Dialling 911 is a good idea (btw if you're ever in Australia it's triple zero) you can't be too careful. Some citizens are idiots and wouldn't know a crime if it was playing in 3-D and had subtitles.

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

Afraid of getting fired if the big boss finds out what you write in here?

You probably should be!

__________________

It all comes down to this on election day: Are you a racist, or do you look down on spastics?

Not fair. Have you thought that any expansion of reasons might be taken by the rest of us bragging (even if they are simple facts)? I think you have to allow any poster the right to limit the information they reveal. This is the internet, no secrets here.

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

Great - so you cant see the advantages. Being obtuse is your choice and your right. Since I cannot see the advantages of NOT having one, perhaps you could explain to all of us why you advocate forcing all of us to make the same choice you have?
They are there for a multitude of reasons, but all of them serve to protect STATE interests, not individual interests.
So? Many also believed the world was flat at one time. People are frequently wrong.
Hey - thats great, after the fact. Doesnt do much good at the time though does it?
So what?
Why? There are mountains of evidence to prove they most assuredly do NOT keep the peace. Why then do you continue to put your faith in that which does not exist?

I have faith in modern construction techniques and the fire department, that should i have a fire in my home, i will very likely manage to escape unharmed and with minimal property damage. This most certainly does NOT mean that i do not avail myself of the appropriate knowlege and tools to prevent, and if necessary, stop a fire.

Using your logic that one should rely upon the state for the application of force since police departments exist, then i guess you would agree that one should rely only upon the state for extingushing a fire and therefore fire extinguishers and hoses should not be permitted in private hands. If that is not the case, please explain for us why the ability to stop one life-threatening situation is acceptable in private hands, while the ability to stop another is not.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

Obviously the armed citizen did the right thing, but I dont like that he would have shot the attacker if he had run away. An armed citizen don't have the right to do that and shouldn't have.

__________________

It all comes down to this on election day: Are you a racist, or do you look down on spastics?

You did your argument in by overdoing it. The knowledge that the police exist is important. Just by being there they deter crime. Now, when it comes to self-help the citizen is still entitled to do so. There is no prohibition on self-help. So you EricOKC can get tooled up in a lawful manner and can look after yourself BUT you must still surrender yourself to the laws of your state.

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

Nor does a police officer. A police officer has no more right to apply lethal force than does any other citizen, at least in my jurisdiction and we're fine with it

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

Care to share how I "overdid" it in your opinion?
Not really - but ok.
You actually BELIEVE that? They only deter crime when they are immediately present. Otherwise, they are merely one minor obstacle to be overcome. If you doubt that, please consider average traffic speeds when a patrol car is NOT visible.
As long as he only uses an inefficient set of tools.
No, just upon using the appropriate tool for the job.
Now see, i've got a problem with that comment. It is as if you're saying "I can only do that which the state permits me to do".

While that may be how it works in your nation, here in the US, i can do whatever i damn well please as long as it doesnt violate another's rights, and the state may only do what the people permit it to do. My rights cannot be done away with by simple majority vote or legislation either.

I understand this may be a difficult concept for some to grasp, but really - that is how it works here. We are not subservient to the state, no matter how much some people would like that to be the case.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

Is a private citizen in your country allowed to carry a firearm at all times and dispense lethal force on his own judgement?

If not - then your entire statement is false.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

I said:

EricOKC I can't respond to the parsing of my argument so I'll try to answer your objections/questions in a wholistic manner.

I think your argument was overdone because you made some exaggerations and that can happen when words and phrases are separate out and analysed instead of being absorbed and considered as a total argument.

Now, you wrote the following:


The effect is no different in your country than mine. Both you and I are free to either observe the law and attract no punishment or we can flout the law and attract punishment. That's our freedom of action. We have to accept though that actions have consequences and we are responsible for our own actions.

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

And why is that?

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

Simple, You said:

If the regular citizen has not the right (and with it the legal authority) to use lethal force to defend himself or another, than the police officer most certainly DOES have more rights.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

What exaggerations did i make? I stated the very accurate parallel between the existence of a fire department and private ownership of fire extinguishers and the existence of a police department and private ownership of firearms.

Just because a state agency exists to do something neither absolves nor relieves one of his own rights and/or responsibilities.
Not entirely true there either.

While it is true we are free to observe the law and attract no punishement, the state is forbidden from making certain forms of law. Ultimately the difference lies in understanding the power structure.

In most nations - indeed, in virtually all known human societies - power flows from the state to the people. The US is different - and always has been. Here in the US, power flows from the people to the state. The state exists SOLELY at the whim and the consent of the people.

As stated many times in many other threads, this is no less a radical idea in the 21st century than it was in the 18th.

Our Constitution grants the people nothing. It in no way dictates what the people may and may not do. It specifically and pointedly lays out what the GOVERNMENT may and may not do, and in fact explicitly states that anything NOT granted to government remains the sole jurisdiction of the people.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

I believe he was just saying that you have to follow laws, that's all - not that you have to be subservient to the state. The two are different.

The US is by and large, a very law abiding society - that too is a fact, and a good thing.