we hunt to eat, we eat to survive. even if we do have to hunt for animals, thats just how life works. doesn't matter if it's "violence" or not. also, if you ask me, i think self-defense may appear to be "an act of violence" but is just someone either protecting themselves or someone they love from getting hurt.
example: when i was still at school,this dude used to ride my bus and kept asking my for my number. after i told him no, he felt the need to keep asking and asking and asking (which made feel very unsettled). the girl in the seat in front of me said "obviously she isn't interested if she keeps telling you "no" every time".
he told her "mind you own damn business" and was about to ask me that same damn question again when she told him to leave me alone. He didn't listen to her and he tried to punch her, but he ended up getting hit first by her. when she was escorted off the bus, he went after her to try to beat her up, but ended up getting his *** kicked by her. she did that in self-defense.
i know none of you guys will agree with that example, but thats just how i see it.
-
Member
-
Moderator
And now go back and read the definition of the word violence, without cowardly trying to use a specific usage, of a specific subject that has a specific and limited scope, just so you can apparently feel better about pretending that certain ways of violence aren't violence because you're fine with them.
No, you're the one trying to mix in crimes so you can feel justified.
My quoting was satire over the fact you keep trying to derail what violence is by using something with a restricted scope of it - you know, hence the ending where I say that despite being able to Google Law definitions easily, the actual definition of the word itself in its global use remains the same. But good thing you realize what you were doing was unrelated to the actual discussion at hand, as Law isn't the major concern regarding guns (you yourself go for the ever-common "but duh criminulz" argument). I'm happy it worked to expose that to you.
I have views, which I already expressed, mainly: claiming that the intent shouldn't be taken into consideration is nothing more than apologist misdirection over the fact guns have a single purpose at the root of their creation and their uses unerringly revolve around the act or threat of damaging, injuring or killing; people contradict themselves in very similar subjects (immigration vs. gun control, both for "safety") but will pretend they don't.
About suggestions? Send both guns and immigrant lovers to outer space, where they can whine at each other and leave the planet in peace.
-
Moderator
Violence is a neutral term, it doesn't cares about your reasons or reasoning for committing it. That's the point you're missing and the other guy is building railroads to circle around. Violence is part of human nature and life, but is the whole of guns' nature and "life," so claiming the intent they were made for should be ignored is just throwing a smoke screen over something pertinent to the subject of guns.
-
Member
Delete guns, Exile the unbelievers, I see. I didn't understand what I was dealing with at first. I'll take my leave.
-
Moderator
No, you missed the point (or purposefully tried to derail it again, like with the definition of violence?). "Lovers" is a shared term for both "guns" and "immigrants" on that line. Although that should be obvious even to the Average Joe that reads the full line and doesn't pictures animated guns whining at leftards afterwards.
-
The Detective
Just putting my 2 cents in.
I do not think that citizens have a need to be running around with firearms, in fact some countries don't even give out guns to the police that lightly and they still remain efficient.
If you say you need a gun to defend, against what? A trespasser breaking in to your house? Most of the times you'll have more than enough time to call the police and have them deal with it. Yes there is always the possibility you will have to confront him to defend your family, but in this case, if there's no guns, the most you'll have is a knife? a baseball bat? and what will he have? the same weapons that are available to you. Yet knives have a far more practical use such as used cooking. What purpose to guns serve? As well, if someone walks in to a school with a knife in an intent to kill people, he'd be far less successful than walking in with something that is DESIGNED to take many lives with just a press of a button.
Organised terrorist are a whole other matter, they most likely can get their hands on guns regardless of the law, and if you need up being a target of such group, I doubt a gun would help you much.
-
Member
I completely agree with your point. Even if the guns are "required" to defend people from rogue nation, it wont help, what it will do is to make the attacking army to be more furious and kill civilians too. So you want to defend your country go ahead kill 10 soldiers and they will obliterate 100s of families to avoid the risk. Its not logical at all. This isn't a movie like "Red Dawn".
And if its a matter from defending themselves from their own goverment then trust me nobody will every see them coming before its too late. So have faith in your goverment and elect trustworthy officials to run it.
-
Quote
