Topic: Why Would Anyone Be Against Self Defense? - page 2. (Read 557 times)

Self defense is important when it comes to protecting oneself from attackers, because your safety and staying alive can depend on how you protect yourself. When it comes to protecting oneself with firearms, it then becomes a sensitive matter, because inasmuch as I advocate for self defense, I wouldn't support that everybody can handle firearms, there must be strong rules and regulations that will guide the use of firearms and holders must be made to understand the consequence of violating such laws. If everybody carries firearms to protect themselves, some will abuse that right and use when they're perhaps having an argument with another person, I believe that killings will be on the increase. Holding firearms will necessitate in areas and communities where there's constant attacks by criminals.

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.

In the case of my country, right of self-defense only applies to people you have a dangerous enough job, so they would be granted the right to bear weapons and a document for their to conceal carry within the territory of the republic, otherwise, our government expect us to play the role of victims and do nothing, so they can work later on the case and do justice.
I believe much of the topic on self-defense has much to do with the political and societal tradition of the country where it is applied or not.

Fortunately, there are Republics in South America where there is a non-existant tradition of weapons and yet they offer some options for their citizens to opt of the rights to carry handguns of their own protection.

This is clearly a difficult and contentious problem, and there is no simple solution. Some may argue that a balance must be achieved between the two techniques: some government action is required to decrease violence, but people should also be able to protect themselves in some instances. It's also crucial for assessing the environment in which violence happens, since poverty, injustice, and prejudice may all lead to violence. Perhaps a comprehensive strategy is required, including steps to address the underlying causes of violence, as well as laws and regulations to safeguard persons and communities. But the most essential thing is that we understand the role of the government and ourselves as people.

I agree with you, one has to consider the kind of weapon used but there are instances that even of the weapon used against you isn't deadly you can defence yourself against the attacker using such on you in other to avoid a lifetime dent or mark on your body which may reduce your natural beauty and what if items like broken bottles were used to attacked you, dont you know he might make a mistake and got one stabbed on the stomach and that's the end, there's no excuse no matter what as long as he's giving the first attack, do all you can to attack back before it turns to a murder case and you got killed.

guns elevate any child/woman to the strength of a man.

In the US, there are loads of gun killings where the police don't even arrest the shooter. Why don't they? Because it was self-defense. This doesn't mean that the relatives of the dead person have to accept the verdict of the police. They can still take it to court, and they often do.

You do not need to die or proof that you would have died from the attack or whatsoever but the court will be reasonable enough to know if the attack would have caused you death based on the weapon of attack and what weapon was used for defence. Self case is complicated because provocation may still be looked at and if the measure of provocation is proven or perceived to have been calmed and you go attacking in the guise of self defense maybe when the attacker was sleeping already, the court may not admit that evidence.

It's because they bever be in such situations that involved molestation and harrasment including life threatening to the point of death, somethings happens and we take a wrong decision as approach to administering the situation because we are not the one or victim involved, self defence is legal and under the court of law it's is allowed in constitution, but there must be a tangible evidence to ascertain the situation under a murder or life threatening self defense, because somethings were better experienced or witnessed than making a wrong judgement on the whole situation, engage in self defense to get yourself secured from any things that serves danger to your life.

Actually I will love to say self defense is really good and also very bad.
It is good in a way that we if they should allow or legalize gun as self defense mean it will help in team of robberies and other evil act of some human,can I also a means to protect your self first before the arrival of the police.
And why it is bad it's because most men will being to use them to do nutty act which we don't want it that way.
If only the self defense will be carried out with out guns and other harm substance but aside that I guess we just have to life your life as a defense to you own self and family as well as to protect you self getting in any wrong or unwanted act in life,I guess can only be the best self defense ever.

^^^ There will always be people who will want to use self-defense rather than being harmed or killed. People, being fallible, will always make mistakes in their use of what they think is self-defense. Here is the point...

Governments are made up of people. So, even governments will make mistakes in self-defense... to say nothing about the bad people in government using government power for their personal gain. So...

It is best to allow formal self-defense methods for everybody, rather than everybody becoming slaves to a few government people.

On, quit trying to be a loser.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsVCHE7ayPE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2gCFOtaZPo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RNcFs-JwOQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzb7SLsFwtE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugyXiubzf7o

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTiLkkMCMQ4

This isn't just for Greece, in some other countries, you'll really be put into court for killing the intruder and anyone who's got into your house that threatened you and your family's safety.

That's how f***ed up the system for many countries. There goes the human rights advocates and activitists that are only just there to criticize the victim and not the suspects.

While politicians are living in an electric fence mansion without any threat so they don't experience such.

Yeah, no free access to mental healthcare and give everyone guns and ammo and watch them protect each other from mass shooters. That's an insane approach. You can't explain the high numbers of gun violence in your country so you need to use arguments where somehow more guns mystically solves the gun problem. It's as idiotic as saying that if everyone would just became police there wouldn't be any criminals left.

And talking about enslavement because not every mental patient maybe shouldn't hold automatic weapons is just insulting to actual slaves.

Luckily, in the USA, at least from what I've heard, the concept of self-defense is pretty lenient; if an intruder is inside your house and you proceed to hurt him or kill him in the process, you won't be prosecuted at least.

In Greece, however, if someone enters your house with a weapon and you hurt him, you will face criminal charges and go through court. Chances are that you'll be cleared of any charges, but the trial may take years, and it's a costly procedure in both time and money. I can't understand why someone would have the desire to render self-defense illegal.

The State of Florida seems to be moving in the right direction with the gun rights thing. Most of gun-control is some form of infringement on the 2nd Amendment gun rights which demands no infringement in its wording -

Free state of Florida moves to ban tracking of firearms, ammo purchases because it’s no one’s business

---

https://www.naturalnews.com/2023-01-13-florida-moves-to-ban-tracking-of-firearms-ammo.html
Officials in the “free state” of Florida are moving to bar the tracking of gun and ammunition purchases because they say such information isn’t relevant to anything except to provide it to the government at some point, which is unnecessary and none of Uncle Sam’s business.

The move would block state financial institutions from implementing firearms and ammunition sales tracking codes, with officials arguing that doing so amounts to an unconstitutional infringement on the Second Amendment.

The three state officials, all of who are, unsurprisingly, Republicans, touted the “Florida Arms and Ammo Act,” a first-in-the-country policy proposal to ban the tracking of sales of guns and ammo through merchant category codes.

The proposal was introduced by Florida Commissioner of Agriculture Wilton Simpson, along with state Sen. Danny Burgess and state Rep. John Snyder, who argued that the codes would create something of a gun and ammunition registry for Florida residents, The Epoch Times reported this week.

“We are all blessed to live in the free state of Florida where our Second Amendment rights are valued and protected, but Democrats in Washington continue to try to chip away at these rights—and we must stay vigilant,”  Simpson, a former state Senate president who was sworn in recently as the state’s agriculture commissioner, noted in a statement.

The outlet reported further:

Gun-control advocates and Democrat lawmakers pushed for the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) to recently adopt new merchant category codes that can be used to identify retail sales of firearms and ammunition when made by credit card.

A coalition of national gun-control groups, including Guns Down America, Giffords, Brady, and New Yorkers Against Gun Violence, issued a joint statement applauding the new tracking codes when the ISO approved their creation in September 2022.
...

---

The US is made up of EVERY OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. There are going to be some disagreements that people need firearms to protect themselves with this fact.

Okay, I'll say it a different way. If everybody had guns in the public, how long would a mass shooter last? Not long. And there wouldn't be many mass shooters, because to be a successful mass shooter, one needs to find a place where he will last long enough to do his mass shooting. Most will chicken out before attempting the job... if they know that they will be shot down almost immediately. Whatever principle in their life dictates to them that they have to go on a killing spree, would also show them that they wouldn't be successful. But they want success, in this thing if nothing else.

So, what would they do? Some of them would still try, if they had a personal death wish along with it. Others would just commit suicide. And it's a shame that there are people who have mental problems like that. But they would be gone, and society would be better without them.

Without guns, there wouldn't be freedom. Why? Because government still has guns. And government would figure out ways and reasons to take freedom away from the people. How do we know? Look what the Taliban has done to their country. And in the US, look at the many laws the politicians make, designed to take away gun freedom, even though foundational US law is that we can have guns (2nd Amendment). They want to enslave us.

In the US, look at how far it has gone already with government. People think that their President is a dictator - almost a king. If he says they should get a Covid vaxx that will destroy their lives, they do it just to obey him... rather than checking the data to see if it is correct. It's a good thing that a bunch of people recognize the benefits of keeping guns.

That's some mental acrobatics. Please tell me again why there are so much gun violence in US because there are not enough guns.
And while you are on it, try to explain why it's low in places that have strict gun control laws.

Places that need guerilla warfare, problem wasn't the guns. Problems are way more complex but i understand that you want to simplify complex issues.

And you can pretty much compare US right wing gun nuts to taliban. They tend to have strong religious views, don't respect laws and strong views about "morals" while also they like to restrict freedom of women.

US is so freakishly funny about their concept of "freedom" that basically only comes back to guns. With a 2 party system and anything but free healthcare, when they have potential for so much more.

Heard of guerrilla warfare? Consider the IRA or the Taliban (who seem to have won, btw.). Guns in the hands of the people. If ALL the people had carried guns, the IRA would have won, and the Taliban wouldn't have.

Gun freedom in one major country of the world is something that sets the whole world in a certain mindset. Whatever country you are from, there will be a lot of people who understand the idea of gun self-protection. And it is this freedom ideal that government leaders realize exists among their people, and so they act with restraint. That is the second major reason why countries with no gun freedom have real freedom.
The major reason, of course, is that government people can't get rich off their people if the people are always living in fear. Fearful people don't work with enthusiasm. So, government plays the game of making them think they are free, while enslaving them as much as they can for the wealth they will produce that can be taxed.

Gun freedom in one major country produces the world mindset of freedom. It's why the US is the major country in the world, and Britain is second. Not that Britain has gun freedom now. But that when they did, they became powerful, even though their strength is wearing off.

America's gun problem doesn't come from people having guns. It comes from cowardly Americans not exercising their gun rights.



Think of it the other way. If everybody were required to carry at least a .38 in public (except the kids, of course), all the people would respect each other, because nobody wants a gun battle. Everybody would know that if he started a gun battle - or a shooting spree - he would be dead. Gun problems would evaporate because problem makers would be dead. People would be awake.

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.