A single salient question; is there a human right to self defense?

"The best defense is a good offense."
Criminals usually prey on the weakest.
Making the risk far exceed the possible reward is the best deterrent in my opinion, and if nothing else can eliminate repeat offenders.

Many years ago when working as an auto mechanic another employee stole my tools which I needed to make my living. He did so to go on a drinking binge and pawned my tools for money to buy sterno. I reported the theft to the police, but they were unable to find him so I did so on my own and found him passed out in an apartment in the next county. I reported that to the police and they were able to have him brought back to the county jail where the crime was committed. His wife came to visit me and told me he told her where my tools were pawned and that she would get them back if I dropped the charges against her husband, which I did. Several days later she visited me again complaining that they would not release her husband from jail until a fee was paid covering the cost of his room/board while in jail and demanded that I pay it. I refused, but thought how smart that was. Why should taxpayers have to pay for the maintenance of criminals? I later found that she somehow came up with the money, bailed him out, and they left town.

 

Was that in U K. ?

 

So justice, according to the state, is that a crime against you results in an obligation to the state, upon the fulfillment of which; they're good to go.
In essence; **** you, pay the state, now were good.
Did you have to pay any tax money to house and feed him in jail? Stupid question, I know. Of course you have to pay taxes. Otherwise, people would be taking your tools whenever they want.

 

While you seem to be suggesting that more people possessing guns increases the number who are a possible threat.
If in two far apart locations there were gatherings of 100 people, and one group contained persons who each was armed and the other only one was armed. If the armed group contained 10 criminals, and the other only the one possessing a gun was a criminal, which group would you feel safer being in?

When working the night shift in the city of Atlanta, Georgia I always went to work armed. On a few occasions I had to display my gun after parking my car and walking to my work place. I never had to discharge it, but several co-workers who came to work unarmed had experiences, two were robbed, and another robbed put into a car stripped of all his clothes and left on the expressway. None of the criminals were ever caught by the police. For backup in case I was ever disarmed, I also had a wallet with a two shot flat .22 which could be fired without opening the wallet. Was I living in fear? Not at all, considering the existing facts I simply reduced the risk to an acceptable level (near zero) to allow me to work the night shift to be about the same as the day shift, but for more money.

Making it more difficult to purchase guns legally only increases the market for illegal gun purchases by and from criminals. And, as a result lowers the risk for criminals to prey on others for even a minimal reward. Removing/reducing guns does NOT reduce the number of criminals, which are what we really need to remove from our societies. A more rational change might be to impose a life sentence on anyone convicted of a criminal act involving a life threat upon a victim regardless of the weapon employed. Take the criminals out of society if you want to eliminate/reduce crime significantly.

 

That happened in the U.S., 1963 actually.

 

Your results are atypical of U.K. and not the norm as far as how most people in U.K. define personal defense and how the Crown views such and has often prosecuted the victims of Crime killing their assailants, you may have had success, however, many have not.

Good luck, I wish you continued success.

 

I carry everywhere, however, it is Not out of fear, it is a precaution.
I find carrying a Firearm makes for less fear than more.

 

My understanding is that one in every 15,000 gun owners have an incident. It is indeed to the norm here for the crown not to prosecute. Killings in the name of self defence can expect jail, but not all get it.
The key to this one is "proportional response". Which is pretty loose and ultimately decided by a jury, not any law.

 

Justice, in the case I posted was achieved as a result of the return of my tools at no cost to me other than the small loss of income and time spent tracking him down resulting from their theft. As I was then satisfied and willing to drop any charges it would have been an additional waste of taxpayer money to prosecute him. I did pay taxes to support and maintain a police department in the town, and the additional cost of their operations was covered by requiring payment for the cost of providing the needs of the criminal which was covered in full, or perhaps even a little more. As he and his family left town after his release, the problem of a repeat crime became a possibility for where they moved to, if he wished to continue his ways.
And no, I didn't pay any addition taxes to house and feed him, as I originally said, only taxes to maintain a police department to be available when a crime occurred. This happened in the early 60's and there was very little crime in the county back then, and a very small affordable police force.
The main point was that crime should not pay. Losses of the victims and costs to the taxpayers, to cover the costs of apprehension/incarceration of criminals should be totally borne by the criminals, not an additional cost to the taxpayers. The incarceration time of criminals should be adequate for them to apply some means of productivity which would cover the costs of their crime AND internment in full or more.

Amendment XIII
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Note the word except is applied to "slavery" and "involuntary servitude".
I also enhanced usage of the word "their" as emphasizing the fact that our Constitution was written NOT with a view of the Federal government being the ultimate sovereign source from which our laws are created, but instead seems to be in recognition of the 10th amendment.

For those unfamiliar with it:
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Our Constitution is a "living document" only when changed through the process of amendment NOT through interpretation/re-interpretation. Politicians sent to the Federal level of government are supposed to represent their constituents/States NOT their political party, donors, or lobbyists.

The 16th and 17th amendments along with the Federal Reserve Act in 1913, fundamentally changed the way our government works from flowing from the people and the States into one in which all power resides with the purse which is held by the Federal government.

 

I pulled the quotes off the net, they're not mine..
I'm English living in England and have never owned a gun in my life and am therefore strictly neutral, so why on earth would I make up fake quotes as you allege?

 

Yes, no sensible jury here in the UK would convict anybody for genuinely defending himself, but if there was a grey area it's not so straightforward.
For example farmer Tony Martin shotgunned two unarmed burglars some years ago, killing one and crippling the other and got 9 years for murder, but after appeals and huge public support he was released after 3 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer)#Murder_trial

 

Why does living in England, and never having owned a gun, make you neutral? While it gives you some credibility (due to your close familiarity with the UK society and issues) to addressing the firearms issue in the UK, I claim it makes you unqualified to address the firearms issue with respect to the USA.

 

We Brits conquered half the world with firearms, heck if it wasn't for us you'd still be living in wigwams and scalping each other..
And hey, 26 Brits died at the Alamo! huh you try to be nice (sniffle)...

Great moments in History: The Pilgrim Fathers land in the New World

 

That's nice, but does not make every single Brit an expert. In the USA, the attitude and history and law regarding firearms is far different than that in the UK. What I have found interesting in this forum is that foreigners (almost always people from the UK or Australia) have wild misconceptions about firearms and crime in the USA, even have little understanding of crime in their own country, and want to impose their concept of gun control/bans on the USA.

 

As a Brit I've been saying for years in forums that decent law-abiding US citizens should have guns if they want them..
Incidentally as a computer wargame champion under my fighting name 'Poor Old Spike', I must have handled just about every weapon there is on the cyber battlefield, and do quite well at it..

 

What I cannot fathom is how British Gun makers established the manufacture standards and proof testing and stamping, the first NRA and shooting competitions at Bisley, and almost everything shooting related, and now, most Brits would have you (me) believe that such is not the case.


Re-vising History, it seems like George Orwell's vision of the Future in 1984 is finally realized.

 

Cyber games? I'm not sure if you are joking or being serious.

 

The military use computer simulations for training, same thing..

 

I've taken part in some Team Spirit simulations. We didn't use pretend guns to pew, pew.

 

Do you "pew, pew, pew" whilst watching the telly ? I do !
I pretend I am backing up or securing the perimeter, and when the bad guy(s) run out, pew pew pew pew !
Phewwww.....

For gun safety, I only pew pew pew with an unloaded finger, not a gun.

 

The simulations I took part in were strategic in nature, using late 80s computer technology. Very slow moving.

 

That picture looks more like a communications tent, for directing / deployment of troops

 

It's not a photo of the US military, and I can't quite make out the maps on the wall. The men behind the computer look to old to be mere communications troops.

 

Then be more careful about what sources you copy and paste from.

"The Famous Pro-Gun 'Quotes' the Founding Fathers Never Actually Said"
http://gawker.com/the-famous-pro-gun-quotes-the-founding-fathers-never-1567962573

 

Two points. 1. There are laws regarding weapons.

2. The law of self defence in England and Wales (have to differentiate it from Scotland and NI) is circumscribed by a requirement to defend with appropriate/reasonable force.