatchet in your skull, but they can't be there to protect you except in rare and lucky situations.


Also, the police cannot somehow acquire "legitimacy" in their power if citizens do not have the power in the first place. Cops are just hired for convenience sake. Ideally they have good training and skills. Some do.

An elegant argument, HDPM. But I can imagine the madman of Iraq making the same argument about his need for nuclear weapons. We already saw George W. hinting at preemptive nuclear self-defense last week.


Guns may be effective tools for self-defense, but they're also effective tools for criminal behavior (for example, murder). To consider only the one, without consideration of the other, makes for bad public policy. Cars are effective tools for getting around, but they also cause pollution and make us dependent on OPEC. We need to consider if the benefits outweigh the drawbacks and act accordingly. Same thing, I think with guns.

"I am against the use of force to protect property. "


In an extreme case, this says that if someone invaded your country, fighting them off would be wrong. For the simpler case of someone stealing from you, how do you stop them without force? I am not saying that you should shoot someone who is stealing a pack of gum from your store, but some form of force is necessary to stop him. The only way to preserve property rights is the use (or threat) of force in some form.

'You hit the nail on the head with your comment... half the UK thought he should get a medal and the other half thought he should be locked away for good. '


you need to reread that.


brad

not in arizona ,bud, part of our state constitution.


anyway, i remember the police during la riots said that had the rioters come to your part of town would have been fire at will.


brad


p.s. why are most jews anti-gun?

Why the constant questions about Jews and their positions on firearms? What is the hang up? Am I missing something? I think some of your questions and post titles have been inappropriate, even if you are Jewish which I have no idea about. But why don't you check out JPFO-Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership. They are a Wisconsin organization I think. I see them written about, but have never checked them out. See if they have a website.

"not in arizona ,bud, part of our state constitution"


What is part of your state constitution?


"the police during la riots said that had the rioters come to your part of town would have been fire at will."


They said that had the rioters come to Andy's part of town, they would have been what? Which police official said this and what exactly did he say?


"why are most jews anti-gun?"


You have some evidence for this assertion?

Why is it that gun control opponents have such difficulty squarely addressing the issues of this controversy and choose instead to knock down straw men?


To wit: "Because the gun is such an effective tool for self defense, and the right of self defense is so important, I believe people have the right to use the appropriate tool to defend themselves. Banning guns takes away the right to self defense because it denies people the appropriate tool."


I defy you to name a single national leader, politician, pundit or group that has ever, on any occasion, proposed or advocated "banning guns," by which I assume you mean the criminalization of all gun ownership, sale, etc. (Notice that if you had referred to banning "some" guns that your sentence doesn't make any sense).


In the real world, the issue is whether and how to reduce the population and availability of handguns, assault rifles, and other offensive weapons designed for hidden access and the ability to rapidly kill multiple human targets, often at fair distance, and not for "self-defense." To be sure, these weapons can perform double duty, and the NRA assuredly has large archives of uzi-toting grandmas catching burglars. None of these silly stories, however, can begin to dilute the force of the following incontrovertible facts:


1. Outside of the inner circles of fringe pacifist groups, there is no debate over the right of individuals to defend themselves, nor has there been since roughly the beginning of time.


2. There is virtually no debate in this country about the complete abolition of all guns, or about the rights of individuals to own rilfes and shotguns for sport and self-defense. I say "virtually" because there is probably somewhere a vegetarian earth-goddess collective that wants to abolish kitchen knives and other weaponry, but I'm referring to the 99.9% of the middle spectrum.


3. With extremely rare exceptions (that could easily be addressed by policy), citizens do not require rapid-fire repeating handguns and assault rifles to defend themselves, even on the rare occasions when a gun might be most expedient or even necessary for this purpose.


4. The grossly disproportional death rate in the U.S. from handguns and assault rifles has no other obvious explanation except for the grossly disproportional population and availability of such weapons.


The real debate in this country is whether a small minority should be able to create a market, and thus ensure access, to weponry of unlimited lethality because they consider these instruments toys (or something deeper and more mystical) that they enjoy owning and playing with. Against this everyone else must balance an unprecendeted and growing toll of human carnage and loss.


It should be a slam-dunk policy solution, as it is with nearly every other country. Instead, the U.S. is handicapped by beltway suits cranking out paranoid, typically fabricated nonsense (the sort that inspired Tim McVeigh) for the gullible in order to (1) make six-figure incomes by (2) bribing and threatening politicians to maintain unpopular, irrational and often simply insane public policies.

"3. With extremely rare exceptions (that could easily be addressed by policy), citizens do not require rapid-fire repeating handguns and assault rifles to defend themselves, even on the rare occasions when a gun might be most expedient or even necessary for this purpose."


I think most self-defense weapons would fall under your definition. Any handgun now available (except for special use target or hunting handguns) is a rapid fire repeating handgun.(Even a revolver.) Handguns are much safer than long guns to keep around the house, as the statistics prove. Handguns also offer tactical advantages over shotguns for various home defense situations. Also, the right of self defense extends out of the home and handguns are much easier to carry than a shotgun or rifle.


I get the sense you use terms provided by anti-gun groups that blur operating features among firearms. (I.E. confusing "repeating" with "full automatic" with "semi-automatic" until all guns are bad.)


The group formerly known as HCI most assuredly wants to ban ownership of any firearm. The enjoy widespread support in government and the media, not just 1% fringe types.