Why Would Anyone Be Against Self Defense?

[paxmao]

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.

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!

[1714875390]

1714875390

[Ever-young]

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.
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.

[Xal0lex]

Enough with the off-topic. You want to talk about necroposting, go to Meta.

[|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.

[uchegod-21]

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.

[Marvelockg]

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.

[Zanab247]

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.

[Volimack]

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.

[AVE5]

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.

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.

[oktana]

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?