Topic: Why Would Anyone Be Against Self Defense? (Read 485 times)
There are many things that they need to make illegal and instead of doing that, their focus is on rather making people helpless? If someone had a gun or weapon, there’s no way except having to defense yourself. What then happens if it is made illegal? You’ll just give in? And what of the women who get raped? At least some of them try to defend themselves. What would they do?
What is the rationale of those who want to make self defence illegal?
Considering this on self defence and the way the court look at it. To this I think some people will consider the measure of defense against the strength of attack. Like if it is assault done on someone with mere plastic chair and the defender goes on to use lethal or gun to retaliate, this is not to be considered as self defense. Moreover if the attacker dies from the lethal weapon of the defender, it becomes a crime. I think this is the rationale behind the illegality of self defense. It should be measure for measure and not taking the opportunity to cause bodily harm while the attacker's effect wouldn't inflict such injury.
We can only consider the capacity of the nature of tools we uses to defend ourselves depending on our personal believes that we can handle the tussling situations such as de defending ourselves with a minor tool for arms or unarmed else we might end up being defenseless and helpless.
Some persons in the situations of being victims are actually heartless and abuses the law of self defense by abusing the right of being defense full.
The right to self defense or personal defense is a birthright of everyone. Any act done by a person in exercise of the right to security of his body and property constitutes self defence or personal defence. It is not a crime in the eyes of the law if anyone is harmed while doing this work. It is not a crime if a person causes harm to someone in self defence. Because everyone has the right to protect his own body and property from the attack of others.
Quote from: |MINER|
One should never go against one's self-defense. Events should never be planned beyond self-defense. Because self defense comes first. During any event or event, everyone should think about self-defense first so that there is no conflict and no violence. Those who engage in any form of leisure activity beyond self-defense pose a risk to themselves and others alike. Self-defence protects a person from all forms of vandalism and conflict.
If the constitution and law of the land is working perfectly, I don't think anyone will against self-defense because that is the easiest way to reduce bad people from the country without allow it to damage the people before the government will allow it.Anywhere, when there is a self-defense, it hard for people to mess up any events wrongly because everybody knows the rules of self-defense, and it will make some people that use to cause violence in the society not to try such things through out the event.
Self-defense will make you to work freely without fear of cultist and kidnappers, in the society because you know what to do when they by mistake show up on your way.
Except you're in a situation where you don't have no choice at all, I don't think I will support allowing self defence to the extent of using weapons for such purpose. There had been series of cases when those who claim to be victims and that they only killed the deceased in a bid to defend where later found to have made such decision with the intention of lying and twisting stories just to cover up for thier plans. No one will comfortablly sit back and allow another person bucher him to death without fighting back when he has the means to. Even if the law doesn't allow it, you've got to survive before thinking that the law kicks against it.
Self defence should only be regulated in such a way that if found, the court can probably into such situation to become certain on what led to it.
Self defence should only be regulated in such a way that if found, the court can probably into such situation to become certain on what led to it.
Allowing self-defence such as carrying a gun legally will just make people fearsome about making a commotion. People with bad intentions can use self-defence to assault someone legally by just provoking there target. I believe you will not need self-defence if guns are not allowed to carry by anyone except by the police and other military units. US violence increases tremendously when guns become legal in some states. Putting the law into the hand of there own citizens to decide when to shoot or not is really a bad decision. They should just improve there police and monitoring unit to provide a better safety rather than a self-defence mechanism that involves gun.
The problem with self defence is actually knowing if someone was actually self defending or the person was the attacker. Sometimes table turns when the huge muscular Bob has to defend himself against the tiny Jonny. Who will believe Bob that he was defending himself. The government should be the one to strike the balance and be the protector of lives and properties. I made this statement not with the deep knowledge of how things work in your country, but rather I used my own country as a case study. 
One should never go against one's self-defense. Events should never be planned beyond self-defense. Because self defense comes first. During any event or event, everyone should think about self-defense first so that there is no conflict and no violence. Those who engage in any form of leisure activity beyond self-defense pose a risk to themselves and others alike. Self-defence protects a person from all forms of vandalism and conflict.
Enough with the off-topic. You want to talk about necroposting, go to Meta.
5434019
But come to think of this issue of not contributing, if the poster is satisfied with the post, he can lock the thread or post to avoid people who are contributing or seeking to raise ideas as well helping them not being tag for spamming. Though I stand to be corrected as regards to this suggestions but I believe that is a way out where a poster who seeking contribution of knowledge restrict people after being satisfied with what he needs.
Most definitely Mate.But come to think of this issue of not contributing, if the poster is satisfied with the post, he can lock the thread or post to avoid people who are contributing or seeking to raise ideas as well helping them not being tag for spamming. Though I stand to be corrected as regards to this suggestions but I believe that is a way out where a poster who seeking contribution of knowledge restrict people after being satisfied with what he needs.
Locking the thread would be a potential solution to the problem of thread necromancy. If eventually, the OP of the a thread could lock their own thread once they've deemed the information already gotten from the thread satisfactory, it would be a very clear and polite way of telling people that he is already satisfied with the information provided and further contributions will no longer be needed or necessary.
Although like we already know, everything that has an advantage also has its downsides, and the potential downside of that it'll prevent new users from discovering or contributing to older threads that might've still be helpful to them.
Right!!! Like, their should be gun freedom. Because a young, tiny girl can fend off a bully muscleman if she has a gun.
Muscleman was at the bar without his gun. He was simply have a relaxing drink during some pleasant conversation with some friendly buddies. A couple of small, timid girls, who he had never bothered, snuck up on him and shot him to death... because they were mean, and simply didn't like his looks or smell. The fleet-footed girls got away because his buddies were too drunk to stop them.
There really isn't any peace in this world. Somebody always has a weapon to use against someone else who is napping regarding his own self-defense. Peace in society requires everybody - at least the majority - to be peaceful and respectful in his heart, towards everyone else... or it won't work very well. We see this in the violence done by the Soros-paid-off Antifa and BLM against unsuspecting people of the general public.
We see it in the US-provoked, tiny, timid Ukraine sneaking up on Russia since at least 2014... until Russia couldn't take it any more, and had to fight back to protect herself and her people.
Muscleman was at the bar without his gun. He was simply have a relaxing drink during some pleasant conversation with some friendly buddies. A couple of small, timid girls, who he had never bothered, snuck up on him and shot him to death... because they were mean, and simply didn't like his looks or smell. The fleet-footed girls got away because his buddies were too drunk to stop them.
There really isn't any peace in this world. Somebody always has a weapon to use against someone else who is napping regarding his own self-defense. Peace in society requires everybody - at least the majority - to be peaceful and respectful in his heart, towards everyone else... or it won't work very well. We see this in the violence done by the Soros-paid-off Antifa and BLM against unsuspecting people of the general public.
We see it in the US-provoked, tiny, timid Ukraine sneaking up on Russia since at least 2014... until Russia couldn't take it any more, and had to fight back to protect herself and her people.
This comes from the guy that is saying at the same time that the war in Ukraine should finish by NOT giving guns to Ukraine so that the Russian can kill them more easily. You have completely stopped making since since a long time ago dumBAss. Self-defence is not related to having guns and your theory about how it works has been proven completely wrong by the fact that the US, with very relaxed gun rules if any, is one of the most violent countries in the "civilized" world.
I am sure that your solution to school shootings is to "arm the teachers" right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attacks_related_to_post-secondary_schools
Just look at the list, US is well above any country in school shootings... we are talking that Philipines and Guatemala have less school violence thant the US!
Huh... There was no need to bring this thread afloat after more than a year of inactivity, in my opinion. If you felt like discussing the right for people to defend themselves, then you could have just opened a new thread, instead posting here again, but whatever.
It can be subjective. But you are right if we consider we are supposed to raise threads and check them in the case they already exist, so we don't cause annoyance on others. So I stand corrected. In other forums I have participated in, people do not like neither of both: spamming nor Necro bumping discussions which could be considered to be old enough to be irrelevant.
In this case I guess I may have over-reacted a bit, yes. I formally apologize.
But come to think of this issue of not contributing, if the poster is satisfied with the post, he can lock the thread or post to avoid people who are contributing or seeking to raise ideas as well helping them not being tag for spamming. Though I stand to be corrected as regards to this suggestions but I believe that is a way out where a poster who seeking contribution of knowledge restrict people after being satisfied with what he needs.
I also join to thank on your benevolent way of address this occurance people perception matters and this show that there is difference individual in terms of managing arising issues without escalating the process.
Huh... There was no need to bring this thread afloat after more than a year of inactivity, in my opinion. If you felt like discussing the right for people to defend themselves, then you could have just opened a new thread, instead posting here again, but whatever.
It can be subjective. But you are right if we consider we are supposed to raise threads and check them in the case they already exist, so we don't cause annoyance on others. So I stand corrected. In other forums I have participated in, people do not like neither of both: spamming nor Necro bumping discussions which could be considered to be old enough to be irrelevant.
In this case I guess I may have over-reacted a bit, yes. I formally apologize.
The issues of self defense and guns are really separate in my opinion. For example, you're seeing people standing up for helpless strangers and being arrested for doing so in liberal run cities. That is clearly wrong, but in my opinion completely separate from owning guns. Should people be able to assault those who put them in a position where they feel they need to defend themselves, I believe so. Should people also be able to own guns? I think so. Both are major issues and you're right to question them.
My take is this... If someone hits you first, you should have the right to beat them unconscious. I also think gun ownership is important, otherwise someone might not be aware if they break into a home they could be murdered. Take away guns and soon our government will be like Canada, telling people to leave their doors unlocked so criminals don't have to break in where they could hurt the homeowner.
It is true that people have the right to protect themselves if they feel threatened. On the other hand, you acknowledge that gun ownership is a distinct issue (which I believe is also true) with its own set of difficulties and implications. Yeah, these concerns can be tough to resolve, but there is still a need to try to separate them in order to have effective conversations. My take is this... If someone hits you first, you should have the right to beat them unconscious. I also think gun ownership is important, otherwise someone might not be aware if they break into a home they could be murdered. Take away guns and soon our government will be like Canada, telling people to leave their doors unlocked so criminals don't have to break in where they could hurt the homeowner.
In my honest opinion, I believe it is possible to understand the need of self-defense while simultaneously acknowledging the dangers of unregulated having a gun. On one hand, we have the right to defend ourselves against damage, which includes the right to use force if needed. On the other hand, we have a responsibility to keep firearms out of the hands of individuals who could use them to hurt others. But now the problem is to find a way to balance these two objectives without intruding on people's rights or putting them in danger.
I believe that focusing on education and training for gun ownership could be a viable option. For example, we may require gun owners to complete a safety course and pass a background check before purchasing a gun. We could also establish a mandatory system of licensing and registration to track who possesses guns and ensure that they are used responsibly. This allows for a balance between respecting people's rights to self-defense and protecting the public from damage.
And another thing is that, it's very possible that if people rely on guns too much, it can generate some sort of fear or mistrust, where they start feeling like they need to protect themselves at all costs, even when it hasn't really gotten to such extent.
There is nothing bad in making a self defense of ourselves at some point in life, but what we have to make sure is in having a proof to what we are making that defense upon, we must not commit something illegal and expect that the law does not work against us if we are not giving enough evidence to back ourselves up, self defense is as good as you been able to avert any form of evil or harm targeted as against you back to the sender.
The issues of self defense and guns are really separate in my opinion. For example, you're seeing people standing up for helpless strangers and being arrested for doing so in liberal run cities. That is clearly wrong, but in my opinion completely separate from owning guns. Should people be able to assault those who put them in a position where they feel they need to defend themselves, I believe so. Should people also be able to own guns? I think so. Both are major issues and you're right to question them.
My take is this... If someone hits you first, you should have the right to beat them unconscious. I also think gun ownership is important, otherwise someone might not be aware if they break into a home they could be murdered. Take away guns and soon our government will be like Canada, telling people to leave their doors unlocked so criminals don't have to break in where they could hurt the homeowner.
My take is this... If someone hits you first, you should have the right to beat them unconscious. I also think gun ownership is important, otherwise someone might not be aware if they break into a home they could be murdered. Take away guns and soon our government will be like Canada, telling people to leave their doors unlocked so criminals don't have to break in where they could hurt the homeowner.
I don't think that we'll come to an agreement in this thread. Some people will always said that guns should be allowed only if you use it for work, like police, security and so on. Others will tell you that the more guns people have the better because they can quickly dispatch of any shooters, terrorists, muggers and similar.
There are 3 important things to consider if you're against people owning guns.
1. Criminals will always find a way to get a gun, simply because all countries will never ban them, so they'll be able to go somewhere else, buy a gun and smuggle it back.
2. How are you going to defend your home or car against someone with a gun if you can't own one? Criminals will know you're unarmed because the chances of you being armed security are low so they'll be even more aggressive knowing you can't defend yourself.
3. The police is not going to save you. What's the average response time in your area? I live in a small town with maybe 2 active duty cops on night shift. The average response time if they aren't dealing with something is 10 minutes. If they are in the process of helping someone it could be 15-20 minutes. A home invasion will be over by then.
There are 3 important things to consider if you're against people owning guns.
1. Criminals will always find a way to get a gun, simply because all countries will never ban them, so they'll be able to go somewhere else, buy a gun and smuggle it back.
2. How are you going to defend your home or car against someone with a gun if you can't own one? Criminals will know you're unarmed because the chances of you being armed security are low so they'll be even more aggressive knowing you can't defend yourself.
3. The police is not going to save you. What's the average response time in your area? I live in a small town with maybe 2 active duty cops on night shift. The average response time if they aren't dealing with something is 10 minutes. If they are in the process of helping someone it could be 15-20 minutes. A home invasion will be over by then.
Huh... There was no need to bring this thread afloat after more than a year of inactivity, in my opinion. If you felt like discussing the right for people to defend themselves, then you could have just opened a new thread, instead posting here again, but whatever.
It can be subjective. But you are right if we consider we are supposed to raise threads and check them in the case they already exist, so we don't cause annoyance on others. So I stand corrected. In other forums I have participated in, people do not like neither of both: spamming nor Necro bumping discussions which could be considered to be old enough to be irrelevant.
In this case I guess I may have over-reacted a bit, yes. I formally apologize.
Self defence should be a human right in every country, no government or law enforcement agency should ever outlaw the right to defend yourself with reasonable force if you are in danger. Obviously you can’t go round attacking people & claiming self defence but if you fear for your safety you should always be able to defend yourself.
Huh... There was no need to bring this thread afloat after more than a year of inactivity, in my opinion. If you felt like discussing the right for people to defend themselves, then you could have just opened a new thread, instead posting here again, but whatever.
What is the rationale of those who want to make self defence illegal?
I get how a liberal could want social programs, since it's basically more money for them taken from someone else: Immoral but understood, more resources for your, less for someone else. But why is the first reaction of liberals in an altercation to criticise the person reacting to being assaulted and not the person starting the violence?
Do they just assume nothing bad will ever happen to them and thus can't empathize with someone being genuinely victimized? I can't see what they would gain from outlawing self defence. If anything, liberals are more likely to be assaulted since they tend to not workout and are more sensitive - see journos, they aren't even inclined to do petty crime and would benefit from people being sheepish about self defence. They would be the exact type of person a petty criminal WOULD target.
The masses who are against self-defense are just fools who repeat the speeches of the politicians from the ideology they idolize. They don't know for real what the impact of such measures would have on practice. If they did, they would change their minds immediately.I get how a liberal could want social programs, since it's basically more money for them taken from someone else: Immoral but understood, more resources for your, less for someone else. But why is the first reaction of liberals in an altercation to criticise the person reacting to being assaulted and not the person starting the violence?
Do they just assume nothing bad will ever happen to them and thus can't empathize with someone being genuinely victimized? I can't see what they would gain from outlawing self defence. If anything, liberals are more likely to be assaulted since they tend to not workout and are more sensitive - see journos, they aren't even inclined to do petty crime and would benefit from people being sheepish about self defence. They would be the exact type of person a petty criminal WOULD target.
Meanwhile, the politicians who defend the agenda are just hypocritical, since they are heavily protected by bodyguards everywhere they go. All of them fully armed with modern weapons and specialized on self-defense skills. Common people are told to not defend themselves by politicians who don't have to defend themselves, because they have someone who can do this for them, thanks to the tax money those common citizens pay in order to hire those professionals.
I guess the point is that to endorse this bullshit is profitable for them. They have a highlighted role on the society for defending this agenda. That is how they are elected, exercises influence over other people and make a living from.
The masses, however... Well, they might feel rewarded for being part of a group of people who think in the same manner. The sense of belonging must be enough for them...
Jump to: