- Nothing serious to think about here then ..
If you or another is attacked by anyone - Do you have the RIGHT to defend from such attack - and to what extent?
Personally I think that the obvious answer is YES - and 'by any means available'. - But others including The United Nations disagree.
The 'technical' & legal considerations are somewhat beyond my thinking and abilities as a retired old fart - but perhaps you will read this short piece linked here ..
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228177997_The_Human_Right_of_Self-Defense
What I wanted to ask was .. IF the right to SELF DEFENSE is recognized in U S Law then surely that same right ought to apply to every person in every other part of our planet and Universe.
This cannot only be a National Right ..
A basic human right is UNIVERSAL and is not withheld from say Peruvians - 'blacks' or 'Catholics' or "aged persons" - A basic human right can't be limited only to those with say a recognized University Degree or only to those above 18 years old and under 65 y.o. being in gainful employment - Nor should it be limited 'by means'.
.. AND if such Human Right does exist - no-one has any right to limit it's application by introducing government or police regulation such as - "the victim may only use defensive-resistant force "of an equal level appropriate to that of the attacker".
The Right To Self Defense is a very emotional topic that can lead to spittle flecked angry arguments and red faces .. so I am happy to insert here an encouragingly extreme example.
- If you were to discover a person in the act of trying to kill your female significant other & her unborn child by stomping on her with bare feet .. you certainly do not need to lay aside any weapon nor do you need to remove your footwear before doing your uttermost to terminate that murderous attack.
Here is another thought .. Our New Zealand Police Service is a civilian law enforcement organization that is covered by the same Civilian Law as all of us here.
IF unlicensed NZ Police are lawfully entitled to carry various firearms (including full-automatics and grenade launchers) as weapons in defense of themselves and the public from unlawful acts by violent criminals - then surely so too are all other law abiding persons.
New Zealand's much amended, complicated and restrictive Firearms Rules are CORRUPT - UNCONSTITUTIONAL and INEFFECTIVE. - These laws as invented by our politicians and police management are mainly intended to restrict and limit the availability of defensive tools to only the privileged and the record shows that 'GUN CONTROLS' are unfit for the stated purpose of preventing violent crime.
Marty K.
Spot on....section 48 gives us the right to defend ourselves or another, but the police and government are hell-bent on denying us the means effectively to do so. At very close to 80, I'm not about to go hand to hand with anyone. If I cannot get away from the threat (situation or not me being defended) then I will use something to swing the balance of power in my favour.
ReplyDeleteIf the harm to the aggressor is extreme, or fatal, I know that if it was a firearm that I used, then my licence would be revoked because the very act of harming another, even thought legal in every sense, would be interpreted as me being "not fit and proper" to own firearms. That's the difference between the law and 'police policy'.
Criminals are 'tooled up' in unprecedented numbers, so add to that the prevalence of such psycho-active drugs as methamphetamine being in common use, then I must perforce assume that the threat is a lethal one. Even complying with the thug is no guarantee (remember William Bell?)..... I will hopefully survive the attack, but will probably lose the court case to get my licence and guns back...at least in the present situation with which all legal gun owners are faced. Even an unsubstantiated single complaint can cause licence and firearms loss, and getting them back is expensive. It seems to me that the government and police are leaning on the wrong people. One thing they have succeeded in doing to perfection is destroying the trust we used to have in police, Many now see them as the enemy, and that is a terrible shame.
Indeed so Kathryn - Logical thinking and a correct assessment of the FACTS. Cheers.
DeleteWell said . I'm perplexed why the police arms officer insist in calling the firearms I deal with , " WEAPONS". A firearm is not a "WEAPON" until used as a defensive tool. I taught Concealed Carry Weapons to civilians in the US specifically to defend themselves with. There are many aspects to that issue legal, constitutional , mental, awareness of the facts and others . Its going to get interesting in seeing what this police officer is about that wants to look at my books who is calling my guns , "WEAPONS" !
Delete