Police seize klingon weaponry in raid

[Beowulf]

Of course, in a society where people are not allowed to arm themselves for any reason, then the person who is bigger/stronger/trained to fight has the advantage. The elderly, the weak, the handicapped are pretty much at the mercy of thugs and the only recourse they have is that some Bruce Lee citizen or a cop shows up soon.

I live in one of those societies. Your contention is bullshit. Societal norms dictate that if someone bigger/stronger than me has a go, chances are someone will help me, call the cops or whatever. And frankly, I would rather loose my wallet and get a bruised ego then get into a potentially fatal fight with some junkie.

Societal norms may be such, but there's no garuntee that anyone actually will do so, or that there will be anyone to do so. Police are not obligated to protect you. Their job is to catch the perpetrators after the fact. This has been affirmed in numerous lawsuits. Not to mention, the police can have a half hour response time or longer. And what if you can't run, for example, you've recently managed to fuck up your knee.

[Coyote]

Seems to me that what is basically in contention here is the right to engage in an arms race with the criminal element of society.

Of course, in a society where people are not allowed to arm themselves for any reason, then the person who is bigger/stronger/trained to fight has the advantage. The elderly, the weak, the handicapped are pretty much at the mercy of thugs and the only recourse they have is that some Bruce Lee citizen or a cop shows up soon.

I live in one of those societies. Your contention is bullshit. Societal norms dictate that if someone bigger/stronger than me has a go, chances are someone will help me, call the cops or whatever.

Have you never heard of the case of the woman who was murdered in the street while dozens of people watched from their apartments but did nothing?

Kitty Genovese. And it hasn't gotten any better. Sorry, Jester, but the bigger the city, the better the liklihood that people don't want to "get involved". Either they'll get their ass beat or-- mor elikely in US society-- they don't want to end up getting sued by some mugger for having his "civil rights" violated.

[His Divine Shadow]

Of course, in a society where people are not allowed to arm themselves for any reason, then the person who is bigger/stronger/trained to fight has the advantage. The elderly, the weak, the handicapped are pretty much at the mercy of thugs and the only recourse they have is that some Bruce Lee citizen or a cop shows up soon.

I live in one of those societies. Your contention is bullshit. Societal norms dictate that if someone bigger/stronger than me has a go, chances are someone will help me, call the cops or whatever. And frankly, I would rather loose my wallet and get a bruised ego then get into a potentially fatal fight with some junkie.

Hello. I live in one of those societies as well. I speak from experience when I say you are pretty much alone unless you're with a bunch of friends. Strangers will just scurry away and if you get lucky the cops might show half an hour later. I'm just glad these things are very rare and that I am big enough that people usually don't want to attack me without cause,.

[Spoonist]

To everyone else, sorry for the minor threadjacking...

There are two ways to view freedom: Either you take the stance that everything not explicitly permitted is forbidden, or you hold that everything not explicitly forbidden is permitted. In the former case, you have to continually justify your actions to the government. In the later, the government has to justify it's actions to you. No doubt it comes from being raised in the US, but I prefer to live under the latter system, where anything not forbidden is permitted.

I hope you realise how bigoted this opinion you expressed here is.

I don't see where it is bigoted at all.

It's simple. You imply that you actually think that those not "being raised in the US" would not prefer to live "where anything not forbidden is permitted", which is a view so prejudiced that it is bigoted.
Maybe I should use "nationally conceited" instead, but it just doesn't have the same ring to it.

Not only is it a black/white and strawman fallacy but you are also implying that non-US folks don't understand the concept of freedom.

Where did I say anything about US vs. non-US in that post. What, you don't think there are differences of opinion here in the US?

If you read your own post again, you explicitly say that because you have been raised in the US you prefer the latter system. Which means that you think that that opinion is the norm in the US but not necessarily the norm outside the US. Which to me reeks with flag waving.

YOU are reading far more into my post than is there.

Yes I'm probably reading far more into it but that is the curse of the internet discussions. We all embellish what we read with our own subjective interpretations. I apologize if you think that I'm making to big a deal out of something you just threw in there to make the post look nicer.

Please do point out any democracy in the world where they don't have the system "that everything not explicitly forbidden is permitted". I really get pissed off at snubs like these.

I wasn't discussing democracy. I was discussing freedom. They are not synonymous, although frequently found together.

I'm not discussing democracy either. Why I used 'democracy' was so that you couldn't pick a dictatorship or similar where there is no freedom. I thought that the context made it clear that I find your worldview regarding freedom bigoted and that I claimed that your point of view that "being raised in the US" would somehow make you prefer "where anything not forbidden is permitted" is something that everyone in the free world prefer as well. It is not something unique for the US. It is the foundation of the Code of law.
I'll make it simple for you; you made the statement that there are two ways to view freedom, back it up with an example where they view freedom as "everything not explicitly permitted is forbidden".

What you need to understand is that there are many people out there who are quite willing to give up certain PRIVILIGES or are willing to put up with INCONVENIANCIES to hopefully protect the innocent.

And some of us are NOT willing to give up anything WE have earned or to be inconvenienced by the stupidity and irresponsibility of other people.

Exactly. That is what it boils down to. You believe that you have earned the right not to be inconvenianced regardless if it lets the irresponsible hurt the innocent. Which is a view that I can understand but that I disagree with.

Just compare the difference between drivers license testing in the US vs Europe.

Just compare having the right to defend yourself in the US vs. being unable to defend yourself in Europe.

Arg, there you go again. Another bigoted statement. Selfdefence is not a legal concept unique to the US. You are allowed to defend yourself in Europe as well. My gosh, you are even allowed to protect others. The only difference is when you are allowed to use violence and how much.

Although it would be more accurate to say parts of Europe because I am aware that Europe is not full of clones nor are all those countries exactly alike.

Nor are the states of the USA the same, but it is customary in these discussions to generalize otherwise we would be bogged down in eternal discussions about Texas vs France, Ohio vs UK, Michigan vs Germany, etc, etc. It is much more constructive to bunch them up in Europe vs US where convenient.

The level of controls varies from item to item, but there are various different ones.

And I find where you draw the line to be an intolerable restriction of my freedoms.

Having legal restrictions on dangerous objects is quite common. The question is not if we should draw the line but where we should draw it. Some countries prefers to draw the line a bit further away that is all. Why you are feeling threatened to the point of calling it "an intolerable restriction of my freedoms" I just don't understand. Why would your machete be intolerable, but not other restricted items? Could it be that you are used to those restrictions and not this one?

No, I'm not as familar with "what's happening in the UK" as I am with what's happening in my own backyard. For that matter, I don't know what's going on in Bumfuck, Arkansas, either. I pay more attention to local events that affect me than what the British are putting up with, why is that mysterious?

Because that is what the topic is all about. Why are you in a thread discussing the laws of some far away country if you don't care about anything but your own backyard? I'm sorry to inform you that the internet actuually is open to us non-US folks as well. I apologize for any inconveniance this might cause you. (Psst, I think that that Mike Wong guy actually might be one of those Kanadickians as well and he even pretends to own the site, but don't tell anyone I told you.)

Of course, in a society where people are not allowed to arm themselves for any reason, then the person who is bigger/stronger/trained to fight has the advantage. The elderly, the weak, the handicapped are pretty much at the mercy of thugs and the only recourse they have is that some Bruce Lee citizen or a cop shows up soon.

Um, in this thread we are discussing knives and blades and in the reality where I come from it is a fact of life that the weak/elderly/handicapped are pretty useless with handheld weaponry, especially if we assume that the 'thug' already has his at hand. If you want to discuss gun control please take it outside.

[His Divine Shadow]

I don't come from the US and I didn't think of it that way when I read it. I don't now either after you've pointed it out.

And as a finnish citizen I got pretty much my fists and cell phone to call the cops with to defend myself with. I do indeed feel my right to self defence is being infringed upon if I can't even use non-lethal methods like a telescoping baton(illegal unless you're a security guard). Pepper spray? Only if you're a cop or otherwise professionally entitled to such things.

[Broomstick]

I hope you realise how bigoted this opinion you expressed here is.

I don't see where it is bigoted at all.

It's simple. You imply that you actually think that those not "being raised in the US" would not prefer to live "where anything not forbidden is permitted", which is a view so prejudiced that it is bigoted.

I don't see how you move from "I have this opinion because of where I grew up" to "everyone else everywhere in the world holds the exact opposite opinion." That's quite a leap.

Maybe I should use "nationally conceited" instead, but it just doesn't have the same ring to it.

God forbid you choose accuracy over something with a nice "ring" to it.

Not only is it a black/white and strawman fallacy but you are also implying that non-US folks don't understand the concept of freedom.

Where did I say anything about US vs. non-US in that post. What, you don't think there are differences of opinion here in the US?

If you read your own post again, you explicitly say that because you have been raised in the US you prefer the latter system. Which means that you think that that opinion is the norm in the US but not necessarily the norm outside the US. Which to me reeks with flag waving.

See a doctor about your malfunctioning sense of smell, in that case. I was upfront about where my opinion comes from - it said jack shit about anyone else's opinion.

YOU are reading far more into my post than is there.

Yes I'm probably reading far more into it but that is the curse of the internet discussions.

No, it's the curse of someone with a chip on their shoulder. If the internet is too much for your delicate sensibilities go back to pen-pals.

Please do point out any democracy in the world where they don't have the system "that everything not explicitly forbidden is permitted". I really get pissed off at snubs like these.

I wasn't discussing democracy. I was discussing freedom. They are not synonymous, although frequently found together.

I'm not discussing democracy either.

Then why did you use the word?

Why I used 'democracy' was so that you couldn't pick a dictatorship or similar where there is no freedom.

Why would we exclude dictarships, monarchies, communist states, or other political system from a comparison? People who live in such countries are not in supermax lockdown 24/7, even if they may have more restrictions than we do.

I thought that the context made it clear that I find your worldview regarding freedom bigoted

Sorry you feel that way but... tough shit, my opinion still stands.

and that I claimed that your point of view that "being raised in the US" would somehow make you prefer "where anything not forbidden is permitted" is something that everyone in the free world prefer as well. It is not something unique for the US.

Never said it was. In fact, we probably get it in good measure from the English.

It's quite true that anyone raised in the US would most likely prefer "anything not forbidden is permitted"" due to societal influences, but stating that in no way implies that someone in, say Belgium wouldn't feel the same, for the same reasons.

What you need to understand is that there are many people out there who are quite willing to give up certain PRIVILIGES or are willing to put up with INCONVENIANCIES to hopefully protect the innocent.

And some of us are NOT willing to give up anything WE have earned or to be inconvenienced by the stupidity and irresponsibility of other people.

Exactly. That is what it boils down to. You believe that you have earned the right not to be inconvenianced regardless if it lets the irresponsible hurt the innocent. Which is a view that I can understand but that I disagree with.

Yep - and I find it repulsive that you (apparently) feel it's OK to treat responsible adults as stupid children because a minority of individuals are irresponsible.

Although I'd like to qualify that I do not approve of the irresponsible hurting the innocent. Again, you are reading more than is actually there.

Just compare the difference between drivers license testing in the US vs Europe.

Just compare having the right to defend yourself in the US vs. being unable to defend yourself in Europe.

Arg, there you go again. Another bigoted statement. Selfdefence is not a legal concept unique to the US. You are allowed to defend yourself in Europe as well. My gosh, you are even allowed to protect others. The only difference is when you are allowed to use violence and how much.

Nice posting cropping - or didn't you see the next sentence, which was "Although it would be more accurate to say parts of Europe because I am aware that Europe is not full of clones nor are all those countries exactly alike." Do much selective reading in other areas of your life?


If I am attacked by someone larger and stronger than me how in the hell am I supposed to "defend myself". What about my frail, old mother? My disabled husband? What options to they have? Chaperones?

Nor are the states of the USA the same, but it is customary in these discussions to generalize

There's a subtle difference between "generalization" and "caricature"

otherwise we would be bogged down in eternal discussions about Texas vs France, Ohio vs UK, Michigan vs Germany, etc, etc.

So? We just did 10 pages on knife control. Why not 10 pages on Texas vs. France? That might even be entertaining.

It is much more constructive to bunch them up in Europe vs US where convenient.

You mean, where it conveniently supports your knee-jerk assumption that someone from the US is a bigot?

The level of controls varies from item to item, but there are various different ones.

And I find where you draw the line to be an intolerable restriction of my freedoms.

Having legal restrictions on dangerous objects is quite common. The question is not if we should draw the line but where we should draw it. Some countries prefers to draw the line a bit further away that is all. Why you are feeling threatened to the point of calling it "an intolerable restriction of my freedoms" I just don't understand.

Because it's my opinion. I don't understand why you feel it's OK to be stripped defenseless. I don't understand why you feel safer when your options for self defense are being reduced. To me, it's stupid and irresponsible to depend solely on the kindness of strangers and the benevolence of governmental authorities to protect you. Most strangers would run away before helping someone unknown to them. I don't view my government, or it's representatives, as benevolent. Frequently, I don't see them as competant, either. If you live in a society where strangers will routinely risk their lives for people they don't know and the government is run by angels good for you but that's not my reality, it's not where I live.

Why would your machete be intolerable, but not other restricted items? Could it be that you are used to those restrictions and not this one?

That's possible.... but there are restrictions I've under my whole life I'm not "used to" and don't agree with so I doubt that's the whole of it.

No, I'm not as familar with "what's happening in the UK" as I am with what's happening in my own backyard. For that matter, I don't know what's going on in Bumfuck, Arkansas, either. I pay more attention to local events that affect me than what the British are putting up with, why is that mysterious?

Because that is what the topic is all about. Why are you in a thread discussing the laws of some far away country if you don't care about anything but your own backyard?

You really need to see an eye doctor about how you miss half of what you see. I said "I pay more attention to local events", I did NOT say "I'm a clueless idiot." Since I don't live in the UK I don't have as easy access to UK news sources, nor am I intimately familar with local opinion there, nor do I have the same immersion in UK history and culture that I do in my own. Which is why, from time to time, I have asked questions in order to find out more from the UK folks here.

Of course, in a society where people are not allowed to arm themselves for any reason, then the person who is bigger/stronger/trained to fight has the advantage. The elderly, the weak, the handicapped are pretty much at the mercy of thugs and the only recourse they have is that some Bruce Lee citizen or a cop shows up soon.

Um, in this thread we are discussing knives and blades and in the reality where I come from it is a fact of life that the weak/elderly/handicapped are pretty useless with handheld weaponry,

From my experience my handicapped husband is pretty terrifying with handheld weaponry. Not every disabled person is helpless, quite a few of them with disabled legs have greater than average upper body strength. He can't run, but he can punch like a sledgehammer.

But, of course, it's ever so much easier to generalize than to think through the ramnifications of your position. Tell me, how does your unarmed and "safe" society protect the weak and elderly from bigger, stronger, healthier thugs?

[The Yosemite Bear]

Seems to me that what is basically in contention here is the right to engage in an arms race with the criminal element of society.

Of course, in a society where people are not allowed to arm themselves for any reason, then the person who is bigger/stronger/trained to fight has the advantage. The elderly, the weak, the handicapped are pretty much at the mercy of thugs and the only recourse they have is that some Bruce Lee citizen or a cop shows up soon.

I live in one of those societies. Your contention is bullshit. Societal norms dictate that if someone bigger/stronger than me has a go, chances are someone will help me, call the cops or whatever.

Have you never heard of the case of the woman who was murdered in the street while dozens of people watched from their apartments but did nothing?

Cathren "kitty" Genovese

[Edi]

how does your unarmed and "safe" society protect the weak and elderly from bigger, stronger, healthier thugs?

I'm not going to get into the scrap between you and Spoonist, but I'll comment on this one:

Here the default assumption for that defense is that the authorities are responsible for it. The laws we have regarding self-defense stipulate that people have a duty to avoid confrontation, i.e. if you can, you are obligated to run away. If you can't get away, you are allowed to use reasonable force to defend yourself, with reasonable being defined as proportionate to the threat and the minimum necessary to stop the unlawful attack. Fulfill these criteria, you won't get prosecuted. Go over it, and you will be prosecuted, though it will be under mitigating circumstances (which is 25% off the maximum you can be sentenced to per mitigating circumstance).

Personally, I agree with the general bent of Finnish self-defense legislation, but disagree with some of the particulars. The current statutes as written are too restrictive, meaning that if you can't get away and have to fight, you'll end up prosecuted for assault regardless and will likely be convicted as well. It's a case of the court system looking too much after the perp's rights and shafting the victim.

However, there are cases on record of people not being convicted despite their assailant being killed. One of those was a woman who literally ripped out a rapist's trachea. She was trained in some martial art or another and went into a blind panic when the asshole pinned her down. At which point the reflexive responses ingrained by her training kicked in, to the rapist's misfortune.

The thing is that the self-defense law (iirc it's a section of the Crime Act, the part that lists exceptions), with its definitions, trumps any city ordinance vs. knives. If the only way to fend off an attack is knifing the attacker and it's clear or probable that your life/health is in danger without such an action, you'll get away with no conviction or a ridiculously reduced sentence. The unlawful carrying of a knife at that point is pretty irrelevant to the case, if it is indeed pure self defense. The knife prohibition ordinances and such are there to enable cops to preempt violent shit by confiscating such implements when they encounter them and throw the book at troublemakers.

All of this said, if someone was coming at me with a knife or other weapon and I couldn't get away, fuck them, I'm not holding anything back just because the law says what it does. My definition of "sufficient force" is as much as I can apply as ruthlessly as I can, and with what I know, that's an automatic serious injury if I get a retaliatory attack through. I'm also not overly burdened with pangs of conscience about attacking another human being if that person attacked me first. It's curious how they cease to be humans and become objects, targets and obstacles in one's eyes until the danger passes. Only that much worse for them if it's my loved ones' well being on the line and not just my own.

Of course, if I did get into a situation like that, the likely outcome would be that I'd get a conviction for assault (mitigated or not), but I'd rather take a criminal record than risk death or permanent injury. It's a good thing I have a knack for staying out of trouble.

Edi

[His Divine Shadow]

To me the finnish laws concering self defence is just a reason to not get identified by the cops or assailant if I am are forced to defend myself and succeed.

[Spoonist]

I don't come from the US and I didn't think of it that way when I read it. I don't now either after you've pointed it out.

Hmm, it might be just me then. If noone else reads into the context what I do/did then I'm probably too colored by similar discussions elsewhere.
If so I will retract and apologize. But if there are others who can see the same context I will continue.
Plese let me know.
->Broomstick
If it's OK with you? I'll wait with responding to the 'bigotry' discussion and instead continue with only responding to your statements regarding the knife law discussion.

[Spoonist]

And I find where you draw the line to be an intolerable restriction of my freedoms.

Having legal restrictions on dangerous objects is quite common. The question is not if we should draw the line but where we should draw it. Some countries prefers to draw the line a bit further away that is all. Why you are feeling threatened to the point of calling it "an intolerable restriction of my freedoms" I just don't understand.

Because it's my opinion. I don't understand why you feel it's OK to be stripped defenseless. I don't understand why you feel safer when your options for self defense are being reduced. To me, it's stupid and irresponsible to depend solely on the kindness of strangers and the benevolence of governmental authorities to protect you. Most strangers would run away before helping someone unknown to them. I don't view my government, or it's representatives, as benevolent. Frequently, I don't see them as competant, either. If you live in a society where strangers will routinely risk their lives for people they don't know and the government is run by angels good for you but that's not my reality, it's not where I live.

I see, where you and I differ here is the point of view. On a personal level if I felt threatened I would feel more secure if I would carry weaponry. But that doesn't mean that I don't consider a knifelaw a logical step for society to take to protect its citizens. To me the chance of me preventing to get hurt by carrying weaponry is slim compared to the danger of getting hurt by some irresponsible drunk with a knife. Therefore I would not feel safer because my options of selfdefence is reduced, I would feel safer because the chance of me getting randomly cut by some irresponsible drunk with a knife is reduced.

Let's take an example to explain the point of view. I would feel safer in a pub knowing that everyone had been frisked and their weaponry confiscated than I would in the same restaurant just be me bringing my own blade because I suspect that others have them as well. Apply this to a larger setting and you have the basics of it.

No, I'm not as familar with "what's happening in the UK" as I am with what's happening in my own backyard. For that matter, I don't know what's going on in Bumfuck, Arkansas, either. I pay more attention to local events that affect me than what the British are putting up with, why is that mysterious?

Because that is what the topic is all about. Why are you in a thread discussing the laws of some far away country if you don't care about anything but your own backyard?

You really need to see an eye doctor about how you miss half of what you see. I said "I pay more attention to local events", I did NOT say "I'm a clueless idiot." Since I don't live in the UK I don't have as easy access to UK news sources, nor am I intimately familar with local opinion there, nor do I have the same immersion in UK history and culture that I do in my own. Which is why, from time to time, I have asked questions in order to find out more from the UK folks here.

Of course everyone knows more of their own culture/society, that is basic. But ignorance is a reason not an excuse. It is quite obvious from your posts that you had strong opinions about knifelaws but hadn't gotten your facts straight before stating them.

Of course, in a society where people are not allowed to arm themselves for any reason, then the person who is bigger/stronger/trained to fight has the advantage. The elderly, the weak, the handicapped are pretty much at the mercy of thugs and the only recourse they have is that some Bruce Lee citizen or a cop shows up soon.

Um, in this thread we are discussing knives and blades and in the reality where I come from it is a fact of life that the weak/elderly/handicapped are pretty useless with handheld weaponry,

From my experience my handicapped husband is pretty terrifying with handheld weaponry. Not every disabled person is helpless, quite a few of them with disabled legs have greater than average upper body strength. He can't run, but he can punch like a sledgehammer.

Good for your husband and others like him. But the general rule is the same regardless. If it is melee weaponry then it is always "the person who is bigger/stronger/trained to fight" who has the advantage over "the elderly, the weak, the handicapped". That your husband who by your account is both strong and trained also happens to be handicapped doesn't change this fact of life, rather it confirms it. Having or not having knifelaws similar to the UK's will not change this. Unless the thugs where you live don't use blades themselves or scare easily at the sight of blades, in which case I concede the point, over here they don't. By your accounts in other threads as well as this one I would think that your husband probably could scare of a couple of punks or defend himself rather niceley regardless of him having a blade or not, or am I incorrect?

But, of course, it's ever so much easier to generalize than to think through the ramnifications of your position. Tell me, how does your unarmed and "safe" society protect the weak and elderly from bigger, stronger, healthier thugs?

They don't but neither does yours. A knife will not protect "the weak and the elderly against the bigger, stronger and healthier thugs". If we where talking guns then maybe, but not knives.
Lets draw a comparison with highschool since most people can relate to that. A knife would not help a random weak mathgeek in a fight with a random linebacker. It would rather just increase the level of beating he is going to get.


But then again personally I am pro knifelaws not for personal reasons but mostly for the fact that it helps lawenforcement in their daily job. Now that relies on whether or not you are positive regarding your local law enforcement, which is up to you not me.

[The Guid]

Seems to me that what is basically in contention here is the right to engage in an arms race with the criminal element of society.

No, the contention is whether peopl are allowed to carry dangerous weapons on their person out in public areas for no reason apart from "protection".

Of course, in a society where people are not allowed to arm themselves for any reason, then the person who is bigger/stronger/trained to fight has the advantage. The elderly, the weak, the handicapped are pretty much at the mercy of thugs and the only recourse they have is that some Bruce Lee citizen or a cop shows up soon

Ah yes, I remember that time that a person who was big, strong and trained came and attacked my grandmother. It was lucky she was carrying her knife in public because she was able to see him off. I find it amazing he didn't have a knife on his person at all as the police, in this society I am describing, had no powers to stop him carrying around his weapon.

[His Divine Shadow]

Well the police has little power to do something before it's too late. Unless they go about frisking random people who look suspect. Do they?

[Edi]

To me the finnish laws concering self defence is just a reason to not get identified by the cops or assailant if I am are forced to defend myself and succeed.

That's true. The way to do it if you can't run away is beat enough shit out of the attacker that you can get away and then run like hell before the cops show up. If that is an option, of course.

Edi

[The Guid]

Well the police has little power to do something before it's too late. Unless they go about frisking random people who look suspect. Do they?

You really think that the police need to do that? If people are carrying around their knives for "protection" they are going to be where they can easily get to them, and are therefore likely quite obvious.

Even where this is not the case, I would imagine that the police can keep an eye on those who look like they might have weaponry and can confiscate it from them when neccessary.

[Coyote]

What you need to understand is that there are many people out there who are quite willing to give up certain PRIVILIGES or are willing to put up with INCONVENIANCIES to hopefully protect the innocent.emphasis added ~~Coyote

And some of us are NOT willing to give up anything WE have earned or to be inconvenienced by the stupidity and irresponsibility of other people.

Exactly. That is what it boils down to. You believe that you have earned the right not to be inconvenianced regardless if it lets the irresponsible hurt the innocent. Which is a view that I can understand but that I disagree with.

There are also those of us who feel that one method among many to protect the innocent is to allow the innocent access to means to protect themselves. Bearing in mind that the police are not obligated to protect any particular individual; that they almost never show up as a crime is being committed but rather well after the fact; and in some cases the government that is supposed to protect either consciously fails to do their job (Rodney King riots, where police refused to deploy) or incompetent (breakdown of law and order post Katrina).

If someone is irresponsible or dangerous, take it out on them, not everyone else who happens to "look like them" through some lends of guilt by association.

Of course, in a society where people are not allowed to arm themselves for any reason, then the person who is bigger/stronger/trained to fight has the advantage. The elderly, the weak, the handicapped are pretty much at the mercy of thugs and the only recourse they have is that some Bruce Lee citizen or a cop shows up soon.

Um, in this thread we are discussing knives and blades and in the reality where I come from it is a fact of life that the weak/elderly/handicapped are pretty useless with handheld weaponry, especially if we assume that the 'thug' already has his at hand. If you want to discuss gun control please take it outside.[/quote]

You know, after 10-odd pages of (preumably) paying attention, I think you'd notice that gun control and overall weapons control and public access has been brought into this discussion quite some time ago. In fact, I was not even the one that ushured it in. Even that Mike Wong guy you mentioned-- the one who "pretends to own the site", remember?-- has talked about it. Talking about knife laws only is a distraction from the larger overall picture, and that is that after the banning of privately owned firearms in the UK, violence has not only not stopped but I believe it has actually risen; and now the same "logic" is being applied to knives.

A great deal of this discussion has focused on citizens perceiving their rights to self defense and the tools they should or should not have access to for the job.

[Coyote]

Ah yes, I remember that time that a person who was big, strong and trained came and attacked my grandmother. It was lucky she was carrying her knife in public because she was able to see him off. I find it amazing he didn't have a knife on his person at all as the police, in this society I am describing, had no powers to stop him carrying around his weapon.

Golly geewhilikers, what a heartwarming story straight out of Reader's Digest. How good it was to know that your grandmother had a knife to dispatch the ruffian; since apparantly the police in your part of the world also don't seem to be enforcing any law against muggings or other attacks. Why, they just have to let that stuff happen since there are no laws against it.

And of course we all know that people who are bigger and stronger never, ever threaten or intimidate other, smaller people. Especially bigger, stronger thugs with criminal intent. All you have to do is stand firm and say "shoo!" and they'll scurry away.

But let's step back into the real world. I own a gun. I carry it in case I have to protect myself. Now it is true I'm not going to get in a "blazing shootout" over the handful of cash I carry in my pocket. But a street mugging is not all the criminal violence that exists in this world. There are also robberies of, say, fast-food restaurants and convenience stores where the robbers herd people into the walk-in refrigerator and kill them before escaping. At that point, it is better to have a slim chance than no chance at all.

Do I seriously expect this scenario to unfold every day of my life? No. Do I go around looking for that kind of scenario to "play hero"? No. Chances are I will never face this situation or need to fire my weapon in any sort of civilan/crime situation. For this I am glad, not frustrated.

But, I realize that the cops are not here to protect me. I'd like to have that last option available to myself just in case the worst possible thing happens.

See, if "the other guy" goes off and kills someone; then why am I to be blamed alongside him? Someone innocent needs to be disarmed because someone else proved to be violent or untrustworthy? Will a person who actually desires to go out and create violence for criminal purposes really going to give a shit that The Law said not to have naughty sharp or bang thingies?

[Keevan_Colton]

But, I realize that the cops are not here to protect me.

To protect and serve

[Coyote]

But, I realize that the cops are not here to protect me.

To protect and serve

Society as a whole, not any individual person. If you think your life is in danger, the best the cops can do is maybe drive by and look around the neighborhood, but they have to be available for the entire community.

If cops are called to two crimes at once-- one where ten people are in life-or-death danger, and one where only one person is in danger, they'll have to prioritize the ten people and hopefully a back-up unit can get around to the one person if there's time.

[Beowulf]

But, I realize that the cops are not here to protect me.

To protect and serve

Wow! Using a motto in an argument! Here's a motto for you:

Peace is our profession

Mottos do not necessarily bear any relation to reality.

[MKSheppard]

Mottos do not necessarily bear any relation to reality.

HEY now, don't be besmirching SAC's motto

[SirNitram]

The SAC did live by it's motto. It's existance was to be used to never, ever actually engage, but to present the threat that, yes, if you throw a nuke our way, we drop many nukes on you.

Peace through superior firepower is a very sensible doctorine, as has been known by every reader of Sun Tzu.

[Beowulf]

The SAC did live by it's motto. It's existance was to be used to never, ever actually engage, but to present the threat that, yes, if you throw a nuke our way, we drop many nukes on you.

Peace through superior firepower is a very sensible doctorine, as has been known by every reader of Sun Tzu.

Peace through carefully directed violence. War was SAC's profession. Peace was a side-effect.

[thejester]

Have you never heard of the case of the woman who was murdered in the street while dozens of people watched from their apartments but did nothing?

Hence the 'in most cases'. I've been on trains or in clubs where some off-their-face dickhead has tried to pick a fight with me or others and, in turn, either my mates or complete strangers have intervened in my defence. Coyote makes it sound as if by stripping a citizen of the right to carry an automatic around 'the weak' are automatically defenceless. My personal experience would suggest that's not true.

[Aeolus]

But, I realize that the cops are not here to protect me.

To protect and serve

Yes in theory. How often do they show up in time to stop the mugger? How often to save someone from being murdered? They don't they take your statement after the fact or find your murderer after they drag your body from the river. They can't be held liable for your individual safety. If they could there would be lawsuits all the time about it.