: Yes, but we can adopt a working proposition that roughly one third of thiose 'aquaintance killings' are from someone reasonably close, friend, neighbour, drinking buddy, and say anotehr third are 'know him from around here, never talked to him/much' with the other third being shop assistants, etc, taxi drivers, whatever, still, it means close to half all murders are by someone very close.
youve just shown why they are not. "neighbour, drinking buddy, and say anotehr third are 'know him from around here, never talked to him/much' with the other third being shop assistants, etc, taxi drivers" are not "very close."
: And criminals would know that a taxi driver is unlikely to be able to reach his weapon, that the bloke he's talking to won't reach their weapon, I don't see how free ownership of guns is a deterent.
Apparently you dont, I think its because your reducing it to specific situations all the time rather than considering it holistically. Instead of saying 'if many people owned guns would crime be reduced?' youre satying 'aha, but if i was a taxi driver i might not get to it in time' etc. No doubt some people on some occasions are as helpless as you, that does not negate the deterrent value accross the board.
: I'll posit a killer for you- In America, you allready have teh freedom to own Guns, many Guns, much more Guns than we have here, and yet still, the murder rate is high- we're not dealing with hypothetics here, we are dealing with actualities. Can you show me how teh freedom to own Guns in the US has settled in teh Crminal mind, ever in history mark you- that it is uunwuse to commit a crime.
Only anecdotal evidence from criminals shows this. Studies have always been around how many times people use them in defence - which shows a criminal has a go. I know of no study which extrapolates anecdotal interviews with convicted criminals in which they say they avoided such and such because they might get shot, although such may exist. The first argument is sufficient (that guns a re used in self defence) and the second (anecdotal evidence) is usable and rational with regard to human behaviour.
You being in charge of law and order in Britain; Would you agree to disarm the general public whilst knowing that criminals will remain armed and people would be unable to defend themselves against such, nor would criminals ever fear any matched resistence? Would you hide behind the weak assumption of "it would have happened anyway, they are helpless anyway" and offer these as reasons of making the public impotent unless there happens to be an armed policeman with in 10 seconds of a crime?
I pu it that your model is precariously balanced on a sequence of dubious assumptions about criminal and general behaviour.
: No, I would say that the best policy is to avoid being in teh situation of needing to use fists, just because I ahve a right, doesn't mean I should make a policy of using it- in teh US I would have teh right to not incriminate myself to officials, however, I persobnally would not like to actuialise that right, by never being in a position to use it. Using fists is not an offence, uinless you are a registered martial artist, and then your criterion change.
Most victims of non-gangster crimes were not happy-go-lucky, wide open doors, cheery verbal abuse types - they werent inviting attack - you now where the 'dont be in the situation' argument leads - that you should cower inside at night, that women should dress dowdy - its an ever decreasing circle of self imprisonment.
The martial arts thing is arbitrary too, no doubt the lawmaker was heard to mutter 'its not fair you know, not cricket'
: I think, if we take a pragmatic approach, there is a lot of 'Presupposition' in there, by which it was crystal clear to them as framed it, because context gave it extra meaning. Its hard to fire-proof written documents against meaning change, its an argument against an overly rigid codified Constitution...
I suppled some context elsewhere. I do think more than one sentence would have been useful here though, with some specifics around self defence.
: . Effectively, if we read the Article with this in Mind, its an injunction that no class of man/person can be excluded from the Militai, a radical and democratic statement.
The influence of Locke and natural rights, consistent with individual self defence, was also highly influential to the founding fathers.
: No, but I would be opposed to Gun ownership being adopted as the dominant public order policy. I am, as you know, against all Law, so I wouldn't say 'Make Guns illegal' but then, I wouldn't encourage my fellow workers to hide behind an illusion of gun owndership.
Then in the stateless-lawless society people could choose themselves whether or not guns were worth having. that would be fine too.
: No, but such matters would be inevitable and ineradicable, personbal conflicts, crimes of passion- of course, no prisons under socialism...they'll have to deal with their crime for themselves...
Nasty family fueds!
: No, reasonable force means you can do enough and no more, if someone attacks with bare hands, I may only do enough to either escape, or disable them (breaking arms, if done deliberately, is out), I may not shoot an unarmed attacker. Reasonable force means any responce must be proprtionate to the threat, killing a mugger would be illegal.
Actually some UK case law suggests otherwise. The defence of self-defence is to be found in common law . There is also a statutory defence relating to prevention of crime under s.3 Criminal Law Act 1967. You do not have to wait for the assailant to strike the first blow - pre-emptive strikes are permitted (a case - Beckford 1988) but equally if there is time to warn the police, then the necessity does not exist. Also, referring to your 'avoid it' comment just because the defendant knows that a possible assailant will be present or arriving at a particular location, he does not forfeit his right to self-defence by remaining at or entering that place a person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime.
With regard to reasonableness so long as the defendant is aware of the limited nature of the threat (a minor assault), he cannot use that as an excuse to launch a disproportionate attack on the victim, however the court has to consider whether the defender believed that the act was necessary and reasonable in the circumstances, even though, objectively, it was not. In other words you might over react objectively speaking, but still be in your rights because your perception matters.
: and I wouldn't feel any safer with a Gun.
You wouldnt have to have one. feeling safer is not the same as being safer.