The debate "In the United States it is your personal responsibility to defend yourself from imminent danger" was started by
October 16, 2018, 3:54 pm.
12 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 3 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Matthew354 posted 4 arguments to the agreers part.
Matthew354, melda90, Debatedaddy and 9 visitors agree.
3 visitors disagree.
I did actually consider it, but after reading self defense cases in other "developed countries," the scenario you mentioned is hardly my concern. This is because other countries like Europe and Asian countries which are considered 1st World have an issue of using political correctness for those who assaulted or committed crimes innocent people, and used words like "civilly challenged" or "consentually challenged" for those who did them in innocent people.
And here is the consequence of this: the real criminals can sue the person who defended themselves because they "had an unfair advantage," using any weapons (firearms or improvised) that helps with self defense of the innocent person adds to the charges, and any form of self defense is horribly criminalized; this happens at an alarming occurrence.
America generally doesn't have this problem of criminalizing self defense, with some states in the United States as exception like my state of California. What's more, I'm more worried of innocent people being sued by the real criminals who assault them and abusing the justice system that in fact increases crime, than someone who abused self-defense laws than in fact reduces crime.
Unfortunately for those who do rely on the law enforcement for protection like you, the law enforcement are not obligated to protect any person or individual in both the state and federal level; the law enforcement are not protectors of anyone, they are only responsible in enforcing the law. This is in fact the consequence of the Warren vs DC Supreme Court case of 1981.
Absolutely not. I'll rely on law enforcement because I know they will handle the situation better than myself.
I just brought up a potential situation that sounds like it house huge potential for abuse. I'm not saying all encounters will be like this. that's twisting my words.
dont you think that scenario is worthy of consideration?
Your question conveys a weak argument, and it implies that every confrontation defused by a firearm always ended in justifiable homicide or murder. In reality, many and successful self defense cases with a firearm involved has a very small fraction of justifiable homicides, where most confrontation usually ends with the person following the orders by the person with the gun, the person running away, or getting an injury by firearm; according to FBI statistics from 2010 to 2016.
Sure most violent crimes were committed by a firearm according to the same statistics, but there is no conclusive evidence or correlation that suggest any form gun control as any effect on suicides or homicide statistics. I would heavily infer that those murders and suicides would only be displaced with other means, like improvised weapons and dangerous substances.
how easy would it be to get away with murder if there are no witnesses and you just claim the other guy attacked you? not like dead men can argue back
I mean that every individual in the United States should not expect the law enforcement or military to protect them from imminent danger, and should be expected to protect themselves
How do you mean?