Why? Why shouldn't one be allowed to protect themselves? What a silly notion to rely on local law enforcement while you're being attacked.

__________________
"I miss the days when they made toys that could kill a kid."
- Jerry Seinfeld

I can only put our opposite views down to one's perception of the law enforcement facilities in our respective countries. But at the same time, remember that I travelled around the US from coast to coast, and back again and never felt threatened. And as I said, I was arriving and leaving towns at all times of the day and night. If anything untoward had happened, I would have called the police before calling on a by-stander on the off-chance he had a gun!

__________________
Lucky is he (sic) who has been able to understand the causes of things
Virgil

Law enforcement is reactive to situations, and any cop will tell you that. Law enforcement agencies have to obligation to endanger themselves in order to protect us, but we are all lucky that the men and women who take up this career are all willing to put their lives on the line if need be regardless. The police will do all they can, until officers can tele-port they should not be relied on for safety. That would be a selfish and irresponsible attitude in my opinion. I cannot and will not rely on others for my family's protection which is why I take reasonable measures to help ensure their safety.

The U.S. is for the most part a very safe place. People carry guns in order to be prepared, but it is not out of fear. It is a cultural difference. For some carrying a gun is no different than having a smoke alarm or wearing a seatbelt. Like it or not the U.S. has a gun culture. It was really only recently that this gun culture became overly mixed in with crime culture due to the rise of gang activities. Guns will always be used in crimes, but it is not ownership of a gun that changes individuals into criminals. Criminals seek guns in order to have an absolute advantage over their victims knowing that the vast majority are un-armed.

And the law recognises that - the common law has always recognised remedies for self-help, the law of self-defence is a classic example.

__________________
"There were no D-Day Heroes in 1973" - Cold Chisel Khe Sanh

Good post.

__________________
"There were no D-Day Heroes in 1973" - Cold Chisel Khe Sanh

We can continue to thrash this out to its bitter end. If you don't see the advantages of removing or modifying that 'gun culture' it is also fair to say that I can't see the advantages of all and sundry carrying a gun.

I also agree that the police are there to protect property not lives. However, many do see that protection as also being applied to the populace. If a person is threatened in Australia and the police are informed, they will confront the threatener and inform him/her of their standing under Australian law. This has happened to my firsthand knowledge. The police here have their faults, but I do put my faith in their ability to keep the peace.

__________________
Lucky is he (sic) who has been able to understand the causes of things
Virgil

Ah! Well in that case, the exchange student certainly deserved what he got ... can't get drunk and force your way into people's homes.

I'd be interested to see a link on this if you have one.

This is complex but I'll try and summarise it clearly as I can. I agree with several points in the posts so far and while they may appear to be somewhat in distinction from one another they're closer than it might appear.

Here's my over-simplification.

The law is the prerogative of the state (the criminal law I mean). English customary law was taken over by the King (probably Henry II but it certainly began with William I) who then stated that all citizens would live under the King's Peace. Anyone who committed an assault or wounding (let's keep it simple) against another didn't commit a crime against the victim, they committed a crime against the King's Peace and the King's officers and courts would deal with that person. Sorry if you know all this. At the same time the law recognised the need to allow people remedies of self-help because the King's forces couldn't be there for every incident. It was thought that the threat of apprehension and punishment was an effective deterrent. Of course it wasn't, so at English common and statutory law the punishments grew harsher and harsher.

Law enforcement used to be both and individual and collective responsibility at common law. This was reasonably effective in small rural communities and in small municipal communities but with the growth of cities it became extremely ineffective. You're getting the Cliff's Notes version here.

In England the New Police were formed after pressure from certain politicians following the Gordon Riots and a particularly gruesome murder of a family in a house at Wapping on the Thames. The New Police were the first professional, government-sustained police force in England (1829). The law didn't change though. The police were there to enforce the law of the land (stll nominally the monarch but in practice the law of the parliament). The central role of the New Police was order maintenance, criminal investigation as a specialist role came much later. For some years the New Police and the Bow Street Runners (private police) operated in parallel. You could pay a Bow Street Runner to find and retrieve your stolen property, for example.

Some years after the initiation of the New Police a service to the public philosophy established itself (very gradually) and so we get to the point where in the US, Canada, the UK, Eire, Australia, New Zealand etc the police are seen to be in parternship with the public to keep the peace, protect people and property etc etc.

Due to financial constraints the police nowadays are more concerned with order maintenance and responding to calls for personal assistance rather than property protection, hence the astounding growth in private security in particular in western nations.

That the police are available to the public simply by a telephone call is a good thing. But as has been pointed out in this thread, the response can range from a couple of minutes to an hour or more, depending on various circumstances.

Don't rely on the police to protect you as an individual all the time, it can't happen. Yes there is a general deterrence in having the police available, ie your chances of being mugged in broad daylight in an Australian city are reasonably slim (I don't fancy your chances after dark though) because the police exist and are reasonably effective at apprehending criminals who use personal violence.

If you live in a society which (unlike Australia - I'm only using that as an example because it's where I live) has a high rate of firearms ownership - legal and illegal - get a firearm, learn to use it safely and properly.

__________________
"There were no D-Day Heroes in 1973" - Cold Chisel Khe Sanh

I have cited three cases for you of lawfully armed citizens saving their own lives or the lives of innocent people three times in the last week.

It seems to me that when you say "I can't see the advantages of all and sundry carrying a gun", what you really mean is that you don't want to see it...

The police here do the same thing.

And like the police there, they are not everywhere all the time.

Carrying a firearm is not a substitute for calling the police. But it can make a huge difference in the outcome, because there is a period of time between when you call the police and when they arrive. The bad guy can do a lot to you in that timeframe.

You choose to be defenseless, and hope the police get there before the bad guy does irreparable harm. That is your right.

I choose not to be defenseless, so that if the bad guy is intent on continuing his attack, I can stop him if there is no alternative. That is my right.

I'll ask you to consider again the case of the woman attacked by her estranged husband - which you've taken pains to avoid. But not for the presence of a lawfully armed citizen, it seems to me very likely that the attacker would have carried out his attempt to set her on fire long before the police arrived.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

You know the best anti-crime weapon in recent years? Cell/mobile phone.

__________________
"There were no D-Day Heroes in 1973" - Cold Chisel Khe Sanh

"Would you stop stabbing me for a moment? I need to ring the police on my mobile."

Yeah, that'll work.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

Generally speaking, that'll only get the bad guy caught. It won't deter an nattack at all.

If I'm in a rough area, and feel threatened, I'll dial 911, and keep my thumb on the "Send" button. If the need arises, I can hit "Send" and drop the phone, leaving my hands free to to draw and aim my sidearm...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

Good move, again it makes sense to me. You can be located via the phone and hopefully some other good citizen will call it in.

__________________
"There were no D-Day Heroes in 1973" - Cold Chisel Khe Sanh

I can see the funny side of it...but really I was thinking of people who see crimes happening and who might not be the victim and they can call it in.

__________________
"There were no D-Day Heroes in 1973" - Cold Chisel Khe Sanh

That's why I dial 911. I don't want to take the chance that the "other good citizen" is some pacifist who doesn't like the fact that I carry a gun...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"