Topic: Why Would Anyone Be Against Self Defense? (Read 563 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?

Self defense was actually supposed to be considered when we're at the point of being oppressed or being at the point of taking advantage about. Probably retaliating based on the circumstances of the situations. Just as you said, it doesn't feel good to use a heavy tools such as firearms on someone with unarmed but something we must consider is that assuming the attacker is physically fit to stand unarmed fighting with a less power victim who's armed, should he/she not used the weapon for a self defense? Let's also understand that even the unarmed has the potential capacities to take lives off with their bare hands so let's not have that insightments that only armed people are liable to destruction.

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.

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.

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.

Most definitely Mate.
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.

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!

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.

Wow, I have to say that I appreciate you recognizing that, and also your willingness to listen to what other people have to say (especially people of the lower rank) is much appreciated. This is the kind of open-mindedness and civility that I think is important to cultivate in online discussions,  especially in online communities such as this, so thank you for setting such a great example. It's really wonderful to see someone willing to admit they may have made a mistake and learn from it, and I hope that others can follow your lead.

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.

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. 

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.

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.

You know I really don't get it, you create a new thread with a topic to discuss something that's been already discussed on the forum before, someone comes from nowhere and tackles you for spamming the forum, and when you decide not to create a new thread on the same topic and decide to say something on the topic because you feel you've got something to contribute to the topic, you're also slammed for waking up and old thread (as you politely put it) I mean, is this really normal here?

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.

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...

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.

Self defence ≠ open carry automatic weapons

Military or police would be pretty lame if you could make them back down if you just had a gun. And good luck getting in a gunfight with a police and explaining how that was a fault of the cop.
I can see zero changes that going your way. In a best outcome you would just be brushed off as a person who did suicide by cop. But i totally understand the conspiratard fantasy of being in a control or a hero.

And people in US are asking why they have a gun problem. It's because of attitude like yours. You don't have a gun problem in countries where they are only used for hunting.

 

Regarding self defense, I don't have any strong position. I hear news from America where little children as little as six shoot their parents or classmates because they have access to guns. The US has the highest rate of mass shootings carried out by sometimes innocent teenagers just because they have access to firearms. In my country, we don't have such experiences because gun ownership is strictly regulated.

But there is a need for arms in self-defense. The world is going mad and sometimes we need these guns to protect ourselves from criminals. In my area kidnapping would reduce if people are allowed to carry arms.

But it might be good to increase the age of legal gun ownership and some sophisticated hand gone or riffles should be restricted.

This is a common argument used by gun haters. "What if someone has a gun and I don't and that someone shoots me?" First there's this thing called permits. Gun access should be free, but only when you've passed some tests, weren't jailed for a serious crime, underwent a course that taught you basic gun safety.
When you take your gun out in public you should be aware that someone else may carry and you can get killed. Allowing people to carry changes things because there won't be situations like that in Norway where guns aren't allowed and Breivik kept shooting people for hours because he was the only one with a gun and nobody could fight him. People were hiding, waiting to be slaughtered. This is a good example that banning guns won't stop criminals from obtaining them.


What's the response time of the police in your area? I live about 3km from the nearest town and it takes a minimum of 5 minutes before the police can arrive at my house. Usually it's 10 (checked).
Imagine sitting there for 10 minutes, waiting for the police, while the robbers steal your shit. They could literally rape your wife and kill you both before the police arrives. I'd rather have a gun.

Most liberals aren't against self defense, the socialist/communist lefties are against self defense of deadly threats because they think private firearm ownership is inherently evil. Of course, they're only against such use of force if it's being used against their own. If it's the government using "self defense" against right wing protestors, they support it. If it's a private citizen defending himself from deranged rioters, they'll call for life imprisonment.

There is no logic behind it so no one can rationalize it.

Well, if the self-defense involved allowing citizens the free use of guns as means of defence against a perceived opponent then we'll be having a society that will be filled with chaos, no matter what, the constitution, the laws,  the police the security the military are supposedly the ones constituted by the constitution to protect lives and properties. it will be a no-brainer for citizens in the name of self-defense be wanting to take arms into the hands.  We can still have a sane society, if we push for more, equity, fairness and justice. Because i believe they laws and the constitution are there to also protect the weak and downtrodden in our society. These are the layed down procedures to get a true library society and not a radicalized society.

But how do you defend against the military and the police without a gun? And especially when you meet a rogue or vicious cop?

Musk is using twitter to show us much of the bad, hidden stuff that government has been doing over the last two years. If gun freedom in the US were gone, government would run right over us all, and convert the whole world into outright slavery.

More gun freedom is what keeps us free. In addition, you can find all kinds of times when a good gunner shoots a bad shooter who is on a killing spree, because he illegally obtained a gun.


Is this the answer?
Make robots that can do everything for us that we need done.
Then put all the people of the world into strait jackets.
The robots can feed us, bathe us, wipe our butts, and do everything we need for us.
But we can't hurt anybody or anything... total green earth without our interference.



EDIT: Btw, does the guy who controls the robots have special guns to shoot rogue robots?

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.

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.

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.