As the police cannot protect us, should we be allowed to protect ourselves.?

Question

The police exist for the sole purpose of protecting the innocent and their property and yet recent experience in the UK would demonstrate that they are both unwilling and unable to fulfil this function. If that is the case isn't it time that the individual in society was allowed to protect him/herself and therefore have the right to bear arms and use them legally in self defence without fear of prosecution..

DEMON.
The thugs and scum are already armed to the teeth shouldn't we just equalize things up a bit.

Answer 1

Here in the good ol USA we are able to protect ourselves and we are not afraid to do so.

Answer 2

Who's recent experience, mate. I live in a small city. It averages 9 burglaries a day. If you live in the inner-cities or in country areas near inner-cities then there will be some truth to your claim, but overall the police have things very much under control. Read English history and find out what a free-for-all things used to be.

Also, the purpose of the police has NEVER been to protect the innocent. They really came into being to protect the properties of
the new Midddle-Class during the Industrial Revolution. There job since then has always been to "maintain law and order". Innocence is the preserve of judges and juries, not the police.

Answer 3

The Police aren't here to protect the innocent, they are here to uphold the law, law enforcement. In enforcing the law, the majority will be protected, as the majority will abide by the laws enforced.

How to deal with the minority who do present a danger is another matter. The problem is, if you were to carry a bat as protection, and you battered an assailant to death, current law - not Policing - would deem you guilty as you took the bat with the sole purpose of battering someone... I understand your question and, although i think it's misplaced, view on feeling unprotected by the Police. However, this opens a whole can of worms. Is arming everyone a good idea? I don't think the US example lends any weight to support your view.

I don't believe it will solve any problems apart from maybe providing a feeling of security. However, to need something to make you feel safe means you must feel insecure at present. Does the over sensationalist reporting of yobs, hoodies, immigrants and chav hooligans really worry you that much? If it does don't you think it would be foolish to allow them the means to legally arm themselves? It would be pointless in you having a pistol in your pocket, only to be shot in the back for the sake of your wallet especially if they only had a pistol because your new law allowed them to get one easily and legally.

If you're really bothered, train and get handy with your fists and feet, don't get so paranoid and misguided by sensationalist crap in the tabloids and chill out.

Answer 4

If we did this, who would monitor the use of arms 'legally'? We'd still need some kind of policing to ensure that people weren't wielding axes at will.

Do away with policing altogether and the result would be anarchy and even less safety than we have now.

Sort out the current policing situation (ie, get politicians to act honestly for once instead of constantly jiggling statistics and acting based on theory instead of reality) and we might just be a little better off.

Answer 5

No. A more logical solution would be to enable to police to better protect people and their property. A sliding-scale of personal justice/vendetta would be chaos and cause more problems for society than the current system.

In giving the Police Force more power though, you would also get a public backlash. Yes people would be protected and probably feel safer but it would only take a couple of accusations for the publicand the media to be in uproar about the unjustness of the police power.

Answer 6

I do not agree that that is the sole purpose of the already stretched police force.

If we were allowed to protect ourselves, who makes the decision on how far you can go to protect yourself and who's decision is it to say when someone justifies protection?

There are enough freaks out there without allowing them to become a nation wielding arms at will.

We would end up with a society with increased fire arm crimes and easier access to firearms to those who should not have them.

It really scares me that people feel this free about carrying weapons.

Answer 7

No, I think that this would make the situation worse, just as arming police in the street.

The law has to be changed in such a way that the victim feels justice has been seen to be done, if a British person is caught with a gun he/she should be given a minimum sentence of 25 years and immigrants etc.should be put out and never be allowed to enter Britain again.

Answer 8

The Common Law of England and Wales already allows for the defence of self-defence where if the action taken is not considered to be excessive force, you may be able to get away with an absolute discharge.

The use of firearms would be considered legal where it is a last resort or where you life was in significant danger and the risk of death or serious bodily injury was significant.

However, it provides for 'REASONABLE' and 'PROPORTIONATE' force only. The use of firearms is a highly contentious issue and in my personal opinion, I think it's wrong to go down the road that the United States of America has taken. Not only do I think it is wrong, I also think it is dangerous.

The level of gun crime in this country, although rising, is extremely rare. By allowing a huge influx of firearms in this country would mean there are a lot more guns to steal and more of it in the hands of criminals placing the lives of PC's and members of the public in a significantly greater degree of risk and danger than they are now.

Plus, if we arm ouselves with weapons it only means a criminal will find it necessary for himself to obtain a larger weapon or rifle to commit a crime of the same degree and placing more people in danger.

Responding to violence with more violence isn't to answer, in my opinion at least.

Answer 9

Im in the same situation and some of the persons bothering me are in fact with an Al Quaida operation. Ive been to all law enforcement govt and even the US military, they dont take it seriously because its taking place in PARK FOREST IL a small suburb outside chicago. No one expected 9/11/01 to occur either,but it did,. the govt didnt take an EARLY WARNING sent to them about it.. I think these people need to be wacked they are in a terrorist network and will never admit it. Defend our homeland if the homeland wont defend it for us! Im a US citizen born and raised and our US govt has failed all of us.. what an ugly society this is becoming while they sit back and send all our funds to the IRAQ war, we could buy their oil interests with all that dough and come back home to boot! The revoulinaries didnt lose sight of our freedoms, the Bush admin is over riding our constitutional freedoms. Defend yourselves cause no one is going to do it for u.. [e-mail]

Answer 10

Yeah why not? Let's have a few lynchings and public executions. Flog the skin off someones back because you don't like the way they look at you. Great stuff. Blow someones brains out because you mistook their wallet for a gun in your shop. Burn someones house down because they come from a different parish. Shoot the Postman because he looked like a trespasser. Burn the Milkman because you thought he was carrying a petrol bomb. Kill the paediatrician because it sounds like paedophile.

If you want to see open warfare on the streets arm the pig-ignorant.

GUNS ARE EVIL. ONLY THOSE PROPERLY TRAINED IN THEIR USE SHOULD USE THEM.

Answer 11

I am not familiar with your country's stance on citizen laws or restrictions for obtaining and possessing a firearm legally. In the US constitution it is a given right of a citizen of America to obtain,and posses firearms legally. It also is stated as a purpose to defend ones self from undesirable intention to inflict fear, bodily harm, or possibly imminent death against yourself.