Ayn Rand on Gun Control

[Mikkel]

Okay, here is my view. First of, I am a stranger to you. I come from another country, Denmark, and though we share the overall cultural heritage of being western, I am informed by another view of how to understand the individual and the group. So here are my thoughts. It is a functional over-reduction, but it covers the core principles

• Reduce the ability of taxation down to solely the local government(LG). Only one kind of taxation, property tax.
  
• Reduce all LG down to a group of a maximum of around 200 adults. Everything above, state government(SG) and federal government(FG) are there for courts and border control.
  
• A group of LGs can form higher voluntary administrative units, e.g. police, military and so on, but any individual LG can drop out at any time.
  
• All money derived from taxation are divided in a ratio of LG/SG/FG (e.g. 10/1/2) for which the ratio is written into the constitution. It can be changed with a 5/6 majority of all LG with a 5/6 majority of any individual LG for changes to ratio which gives more to the SG and FG. Any changes to the ratio which gives more to LG are changed with simple majority for all LG and simple majority within the single LG.
  

As such all rights are written into the constitution on the federal level but in practice done on the local government level. So for guns it goes like this and here my cultural bias will show itself:

• All able mind/bodied men/females have a right to bear arms
  
• What makes a human able mind/bodied are practically handled at the LG level.
  
• If such a human wants to bear arms, this human is a full member of the LG militia company. I.e. the right to bear arms also is the duty to defend the community that form the LG.
  
• If an able mind/bodied human of an LG does not want to carry arms, he/she Must serve as an unarmed medic.
  
• The militia company commander is elected within the LG.
  
• Only the militia company commander has the right to mobilize for war. I.e. it is not the CinC who can declare war and mobilize, rather it is the sum of the LGs who do that.
  

In practice any "fancier" than militia weapons comes from this: A group of LGs can form higher voluntary administrative units, e.g. police, military and so on, but any individual LG can drop out at any time.

History shows that the wider the gap between the individual and the government is and that includes taxes and military the higher probability of oligarchy. There is also a military logic behind this. Normally civilians consider the armed forces to be the professional branches of the army, navy and air force. That is not so, because in practice any defense of a given territory ends with the militia/guerrilla force. So in a free society the militia company is the major and last line of defense and I apologize for the somewhat inappropriate picture below, but in military terms it is true as to the human nature and the nature of warfare:

So here she is - your major and last line of defense:

I apologize for the inherent hyperbole in the picture, but it is true. If you detached the military from her, she can't defend herself and must watch her father, brothers and sons go to war! Here are some maxims or rather slogans on the divide between how the civilians and soldiers understand war:

• Civilians say - if the war comes. Soldiers say when war comes and peace is the period of time between the last war in which we prepare for the next war.
  
• Civilians believe they have property rights! That is not so, what they have, are on loan from the military until the military needs it.
  
• Civilians are those bumbling idiots, who get into the line of fire.
  
• It is easy to make a peasant into a soldier, it is harder making a soldier into a peasant.
  
• Political power grows from the barrel of a gun . (Mao Zedong)
  

Not only was Ayn Rand a city-dweller, worse she was a civilian city-dweller. ;)

Mikkel

[dennislmay]

Political power grows from the barrel of a gun . (Mao Zedong)

Exactly why gun control leads to tyranny.

Not only was Ayn Rand a city-dweller, worse she was a civilian city-dweller. ;)

It would be a shame for Rand's good work to be tainted/destroyed by those

who would take what little she said on this topic - she knew nothing about - seriously.

Dennis

[dennislmay]

My experience in life and my education in criminology suggest that no one ever needs any weapon to deal with another human being. What, then, when the other person has a weapon? It's complicated. I

No its not complicated at all. You are wrong about "no one ever needs any weapon to deal with another human being". It is not even debatable that you are wrong.

Shields, restraints, protections, shunts, ... electromotive, electromechanical, ceramic, monofilament, whiskers... who knows?

A nice alternative universe - Green Lantern uses Green Energy too.

She lived through a war, a civil war, and a revolution. No one took away anyone's guns. There were lot of guns. Everywhere.

I don't even know what to say about that kind of revisionist history. I'm sure the Jews in the ghetto went down to the market to buy

guns any time they wanted.

Dennis

[anthony]

Ayn Rand was the single best proponent of rational empiricism (objectivism) ever. .

Michael,

While much you've written is thought-provoking, I must point out that I

think this is clearly wrong.

Objectivism is not defined by rational empiricism.

AR: "Philosophers came to be divided into two camps: those who claimed that man obtained his knowledge of the world by deducing it exclusively from concepts, which come from inside his head and are not derived from the perception of physical facts - the Rationalists;

-and those who claim that man obtains his knowledge from experience, which was held to mean: by direct perception of immediate facts, with no recourse to concepts - the Empiricists".

"To put it more simply: those who joined the mystics (the "Witch Doctor") by abandoning reality - and those who clung to reality by abandoning their mind."

["For the New Intellectual" p. 30]

I believe this is a significant distinction (the hub of misunderstanding among Objectivists as well as non-O'ists) in that while the scientific method of inquiry

and experiment (empirical) does have value within Objectivism - qua methodology, a tool ; rational empiricism, qua philosophy, is anti-conceptual. Therefore, it was completely rejected by Rand, and cannot be even a partial definition of O'ism.

[Mikkel]

Political power grows from the barrel of a gun . (Mao Zedong)

Exactly why gun control leads to tyranny.

Yes, that is a necessary part of it. Free rational humans need access to guns that are not controlled by some faraway government/military, but there is a catch. Rational humans need access to guns.

[anthony]

In themselves, I've nothing against guns. I've fired some, handled many, but have never

wanted to own one. Carrying one, or stashing it at home carries a lot of personal responsibility - and I have seen from someone I know who has a concealed Glock how much trouble they can be...all on the off-chance 'something happens'. Well I have been in some tricky situations, and lived to tell the tale, unarmed.

I was in someone's home 7 years ago when it was invaded by four men with pistols

and held at gun-point on the floor for an hour.

Two things in our favour were that none of us was carrying, and the men were pros. The home owner was pistol-whipped to open his safe, though. In a country with a terrifyingly high rate of brutal armed robbery, it has been few, very few, occasions that a person's life was saved by his weapon - much more often, shooting accidents and suicides in the home, stupid heroics in defence with innocents getting shot, or a gun seized by criminals and used on the owner.

I happily cede my right to a government to carry the guns. That is after all a minimal govt's central purpose.

[dennislmay]

... it has been few, very few, occasions that a person's life was saved by his weapon - ...

The stats do not support your assertion at all. Read the real stats by John Lott.

Whenever concealed carry comes to town - crime falls precipitously.

If you look beyond simple law enforcement the military/political stats suggest

many tens of millions died in the 20th century as a result of not having the right to guns.

I happily cede my right to a government to carry the guns. That is after all a minimal govt's central purpose.

You don't have to carry - as a free rider others carrying reduce your chances of becoming a victim.

I will not cede my right to government to carry guns - when the government comes to take the guns

play time is over - revolution to overthrow that government begins.

I am amazed we are even having this discussion - it resembles what you might hear on Libertarian-Left

which is infected with Marxists/Socialists.

Dennis

[caroljane]

Lotts stats support Lotts biases.

[Dglgmut]

Michael:

Premises:

1) The only purpose of a handgun is to kill someone. <<<<This is patently false. It can prevent someone from being killed. It can provide food. It can provide pleasure.

2) You have no right to kill someone. <<<<This is also false, you have an absolute right to kill someone who is trying to kill you, or, someone you value.

3) Therefore, you have no right to a handgun. <<<<The conclusion falls from the dead weight of the two false statements that it is based on.

Adam

Nice. And on top of that there's also the fact that handguns exist. To ban them would be to only make them available to people willing to break the law. And that law could only be enforced by contradicting itself.

[Selene]

Lotts stats support Lotts biases.

Carol:

How so?

His extensive research and statistical data is well respected.

There is no credible argument when two (2) similar counties are placed next to each other, one (1) has severely restrictive gun ownership and the other has no restrictive gun ownership. In the restrictive county, violent crime does not precipitously decrease and in the none restrictive county violent crime drops precipitously. Moreover, the drop in violent crime is well outside of the minimum level of statistical significance,

That is not a bias.

Can you explain your statement more fully?

Adam

[dennislmay]

Michael:

Premises:

1) The only purpose of a handgun is to kill someone. <<<<This is patently false. It can prevent someone from being killed. It can provide food. It can provide pleasure.

2) You have no right to kill someone. <<<<This is also false, you have an absolute right to kill someone who is trying to kill you, or, someone you value.

3) Therefore, you have no right to a handgun. <<<<The conclusion falls from the dead weight of the two false statements that it is based on.

Adam

Nice. And on top of that there's also the fact that handguns exist. To ban them would be to only make them available to people willing to break the law. And that law could only be enforced by contradicting itself.

Rural states and rural counties generally have lower crime rates than urban areas with restricted rights to guns. The safest areas in the country are where everyone has a rifle in the back window of his pickup everwhere he goes and a gun collection at home. The history of the USA as the freest most properious country with a long history of gun rights blows all this stupidity about gun control out of the water. Cuba and North Korea not so much so.

Dennis

[Selene]

[anthony]

... it has been few, very few, occasions that a person's life was saved by his weapon - ...

The stats do not support your assertion at all. Read the real stats by John Lott.

Whenever concealed carry comes to town - crime falls precipitously.

If you look beyond simple law enforcement the military/political stats suggest

many tens of millions died in the 20th century as a result of not having the right to guns.

I happily cede my right to a government to carry the guns. That is after all a minimal govt's central purpose.

You don't have to carry - as a free rider others carrying reduce your chances of becoming a victim.

I will not cede my right to government to carry guns - when the government comes to take the guns

play time is over - revolution to overthrow that government begins.

I am amazed we are even having this discussion - it resembles what you might hear on Libertarian-Left

which is infected with Marxists/Socialists.

Dennis

The right to be armed? Yep. I'm all in favour. The obligation to be armed? Nope.

If it comes to having to defend ourselves against a statist, totalitarian government we're dead

before we begin. With proper limited government it should never have to happen, anyway.

I think the concept of "easy rider" is a collectivist fallacy, coercing a person to carry as duty to others.

As for politically, I'm Objectivist, but would vote Libertarian if I had a chance. What an O'ist isn't,

is either liberal or conservative.

[dennislmay]

I found and printed off a similar old ad a few years ago after the ATF faked two guns "used in

crimes" reports with fake serial numbers and everything to investigate a guy I am acquinted

with who had done nothing wrong. One of the fraudulent reports was on an antique Iver Johnson

revolver. They used the manufactured reports to investigate his gun collection. He had the

guns in his possession so their faked serial numbers and faked reports did no good. If

the guns had been lost or traded/sold he would no doubt be in prison based on their faked

evidence. Luckily he is wealthy and had a security system giving him a heads up about

what they were up to even when he was not at home - so they couldn't spring it on him

in person and he was able to stop whatever they were really up to.

Dennis

[dennislmay]

The right to be armed? Yep. I'm all in favour. The obligation to be armed? Nope.

No one implied you were obligated to carry - only that you should have a right to.

I don't mind if you want to be a free rider on security - that is your right also.

If it comes to having to defend ourselves against a statist, totalitarian government we're dead

before we begin.

Tell that to the founders who defeated the largest Army and Navy on the planet.

Dennis

[BaalChatzaf]

The right to be armed? Yep. I'm all in favour. The obligation to be armed? Nope.

No one implied you were obligated to carry - only that you should have a right to.

I don't mind if you want to be a free rider on security - that is your right also.

If it comes to having to defend ourselves against a statist, totalitarian government we're dead

before we begin.

Tell that to the founders who defeated the largest Army and Navy on the planet.

Dennis

With the help of France under King Louis.

ba'al Chatzaf

[caroljane]

Bien dit, Baal.

[dennislmay]

The right to be armed? Yep. I'm all in favour. The obligation to be armed? Nope.

No one implied you were obligated to carry - only that you should have a right to.

I don't mind if you want to be a free rider on security - that is your right also.

If it comes to having to defend ourselves against a statist, totalitarian government we're dead

before we begin.

Tell that to the founders who defeated the largest Army and Navy on the planet.

Dennis

With the help of France under King Louis.

ba'al Chatzaf

And the British hired German mercenaries. Native Americans fought for the British.

Few wars or civil wars are entirely contained.

Dennis

[Brant Gaede]

Without French aid the American Revolution would have been lost. Period. Eventually, of course, there would have been independence. I wonder if there would have been a French Revolution, however; they spent so much money supporting the Americans.

--Brant

[dennislmay]

Without French aid the American Revolution would have been lost. Period. Eventually, of course, there would have been independence. I wonder if there would have been a French Revolution, however; they spent so much money supporting the Americans.

--Brant

Over half the land troops of the British were not British but German or Native American so without German and Native

American aid the British might have had a difficult time. In any case they would have been run out eventually because

the supply lines were simply too long. The French Revolution was related to the beginnings of socialist doctrine - started

in France and later spread to Germany. Hayek speaks to this in the "The Counter-Revolution of Science". Money may

have been a factor but not likely the largest factor.

Dennis

[Selene]

Well now, here are the folks who should be disarmed...

"Erik Scott was a West Point graduate who went on to serve honorably in the Army, get his MBA from Duke and establish a lucrative career in real estate and as a sales rep for a medical device company. He was 38 years old when he was gunned down in portico of a Las Vegas area Costco store by officers from the Las Vegas Metro Police Department. While it was 7 bullets from the only people we’re supposed to trust with guns that snuffed out Erik Scott’s life, what really killed him was an irrational fear of firearms – hoplophobia.

Scott and his girlfriend had been shopping in the Costco, but had been asked to leave when an employee spotted Scott’s lawfully carried handgun. Scott had inadvertently exposed the gun when he squatted down to inspect some merchandise. He informed the employee that he was legally carrying the gun and was in possession of a valid Nevada concealed weapons permit, but was informed that Costco has a policy against carrying firearms in their stores.

A brief argument ensued, some raised voices and obvious frustration on Scott’s part, but witnesses said it didn’t seem like a big deal. They saw nothing particularly threatening about the incident or the clean-cut, good looking young man. The store manager who had spoken with Scott seemed satisfied by Scott’s reassurance that he was a legal firearm carrier and would be finished with his shopping in a few minutes. But a store Loss Prevention Officer called the police and reported that an armed man was behaving erratically in the store.

That report, based on irrational fear, and perhaps some personal envy, triggered events which quickly spiraled out of control. It seems that the fear factor was taken up a notch with each description of the story to the point that responding officers believed they were going into a violent hostage situation with a heavily armed and dangerous Green Beret.

Las Vegas MPD responded with a city-wide alert, street closures, helicopter support and deployment of a Mobile Command Center. The first officers on the scene arrived as Costco employees were following telephone instructions from the police to calmly evacuate the store.

As Scott and his girlfriend fell in with other patrons flowing out of the exit door, the Loss Prevention Officer who started the whole mess pointed toward Scott and a police officer at the door suddenly began yelling “Stop! I said Stop! Drop the gun! Get on the ground! Get on the ground!”

He fired these conflicting commands in quick succession giving Scott no opportunity to comply with any of them and then fired two rounds at Scott’s chest. As the officer began yelling and Scott realized he was the subject of the commands, he turned, lifting his hands, and apparently tried to follow the legal requirement to immediately inform an officer that he was an armed weapons permit holder, but he didn’t have time.

The officer’s frantic orders lasted for a slow count of 3 and were immediately followed by the two gunshots, a momentary pause, and a volley of several more shots. There was no pause or hesitation between the commands and the shots. The first round struck Erik Scott in the heart, the second hit his right thigh. As he collapsed to the ground, two other officers fired 5 more shots into his back. Numerous witnesses reported that they saw Scott turn and declare that he was a permit holder. Many said they could see both of his hands and that he made no threatening move. All agreed that the only gun they saw was the one in Scott’s waistband on his right hip.

Other witnesses reported that they saw Scott’s body removed by EMTs and saw nothing on the ground except blood and a cell phone, or sun glasses. EMTs reported that they removed Scott’s gun and holster from the waistband of his jeans in the ambulance and that they saw no other gun, yet, after police broke into Scott’s apartment and confiscated the firearms there, the story came out that Scott was carrying two guns that day.

A picture of the second gun, on the ground near a cell phone, after the blood on the pavement had been cleaned up,********** is the “proof” that Scott had two guns and pulled one on MPD officers. The store’s video surveillance system inexplicably malfunctioned for the several seconds of the shooting.

A coroner’s inquest concluded that the shooting was justified, just as a similar inquest had concluded that the gunning down of an unarmed, small-time pot dealer in his apartment a short time before the Scott shooting was ruled to be justified. Just as such coroner’s inquests have concluded that officer involved shootings were justified in 199 out of 200 incidents since 1976.

Erik Scott’s family has strongly contested the conclusions of the coroner’s inquest and the entire inquest process. They succeeded in getting some changes made to that process, but those changes have been held up by suits from the police union.

The Scott’s filed a wrongful death suit in federal court, but recently dropped that effort, convinced that they had no hope of winning with the system stacked against them.

Erik Scott’s father, a former Air Force flight test engineer and writer for the prestigious aerospace magazine Aviation Week & Space Technology, has painted a sympathetic, fictionalized portrait of Erik and the events of that day as part of a new novel he is offering in serialized form at

ThePermit.blogspot.com in hopes of maintaining awareness of Erik’s tragic death and bringing attention to corruption within the justice system and government of Las Vegas.

The police have a difficult job. They are put in positions and asked to do things that most of us would run away from, but authority and power must be tempered with responsibility and accountability. For decades lawmakers and courts have built up walls of protection around police and other government workers. It is critical that these public servants be protected from frivolous suits and baseless harassment, but they must be held accountable for their actions and investigations into their activities must be beyond reproach. That is not the case currently.

When one person’s irrational fear of a peacefully armed man can result in that man being gunned down by police with no consequences for anyone except the victim and his friends and family, something is terribly, terribly wrong. Hoplophobia killed Erik Scott and a corrupt system allowed his accusers and executioners get away with it.

********* To those of us who are familiar with the street code of the police, this is the proverbial cover your ass throw away gun that an unknown number of police officers carry for the just in case, or, oops I fucked up moments.

Adam

[dennislmay]

Well now, here are the folks who should be disarmed...

"Erik Scott was a West Point graduate who went on to serve honorably in the Army, get his MBA from Duke and establish a lucrative career in real estate and as a sales rep for a medical device company. He was 38 years old when he was gunned down in portico of a Las Vegas area Costco store by officers from the Las Vegas Metro Police Department. While it was 7 bullets from the only people we’re supposed to trust with guns that snuffed out Erik Scott’s life, what really killed him was an irrational fear of firearms – hoplophobia.

Scott and his girlfriend had been shopping in the Costco, but had been asked to leave when an employee spotted Scott’s lawfully carried handgun. Scott had inadvertently exposed the gun when he squatted down to inspect some merchandise. He informed the employee that he was legally carrying the gun and was in possession of a valid Nevada concealed weapons permit, but was informed that Costco has a policy against carrying firearms in their stores.

A brief argument ensued, some raised voices and obvious frustration on Scott’s part, but witnesses said it didn’t seem like a big deal. They saw nothing particularly threatening about the incident or the clean-cut, good looking young man. The store manager who had spoken with Scott seemed satisfied by Scott’s reassurance that he was a legal firearm carrier and would be finished with his shopping in a few minutes. But a store Loss Prevention Officer called the police and reported that an armed man was behaving erratically in the store.

That report, based on irrational fear, and perhaps some personal envy, triggered events which quickly spiraled out of control. It seems that the fear factor was taken up a notch with each description of the story to the point that responding officers believed they were going into a violent hostage situation with a heavily armed and dangerous Green Beret.

Las Vegas MPD responded with a city-wide alert, street closures, helicopter support and deployment of a Mobile Command Center. The first officers on the scene arrived as Costco employees were following telephone instructions from the police to calmly evacuate the store.

As Scott and his girlfriend fell in with other patrons flowing out of the exit door, the Loss Prevention Officer who started the whole mess pointed toward Scott and a police officer at the door suddenly began yelling “Stop! I said Stop! Drop the gun! Get on the ground! Get on the ground!”

He fired these conflicting commands in quick succession giving Scott no opportunity to comply with any of them and then fired two rounds at Scott’s chest. As the officer began yelling and Scott realized he was the subject of the commands, he turned, lifting his hands, and apparently tried to follow the legal requirement to immediately inform an officer that he was an armed weapons permit holder, but he didn’t have time.

The officer’s frantic orders lasted for a slow count of 3 and were immediately followed by the two gunshots, a momentary pause, and a volley of several more shots. There was no pause or hesitation between the commands and the shots. The first round struck Erik Scott in the heart, the second hit his right thigh. As he collapsed to the ground, two other officers fired 5 more shots into his back. Numerous witnesses reported that they saw Scott turn and declare that he was a permit holder. Many said they could see both of his hands and that he made no threatening move. All agreed that the only gun they saw was the one in Scott’s waistband on his right hip.

Other witnesses reported that they saw Scott’s body removed by EMTs and saw nothing on the ground except blood and a cell phone, or sun glasses. EMTs reported that they removed Scott’s gun and holster from the waistband of his jeans in the ambulance and that they saw no other gun, yet, after police broke into Scott’s apartment and confiscated the firearms there, the story came out that Scott was carrying two guns that day.

A picture of the second gun, on the ground near a cell phone, after the blood on the pavement had been cleaned up,********** is the “proof” that Scott had two guns and pulled one on MPD officers. The store’s video surveillance system inexplicably malfunctioned for the several seconds of the shooting.

A coroner’s inquest concluded that the shooting was justified, just as a similar inquest had concluded that the gunning down of an unarmed, small-time pot dealer in his apartment a short time before the Scott shooting was ruled to be justified. Just as such coroner’s inquests have concluded that officer involved shootings were justified in 199 out of 200 incidents since 1976.

Erik Scott’s family has strongly contested the conclusions of the coroner’s inquest and the entire inquest process. They succeeded in getting some changes made to that process, but those changes have been held up by suits from the police union.

The Scott’s filed a wrongful death suit in federal court, but recently dropped that effort, convinced that they had no hope of winning with the system stacked against them.

Erik Scott’s father, a former Air Force flight test engineer and writer for the prestigious aerospace magazine Aviation Week & Space Technology, has painted a sympathetic, fictionalized portrait of Erik and the events of that day as part of a new novel he is offering in serialized form at

ThePermit.blogspot.com in hopes of maintaining awareness of Erik’s tragic death and bringing attention to corruption within the justice system and government of Las Vegas.

The police have a difficult job. They are put in positions and asked to do things that most of us would run away from, but authority and power must be tempered with responsibility and accountability. For decades lawmakers and courts have built up walls of protection around police and other government workers. It is critical that these public servants be protected from frivolous suits and baseless harassment, but they must be held accountable for their actions and investigations into their activities must be beyond reproach. That is not the case currently.

When one person’s irrational fear of a peacefully armed man can result in that man being gunned down by police with no consequences for anyone except the victim and his friends and family, something is terribly, terribly wrong. Hoplophobia killed Erik Scott and a corrupt system allowed his accusers and executioners get away with it.

********* To those of us who are familiar with the street code of the police, this is the proverbial cover your ass throw away gun that an unknown number of police officers carry for the just in case, or, oops I fucked up moments.

Adam

I do not shop anywhere that does not allow concealed carry - luckily I only know of one local gas station chain that takes the un-American anti-2nd amendment stand like Costco. That local chain looses about $1,000 a year business they would otherwise get.

The last person locally I knew of that had no business being around firearms was a local policeman. He was insane and power crazed. It took about 6 months before he finally decided to move on to another town. It was only a matter of time before someone would have had to kill that crazed cop had he not moved on. I feel sorry for the people wherever he is now.

I have had no beef with the Missouri State Patrol - or know anyone who has. Assorted federal agents, local cops, county cops, local judges, local prosecutors, local politicians - all a different story. Corruption, covering up murders, involvement in murders, involvement in assorted felony crimes - all a very sad story. Luckily the local situation has improved over the last 20 years I have been in Missouri. It started to turn around when a few very bad apples were convicted of federal crimes which lead to elected criminals losing their elected seats of crime. That was followed by a judge going to the pen and a local mayor. All good news but the fact is I trust local citizens with guns much more than any local or federal police or any local political types. There is a pattern demonstrating they cannot be trusted. I'm glad that at least the Highway Patrol seems to have some standards.

Dennis

[Dglgmut]

Yeah, that's fucked. What's worse is this sort of shit only discourages people from exercising their right to carry a gun...

[Dglgmut]

All good news but the fact is I trust local citizens with guns much more than any local or federal police or any local political types. There is a pattern demonstrating they cannot be trusted.

I think it's the fact that cops etc. face lesser consequences as a result of shooting someone than a civilian. If you shoot someone in self defense, as a civilian, it can destroy your life, if you shoot someone recklessly, as a cop, you just have to have enough friends to make sure people think it was in self-defense, and then you're off the hook.

Although carrying a weapon, and using it in self-defense should be legal, the followup to such events should be very thorough; equally so for police and civilians. That's what I think, anyway.

[caroljane]

Followup is always of, someone dies or is wounded.

You, me? Because someone armed is suspicious of us.