what u supposed to do when a chav in a tracky pulls a knife on you because youve got a better mobile phone than him?
Poll
Self Defense (Not Gun Related), Do you think self defense is valid?
| Yes | 95% | 95% - 246 | ||||
| No | 4% | 4% - 11 | ||||
| Total: 257 | ||||||
You're supposed to ask him nicely to sit down with you on the sidewalk and wait for the police to arrive, then the chav should continue attacking once they're there so they can defend you.
and just who the hell are the 7 people that voted no? Seriously what are you thinking?
or when a gang of teenys try to (happy slapp) you because they think it would be cool to video it and show there mates? normal folk in the uk dont carry guns but we still have plenty of thugs, i find all this gun talk hard to understand, is it really that bad in the states? cos they say were getting more like the us all the time (worrying times) or are ppl watching too many movies?
lol nice one +1 if i couldkr@cker wrote:
You're supposed to ask him nicely to sit down with you on the sidewalk and wait for the police to arrive, then the chav should continue attacking once they're there so they can defend you.
no we don't all walk around with guns and all, around here the only time you see someone armed anymore they're loaded with rat shot for poisonous snakes and such (where I live, once you leave city limits it gets pretty country pretty fast, even around Atlanta), we just prefer to have the option of keeping a gun in our home, because if you are in our home uninvited it's a pretty safe assumption that you are wanting to harm us, our friends/family (this includes the dog), or our property, and my double barrel 12 gauge is pretty persuasive if I need it to tell someone to leavelinster wrote:
or when a gang of teenys try to (happy slapp) you because they think it would be cool to video it and show there mates? normal folk in the uk dont carry guns but we still have plenty of thugs, i find all this gun talk hard to understand, is it really that bad in the states? cos they say were getting more like the us all the time (worrying times) or are ppl watching too many movies?
the main argument of this thread though is that the UN seems to be stating that the only possible course of action for you is to run, however, if you were chosen as a target, your attacker has probably already considered whether or not you're more physically fit than they
Last edited by kr@cker (2006-09-11 15:59:18)
But you missed the primary point: 'lethal fights' are often uncontrollable. People die, as per the namesake. Are you going to condemn someone for defending themselves against injury and death?jonsimon wrote:
Just the point I'm making. You said "his body at your feet, waiting for an ambulance." People have survived dozens of gunshots wounds because they have recieved medical attention. If you harm another in self defense, you are obligated to call an ambulance, and if you do, they probably won't die unless you used excessive force.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
A barfight? No problem. But dude, some fights just don't occur under controlled conditions. Humans are fragile creatures and accidents do happen. Though if an aggressor has an obvious intent to kill (is armed; good indication), it's your job to prevent him from succeeding. That being said, a gun is a more controlled means against a hostile armed for a melee, as it allows you to strike from range, disable an opponent, get to cover and call for the police (tasers and mace are not guaranteed when dealing with the psychotic and/or drugged). But in hand-to-hand, there is no time for such luxury. Fleeing is not always an option. In the case it isn't, you'll either have allow yourself to lose and have your unconscious or dead body be at the mercy of an unknown entity, or have his body at your feet, waiting for an ambulance.jonsimon wrote:
But what if you get in a barfight? What I'm saying is killing in self-defense is not justifiable across the board.
And no, I don't enjoy the prospect of slaughter. I'd be happier if nobody had to defend themselves, but Jiminy Cricket, now, the world is just not the utopian place you think it is.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-09-11 15:35:35)
In case no one knows who this guy is:linster wrote:
totally agree, how can anyone sit there and say ppl like IAN HUNTLEY eg have rights?
Ian Kevin Huntley (born 31 January 1974 in Grimsby, England) is a former school caretaker, who in 2003 was convicted of murdering two schoolgirls - Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman - in a case that is known as the Soham murders.
On 4 August 2002, at around 6 p.m., two 10-year-old girls, Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, walked past Huntley's rented house in College Close. Huntley asked them to come into the house. He said that Carr was in the house as well, since she was a learning support assistant at St Andrew's Primary, the girls' school, and had got along well with them, although in fact she had gone to visit family back in Grimsby. Shortly after Holly and Jessica entered 5 College Close, Huntley murdered them.
His reasons for committing the murders may never be known, but minutes before seeing the girls Huntley had slammed the telephone down on Carr after a furious argument, as he was suspicious that she was cheating on him. The police believe that Huntley killed the girls in a jealous rage. There may have also been a sexual motive. It seems likely that either, or possibly both, of these motives drove Huntley to kill the girls. The police found no evidence of preplanning, and later said that they would have expected to find it if it was there.
Regardless of how the girls died, Huntley disposed of their bodies in a ditch 20 miles away and set them alight in a bid to destroy the forensic evidence. The search for the girls was one of the most highly publicised missing person searches in British history and Huntley even appeared on the BBCs Look East regional news program speaking of the shock of the local community. They were found 13 days later near the perimiter fence of RAF Mildenhall in Suffolk, on 17 August 2002, twelve hours after their clothing was discovered in the grounds of Soham Village College and Huntley had been arrested. He was later charged with two counts of murder and sectioned under the Mental Health Act at Rampton Hospital before a judge decided that he was fit to stand trial.
+1 couldn't agree more, thats what I was getting at.kr@cker wrote:
to #1, of course they do, until they commit a rape, murder, or use a firearm in a crime, at which point they become a criminal, and as such lose their right to own/use/possess a firearm in the US
Because firearms routinely are used for self defense, I only put that it wasn't Firearm related because the ENTIRE section in the report addressing self defense doesn't even use the word firearm/gun/rifle/pistol/etc ONCE.linster wrote:
whys everyone talking about firearms? i thought this was not gun related, you dont need to shoot anyone to be charged for assault whilst protecting yourself against someone who wants your watch eg
Exactly!!kr@cker wrote:
it seems that the self defense argument is the biggest obstacle to the UN's worldwide gun ban, so by dismissing it as a viable excuse for reciprocal or pre-emptive action they can then then move on to their main objectives.
fair enough
Page 10:AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
1) I disagree, they gave up that right when they decide to harm someone else..:XDR:.PureFodder wrote:
1) All rapists, murders, nutters and extremists would still have the right to have a gun in order to defend themselves.
2) If some criminals stole a tank then everyone would have the right to buy a tank to defend themselves, If a criminal gets his hands on a helecopter then eveyone would have the right to buy stingers.
3) The report still legally allows you defend yourself against an attacker and kill him/her if it was judged to be necessary to save yourself/others.
2) Not true, thats ridicolous. The only tank theft that I know of was in CA in the mid 90's where some guy stole a tank out of a National Guard base, he ran over lots of cars and property but was certainly not competent or had enough ppl with him (none) to fire any of the guns, not to mention it wasn't loaded out.
3) Quote please. Where does it say that, it is VERY misleading if it does, and someone needs to learn how to competently write a report.
27. The use of small arms and light weapons by either State or non-State actors automatically
raises the threshold for severity of the threat which must be shown in order to justify the use of
small arms or light weapons in defence, as required by the principle of proportionality. Because
of the lethal nature of these weapons and the jus cogens human rights obligations imposed upon
all States and individuals to respect the right to life, small arms and light weapons may be used
defensively only in the most extreme circumstances, expressly, where the right to life is already
threatened or unjustifiably impinged.
This happens in more cases than not in NON extreme circumstances where the right to life IS BEING threatened or unjustifiably impinged..... the use of the phrase extreme circumstances screams over generalization of the issue and an ignorance of the issue as a whole. Like I said, the person did not write this report very well. Trying to use opinion with facts to mix them both and make opinions look like facts. Thanks for the quote though.apollo_fi wrote:
Page 10:
small arms and light weapons may be used
defensively only in the most extreme circumstances, expressly, where the right to life is already
threatened or unjustifiably impinged.
So basically...whether someone's coming at me with a GUN (extreme) a KNIFE (mid) or a BAT (low) my life is still potentially being threatened in ALL CIRCUMSTANCES. Can I retaliate to defend myself and said life? You're god damned RIGHT I will.AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
This happens in more cases than not in NON extreme circumstances where the right to life IS BEING threatened or unjustifiably impinged..... the use of the phrase extreme circumstances screams over generalization of the issue and an ignorance of the issue as a whole. Like I said, the person did not write this report very well. Trying to use opinion with facts to mix them both and make opinions look like facts. Thanks for the quote though.apollo_fi wrote:
Page 10:
small arms and light weapons may be used
defensively only in the most extreme circumstances, expressly, where the right to life is already
threatened or unjustifiably impinged.
Lesson Number 1: Don't go attack people, and you won't get attacked in self defense. Simple, ain't it? And yet, hundreds and hundreds of people can't seem to wrap their melon around this insanely simple thought. Which is why people still get attacked, and people still die in either self-defense, or lack-thereof. Death by killing your attacker, or by not properly defending yourself, or by simple being a victim of a surprise/unprovoked attack. And I sure as damn hell am not a victim.
Someone comes at me threatening my life, I will threaten theirs right back and defend myself, however possible. I will not stand by and let my life be taken without a fight, and possible taking theirs to preserve my own. Gun, knife, sword, bat, FORK. I will defend myself and my companions, tooth and nail.
Is this my choice? Yes. Do I want to take someone's life? Absolutely not. Will I sit by and let my friends die? FUCK no. Will I roll over and let myself be killed? Never.
Learn the difference between attacking someone, and defending yourself, and the argument becomes MOOT.
This is the one concept that is so difficult for unwitting gun-control activists to grasp.ChrisRedfield[RE] wrote:
So basically...whether someone's coming at me with a GUN (extreme) a KNIFE (mid) or a BAT (low) my life is still potentially being threatened in ALL CIRCUMSTANCES.
Rather unfortunate that they often do whatever they can, including taking things way out of contrast, to present something that they want to be true...but the unfortunate truth is....once it is taken out of contrast with it's true meaning, it loses all sense and purpose behind said meaning.
This comes from Europeans that need Americas help when ever shit goes downChrisRedfield[RE] wrote:
Rather unfortunate that they often do whatever they can, including taking things way out of contrast, to present something that they want to be true...but the unfortunate truth is....once it is taken out of contrast with it's true meaning, it loses all sense and purpose behind said meaning.
I think the big issue here is that a lot of people are failing to properly comprehend the passage. It states that self-defence is not a right in and of itself, but that violating another's rights if they are attempting to violate yours is justifiable. Which makes perfect sense: defending your rights isn't a specific right, but the whole concept of a right implies that such a right can be defended.
Hey a moment of clarity from bubbalo, I don't agree with it, however.Bubbalo wrote:
I think the big issue here is that a lot of people are failing to properly comprehend the passage. It states that self-defence is not a right in and of itself, but that violating another's rights if they are attempting to violate yours is justifiable. Which makes perfect sense: defending your rights isn't a specific right, but the whole concept of a right implies that such a right can be defended.
Self defense is a right by nature. It is an instinct dictated by nature NOT governed, by man. Man merely needs to decide if your action WAS self defense or not.
Technically everything in that passage is true. However, it is my opinion that non-lethal self-defense is still valid. However, they are correct in saying you cannot have the right to violate other's rights. Saying so would be contradictory to the definition and general concept of a right. Even so, when another is already attempting to violate your rights, the conflict has already transcended the rights system and a lesser lapse on the defendant's part is justified when the participants return to the system of 'natural rights'. Emphasis on lesser.
Yeah, this is exactly what I will be thinking as I grab my Remington 870 pump action, to greet anyone that tries to break into my home with my kids asleep in their beds.jonsimon wrote:
Technically everything in that passage is true. However, it is my opinion that non-lethal self-defense is still valid. However, they are correct in saying you cannot have the right to violate other's rights. Saying so would be contradictory to the definition and general concept of a right. Even so, when another is already attempting to violate your rights, the conflict has already transcended the rights system and a lesser lapse on the defendant's part is justified when the participants return to the system of 'natural rights'. Emphasis on lesser.
Last edited by lowing (2006-12-30 10:27:19)
And then you notice that the 'perp' you've just blown to kingdom come was your neighbour coming home drunk and missing his target by a house.lowing wrote:
Yeah, this is exactly what I will be thinking as I grab my Remington 870 pump action, to great anyone that tries to break into my home with my kids asleep in their beds.jonsimon wrote:
Technically everything in that passage is true. However, it is my opinion that non-lethal self-defense is still valid. However, they are correct in saying you cannot have the right to violate other's rights. Saying so would be contradictory to the definition and general concept of a right. Even so, when another is already attempting to violate your rights, the conflict has already transcended the rights system and a lesser lapse on the defendant's part is justified when the participants return to the system of 'natural rights'. Emphasis on lesser.
Yeah, I can't tell ya how many times my nieghbors broke into my house with a crow bar by accident at 2 in the morning.apollo_fi wrote:
And then you notice that the 'perp' you've just blown to kingdom come was your neighbour coming home drunk and missing his target by a house.lowing wrote:
Yeah, this is exactly what I will be thinking as I grab my Remington 870 pump action, to great anyone that tries to break into my home with my kids asleep in their beds.jonsimon wrote:
Technically everything in that passage is true. However, it is my opinion that non-lethal self-defense is still valid. However, they are correct in saying you cannot have the right to violate other's rights. Saying so would be contradictory to the definition and general concept of a right. Even so, when another is already attempting to violate your rights, the conflict has already transcended the rights system and a lesser lapse on the defendant's part is justified when the participants return to the system of 'natural rights'. Emphasis on lesser.
if someone makes the decision to do harm to either my family or i, and i have the chance or ability to stop it, by whatever means necessary, then yes, its completely valid.
Then I would tell you the quote on my shirt 'If you've got it, don't flaunt it!' They don't know you've got a better mobile than them unless you advertise it to the world! It's not a dig at you, just something I was told when we got a policeman in to talk at college.linster wrote:
what u supposed to do when a chav in a tracky pulls a knife on you because youve got a better mobile phone than him?
A lot of self-defence is based on the situation at hand; Half the skill is assessing the situation in front of you. If there six of them and one of you, are you gonna wait to find out if they have weapons? Or would you place your faith in your fighting skills to be able to take them out as they ALL come at you?
Whereas, if only one is trying to give you a face makeover, you probably would try to make you sure your nose stays the same shape.