Why Would Anyone Be Against Self Defense?

[BADecker]

^^^ 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.

[1714706789]

1714706789

[Sakanwa]

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.

[348Judah]

What is the rationale of those who want to make self defence illegal?

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.

[Gozie51]

What is the rationale of those who want to make self defence illegal?

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.

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.

[BADecker]

What is the rationale of those who want to make self defence illegal?

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.

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.

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.

[yeosaga]

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

[348Judah]

What is the rationale of those who want to make self defence illegal?

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.

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.

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.

[Ever-young]

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.

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.

[Hispo]

✂️

✂️

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.

[Kelward]

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.

[uneng]

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.

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...

[Ever-young]

✂️

✂️

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.

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?

[DeathAngel]

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.

[Hispo]

✂️

✂️

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.

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?

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.

[coolcoinz]

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.

[OgNasty]

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. 

[Dunamisx]

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.

[BTTUSERNAME]

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.

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.

[Ever-young]

✂️

✂️

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.

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?

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.

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.

[Uhwuchukwu53]

✂️

✂️

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.