CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Using "Self-Defence" In The Same Sentence As "Guns" Is An Egregious Abuse Of Logic
Shooting a person in the face is not defence. There is something seriously wrong with your belief system if you do not understand this. Indeed, what we see with most Americans is that they refuse to understand it.
Have you ever watched a boxing match or any type of contact sport? When the commentator praises a good boxing defence he means the fighter is covering up well and moving out of range. He does not mean the fighter is punching the other guy in the face repeatedly. When a soccer commentator praises a good defence he is talking about a team's ability to stop the other team from scoring a goal. He is not talking about the defensive team scoring goals of their own.
Put as simply as possible, whether an action of your own is offensive or defensive does not depend on the behaviour of someone else. This is the precise same fallacy husbands use when they demand to know why their wives are making them beat them.
B. Sometimes the only way to stop someone from killing you or other people is to kill them.
C. You are grossly oversimplifying your argument and any intellectually honest person can admit that in certain instances offense can be used as defense and defense can be used as offense.
D. Making guns illegal would not stop criminals from getting guns illegally or finding other alternatives, and the biggest murderers out there, the military would still have guns and far worse as I explained, so the only people who wouldn't get to have guns for the most part are normal civilians and responsible good people.
E. It's pathetic to worry about guns in a time like this, like I said before you are swatting at mosquitos while you ignore the sasquatch trying to molest you and the giant brain eating mutant tape worm trying to perforate your eyeball.
F. Stop using the word "egregious" all the fucking time.
G. Why don't you get a life and talk about the real fucking problems instead of whining about guns all day, if you could eradicate every single gun off the face of the earth it wouldn't make a droplet of nasal mucus' worth of a difference. There would still be millions of starving people drinking muddy ebola water in africa, there would still be corporations dumping chemicals and plastic all over the earth, there would still be tyrannical governments with drones and nukes and surveillance tech, and there would still be retards like you contaminating the internet.
I like your response to this person. I agree with most of your points except for your use of a derogatory term for people with Downs Syndrome. From my understanding these folks are caring and happy with love in their heart. The opposite qualities of a fearful victimized mentality advocating gun confiscation. As a Texan gun owner I have no patience for Americans disrespecting my flag or threats to my absolute rights. Brits, on the other hand, deserve some sympathy. Fear and apathy made criminals the only gun owners while ensuring helpless victims for the picking. Point E. reminds me of a real threat to semi-automatics and high capacity cartridges.
Have you ever watched a boxing match or any type of contact sport?
Being in a boxing match is nothing like being attacked in the street. When someone is punching you repeatedly in the face, your goal is not to deflect your opponent to wear them down while maintaining a point count for the judges. Your goal is to stop the person from continuing to punch you. To defend yourself is to stop the threat. This often means punching back.
Just as boxing is not the same as a street fight, a gun encounter is not the same as a paintball fight. When your life depends on eliminating the threat to it, you are not engaged in a contact sport. You are engaged in mortal combat.
whether an action of your own is offensive or defensive does not depend on the behaviour of someone else
This is absolutely false. Whether or not you are defending yourself depends entirely on whether you are being attacked.
Husbands who beat wives are not actually being attacked. Often they are adopting the current strategy of the left which says physical violence is an appropriate response to hurt feelings. It’s not at all like a person who punches someone to keep from being beat up.
When stopping a threat to your life means shooting someone in the face, then shooting someone in the face becomes self-defense.
the defense of one's person or interests, especially through the use of physical force, which is permitted in certain cases as an answer to a charge of violent crime.
"he claimed self-defense in the attempted murder charge"
Being punched in the face in a ring is nothing like being punched in the face in the street. Good one, idiot.
Haha no. It really isn’t.
You believe you are winning the semantic argument. But if you look at the definition, you will find that defense means more than simply shielding oneself, it means protecting yourself. When aggressive action is taken to protect oneself, they are acting in self-defense, by definition.
Oh, OK. Being punched in the face in a ring is nothing like being punched in the face in the street. Good one, idiot
You really have the IQ of a cucumber, don't you?
If you get hurt in the ring, a ref will stop the fight. If you get hurt by some criminal thug on the street, only they or you can end the fight, and it likely ends in one of you being dead.
If somebody is attacking you and the only means you have to prevent the attack is shooting them, how can it not be said to be self-defense? By taking away the attackers ability to attack you, you have defended yourself. If the person wasn't attacking you it wouldn't be self-defense.
Interestingly there is also legal precedent: people are permitted to strike back when attacked and doing so is termed "self-defense".
If somebody is attacking you and the only means you have to prevent the attack is shooting them, how can it not be said to be self-defense?
Because shooting someone is not a defensive action you wantonly backward moron. An attack is defined by your own actions, not the actions of somebody else. You appear to have not bothered to read the OP before replying.
Furthermore, your language is absolutely dripping with fallacy. It is impossible to determine accurately if a gun is the only way to prevent an attack because it requires the power to see alternative futures. It is also impossible to prevent an attack which has already begun.
So actions taken to prevent immediate harm from an attacker is not self-defense?
Are you stupid, Winston? You've just paraphrased this exact same loaded question at me and I've already answered it. Would it help if I repeat myself in a different language? Perhaps capital letters?
IF I HAD THE CHANCE TO STOP HITLER BY DROPPING A NUCLEAR BOMB ON BERLIN THAN THAT DOES NOT MAKE DROPPING NUCLEAR BOMBS A FORM OF DEFENCE. THE SAME APPLIES TO GUNS YOU THICK RIGHT WING IDIOT.
You're not even American you treasonous scuzzbucket. You're British. You're British and yet you're supporting American gun fallacies.
"You've just paraphrased this exact same loaded question at me"
The reason you see it as a loaded question that you cannot directly answer is because shooting somebody that is imminently about to kill you is self-defense. The reason for this is because you did it to stop them from killing you. Also note your inability to answer my other questions.
"You're not even American you treasonous scuzzbucket. You're British. You're British and yet you're supporting American gun fallacies."
So it's treasonous to hold a different point of view?
The erroneous literal interpretation of this old adage is the absolute beating heart of the American gun fallacy. It is precisely how the public has been confused about the difference between attack and defence. By launching an attack you force your opponent to defend, so applied to a home invasion it would mean the burglar would be the person acting defensively. His offensive action of breaking into your home would be met with your own offensive action of trying to shoot him. Again, the game of chess provides us with a useful analogy, because if you are under attack from an opponent then sometimes it is better to counter-attack if you are in a stronger position than it is to defend. That is ultimately what your quoted adage and its numerous syntactical variations are driving at: that the best solution to being attacked is often to counter-attack.
Can you explain how you defend yourself when you're attacked on the street by a criminal with a gun? You can't cover your face with your arms against bullets. The defense is to shoot back. Everyone isn't professional fighters either. If someone is beating a person to death and he doesn't know how to defend himself, it is justified if he shoots back.
Can you explain how you defend yourself when you're attacked on the street by a criminal with a gun? You can't cover your face with your arms against bullets.
You wear Kevlar, you run away or you hide behind cover. In case you had not noticed, I am not arguing here against the practicality of shooting an attacker. My point is simply that shooting someone is a form of attack, and that does not change depending on who you happen to shoot. The premise that it does is nothing short of absurd.
What do Kevlar, running away, and hiding all do? They stop the bullet from reaching your body. That is also what shooting the criminal does.
When an army attacks another army, there is an attacking army and a defending army. The defending army still fights back, does that mean it's not defending? No, it is still considered defending, even if it is fighting back.
Same thing with guns. If a criminal starts shooting up a bank, and a guard starts shooting at the criminal, the guard is "defending the bank", and "defending himself". You could say that he is attacking the criminal, but he is still defending himself, since the criminal wants to do harm to the guard, and the guard starts shooting him to prevent this from happening.
Shooting the criminal stops him from shooting you, therefore it protects your body. It attacks the criminal's body to defend yours. Since you are stopping his attack, you're defending yourself.
The biggest problem with using guns as self-defense is that most people are not trained to the level they need to be to actually use it to defend themselves. It actually becomes a liability in some scenarios - when you have a crazed shooter and go to draw it, he already has his ready. In an armed home invasion, the same is true. The 'defender' with the gun simply marks him(her)self as the next target before getting a chance to shoot, or in most cases, most likely after, as well - unless the shot is accurate and immediately deadly, the shooter definitely has a target.
Food for thought - in the Oregon shooting last year, there was a man of that level of training, with a gun - but by his calculations, his odds were better trying to help getting people out alive.
Is having an army in the name of self defense an abuse of logic? Not really. Because that army is there just in case. Plus it can be used for other things besides fighting.
Is having a bumper on a car for protection from minor fender benders an abuse of logic? Not really. Possessing the bumper doesn't mean you intend to go bump other cars with it. Again it's there just in case.
Is building your muscles and learning martial arts in self defense an abuse of logic? Not really. Because knowing how to break someone's bones doesn't mean you're automatically going to do it. Plus the health and physical skills simply enrich your life.
Is having an army in the name of self defense an abuse of logic?
Technically yes it is, because the army is not constructed to be a literal and exact riposte to the greatest known threat against it. The army is constructed to be as powerful as possible, which evidences its purpose is offensive, even if only as a deterrent to would-be invaders. It is more difficult to see the false logic in the example you gave than it is in my own, but I assure you it is still there.
Is having a bumper on a car for protection from minor fender benders an abuse of logic?
Can your bumper fire toxic bolts of lead at other cars? Then yes, it is an abuse of logic. You presumably put the bumper on to absorb damage and guns don't absorb damage. They inflict it.
Is building your muscles and learning martial arts in self defense an abuse of logic?
This is another false analogy. Well, technically it's two false analogies.
1) Building muscles is every bit as useful for defensive actions such as blocking and dodging as it is for offensive actions.
2) Martial arts are every bit as useful for defensive actions such as blocking and dodging as for offensive actions.
3) Karate kicking someone in the face is not a form of defence. It is a form of attack.
Are you done warping logic like it was jell-O now? Or nah?
Nomenclature you pansy, do you really think it's not acceptable to beat the shit out of someone who is trying to beat the shit out of you or shoot someone who is trying to shoot you? OMFG you are a pathetic spineless pussy! Fuck that, you have every right to kill someone who is trying to kill you and punch someone who is trying to punch you etc. Stop playing semantics with the word "defense" and grow a pair, damn.
Army - Yes it is. It is whatever that society deemed necessary to spend and construct within their resources for the sake of protection. It's the same as if someone buying a gun gets just a 22 or a 45. Buying the 22 doesn't mean you didn't have the same protection in mind as the 45, it's just all you could afford.
Car - Yes it is. A car doesn't have to become a gun to be deadly. It's mass and speed make it a weapon. And bumpers by definition are there to bump.
Muscle - If a well trained martial artist defends himself in a bar fight with a thug and the thug dies from one punch the martial artist's training itself can get him in trouble with the law, even though it was a defensive action.
Army - Yes it is. It is whatever that society deemed necessary to spend and construct within their resources for the sake of protection.
Grenache, now you have digressed into laughable nonsense. You claim the army is there for "protection", except the facts demonstrate that the army spends all of its time in other countries killing the local natives. If the purpose of the American army were "protection" then there would be no need for any soldier to set foot outside America. The United States has a military presence in 150 out of 192 countries and you are going to sit there with a straight face and say that is "protection" not offence? Come on.
I've already explained why your other analogies are false. Repeating them isn't going to make them true.
It's mass and speed make it a weapon.
You just claimed in your last post that you bought it to absorb damage, not for use as a weapon. Stop contradicting yourself you silly sausage. If you use it to ram somebody then you are using it to attack. What is so difficult to understand about that?
If a well trained martial artist defends himself in a bar fight with a thug and the thug dies from one punch
You cannot defensively punch somebody because a punch is a form of attack. Shut up already. I honestly thought higher of you until this little tirade of nonsense.
You cannot defensively punch somebody because a punch is a form of attack. Shut up already.
Where do you get this stuff from?
Of course there are situations where you may need to get into a physical altercation in order to defend yourself and/or others. You are creating far too hard of a line where it doesn't exist (i.e. it is a very fuzzy line).
When you say things like this it makes me think you are a troll...actually I already know you are a troll because you have 34456568789468568678789678 accounts.
Sometimes you can't just run away and hide like the pussy you are, sometimes the only way to DEFEND yourself is to FIGHT BACK.
I'm sorry the snips of time when I pop in here result in shoddy craftsmanship. I'll try to apply myself better.
Lol. You do that. Most of the stuff you post I agree with, but then every now and then you throw something wild out there and I'm all like, what the fuq?
Ultimately, the logical quagmire here is related to the adage Jolie posted above us. If someone threatens or attacks you, the threat or initiation of a counter-attack is often the best strategy to becoming the survivor. I'm not making any arguments either for or against the morality of this as a course of action. I'm merely pointing out that a counter-attack is still an attack.
Truth is I don't have all the answers. I know. Shocker, huh. So sometimes I just try to be funny, and fail. Or try some simple comparisons. Or make a strawman.
Probably I should pick one angry schtick like FromWithin or SaintNow and just make everything about that. Sound OK?
Truth is I don't have all the answers. I know. Shocker, huh. So sometimes I just try to be funny, and fail. Or try some simple comparisons. Or make a strawman.
Your analogies were strong and I had to think about them, but they were logically false. What we have to remember is that defence is an antonym rather than a synonym of attack. If you are doing one then you necessarily cannot be doing the other.
No it isn't. If someone tries to physically harm me, and I have a gun (I never will), I have the 2nd Amendment right to shoot that person to protect myself. I would try to preserve his life, but self defense is a right.
Atrag? Only you call me that.............................................................................................................................
No it isn't. If someone tries to physically harm me, and I have a gun (I never will), I have the 2nd Amendment right to shoot that person to protect myself. I would try to preserve his life, but self defense is a right.
Shooting someone isn't defence. It's attack. If Americans actually learned this then there wouldn't be so much gun violence.
Now you’re wrong on two fronts. First, it has already been thoroughly established that self-defense can include offensive measures.
Second, gun violence occurs because people intend to attack people with guns, and then they do. Even if their vocabulary was as confused as yours, they would still do this.
If you think a shield is a weapon then I was wrong to call you a halfwit because you're a quarterwit. A shield is the opposite of a weapon. Its purpose is to protect you from damage.
You will probably want to delete those entire debate. I will happily refer to it in the future as an example of your ignorance. I’m starting to get sympathy embarrassment.
You're right, but what you don't fucking realize is that when other people have guns and you don't then they have power over your life, which is unacceptable to anyone with a spine, so I will defend my right to kill people who want to kill me and posses the means to do so.
Now let's get down to business, do you think that NO ONE should have guns or do you think that there should be some kind of police that has guns? What would the gun situation look like in Nom's socialist utopia?
Now you’re wrong on two fronts. First, it has already been thoroughly established that self-defense can include offensive measures.
Amarel, you are so idiotic that I do not even know where to begin. Offence and defence are antonyms. They are terms which mean the polar opposite of each other. Moreover, whether your action is offensive or defensive does not depend on the action of someone else. For example, if my wife tells me to fuck off and throws a plate at me when I rudely demand my dinner, it would not be defence if I then punch her in the face.
Your gay little scenario conveniently has nothing to do with life and death situations. Sometimes you don't need to attack, sometimes you do. When someone is trying to kill you then you are either a spineless pussy or you don't give a shit about their life and will kill them if you have to.
Your gay little scenario conveniently has nothing to do with life and death situations
I'm banning you because you're an idiotic little retard who opens dozens of accounts and uses them to upvote his own childish shitposting. You have absolutely nothing relevant to add to a discussion, and this is proven by your abuse of the voting system. You think people should be forced to read your asinine vitriol and it's pathetic.
Sometimes you don't need to attack, sometimes you do
You're absolutely right. I'm just saying don't turn reality upside down and start calling it defence when you seriously injure or kill someone.
I’ll refer you to the other posts wherein you made these exact arguments and I thoroughly rebuked them.
Nonetheless, I’ll explain one more time in a slightly different way just in case a little glimmer gets through. Do you know why they say you have to spend money to make money? Those two things are opposites right? Well, when you spend money wisely, it is a small particular event in an wider circumstance. If you are in a fight, and you have to take offensive measures to act defensively, it is because the offensive measure is a small particular in the larger circumstance. Particularly the circumstance wherein you are attacked and must defend yourself.
There’s a reason the entire institution of Law supports my side of this argument. There’s no such thing as a legal thesaurus. They use dictionaries. If you look to a words antonym to understand it, rather than looking to it’s definition, you may get confused like this sometimes.
I’ll refer you to the other posts wherein you made these exact arguments and I thoroughly rebuked them.
I'm sure that's what you believe, but I wouldn't expect anything less from someone who literally is trying to conflate two semantically opposing terms. The fact of the matter is that you are completely, unabashedly mad. You are in fact madder than a nursing home for career scientologists.
Nonetheless, I’ll explain one more time in a slightly different way just in case a little glimmer gets through.
Like so many others who use these type of sites, your arrogance is spectacular given the total logical incoherence of your position.
Do you know why they say you have to spend money to make money?
I don't care. I thought we were discussing the difference between defence and attack. I'm afraid your random topic changes only reveal the gloomy mental illness which causes you to write so much rubbish.
Well, when you spend money wisely, it is a small particular event in an wider circumstance. If you are in a fight, and you have to take offensive measures to act defensively, it is because the offensive measure is a small particular in the larger circumstance.
But I'm not disputing the benefits of offensive action in certain circumstances. I'm simply disputing that offensive action is ever defensive, because that's a contradiction in terms.
There’s a reason the entire institution of Law supports my side of this argument.
So far you haven't made an argument, Amarel. You've only misrepresented my argument, which is that a word cannot mean its own opposite.
As regards law, then legal terminology is not relevant to anything outside of the court system. The way lawyers use certain words is specific to the legal profession. It works the same way in many specialist professions and academic disciplines (physics, maths, philosophy, accountancy, engineering etc...). It does not distract from the logical quagmire of trying to merge a word with its own opposite.
Like so many others who use these type of sites, your arrogance is spectacular given the total logical incoherence of your position.
It is actually quite the opposite (projection much?)
I don't care. I thought we were discussing the difference between defence and attack. I'm afraid your random topic changes only reveal the gloomy mental illness which causes you to write so much rubbish.
Pay attention, you may learn something
But I'm not disputing the benefits of offensive action in certain circumstances. I'm simply disputing that offensive action is ever defensive, because that's a contradiction in terms.
So this entire "debate" is about your condition as a Grammar Bully? Why not just read Brontoraptor's articles on Grammar Bullies and then seek the help that you need?
As regards law, then legal terminology is not relevant to anything outside of the court system.
Wrong. The law (in principle) is operating on our societal ideas surrounding what is and is not acceptable behavior
It works the same way in many specialist professions and academic disciplines (physics, maths, philosophy, accountancy, engineering etc...)
?? Don't pull Maths into this you SoB. Philosophy (bad Philosophy) is the only subject you listed that could/would run away with a ridiculous semantic argument such as yours
He started by citing the dictionary. When I quoted, from his dictionary source, several definitions wherein an offensive action would not be precluded, he switched to the thesaurus. He is literally avoiding the dictionary to make his point about definitions.
A punch in the face is always a punch in the face, but whether or not that punch is a defensive measure depends on the context.
Look, I think your more dishonest than stupid, which is why you will not accept a dictionary definition when arguing about definitions. So I’m going to leave this conversation as I originally left it, the victor.
Go ahead and have the last word loser. Call it a consolation.
A punch in the face is always a punch in the face, but whether or not that punch is a defensive measure depends on the context.
Stop rejecting common sense. If a punch in the face is a form of attack then it cannot by definition be a defensive action. The fact that you can sometimes negate a threat by attacking it does not mean that attack is a defensive action. Hitler attacked the threat of "Jewish communism" by gassing Jews. Was that a defensive action?
Forgive me if I don't take anything you say seriously, but it's just that you're a narcissistic cretin who once spent three days arguing that thermodynamics is part of the biology curriculum. What you seem to have great difficulty understanding xMathFanx is that you are stupid. Moreover, judging by the fact that you are belching out offensive nonsense on Christmas Day, I am guessing that you are also heartbreakingly lonely. Unfortunately, loneliness is one of the side effects of acute narcissistic personality disorder. Nobody wants to be around you for good reason, buddy.
Whenever somebody you dislike makes a good point, you reply either by telling them what they think, distorting what they have said previously, or by simply writing words like "wrong" as if you somehow believe your responsibility to construct an argument ends with that word.
Forgive me if I don't take anything you say seriously, but it's just that you're a narcissistic cretin who once spent three days arguing that thermodynamics is part of the biology curriculum.
Thermodynamics is part of basic, standard Biology curriculum (as it applies to the Cell and Biological systems generally). Did you actually take the time to read the sources I provided (i.e. Biology textbooks) or did you simply dig your feet in the ground and double-down?
What you seem to have great difficulty understanding xMathFanx is that you are stupid. Moreover, judging by the fact that you are belching out offensive nonsense on Christmas Day, I am guessing that you are also heartbreakingly lonely. Unfortunately, loneliness is one of the side effects of acute narcissistic personality disorder. Nobody wants to be around you for good reason, buddy.
Well, clearly you are not a Psychologist (also, projection much?).
Whenever somebody you dislike makes a good point, you reply either by telling them what they think, distorting what they have said previously, or by simply writing words like "wrong" as if you somehow believe your responsibility to construct an argument ends with that word.
In all honesty, you are the only person I semi-troll because your comments/actions can be so infuriating and are often just too stupid for words
I do not understand how it is even possible for someone to be so offensively condescending and yet at the same time be so fundamentally ignorant in just about everything he ever talks about.
"Defense mechanisms are psychological strategies that are unconsciously used to protect a person from anxiety arising from unacceptable thoughts or feelings.
We use defense mechanisms to protect ourselves from feelings of anxiety or guilt, which arise because we feel threatened, or because our id or superego becomes too demanding. They are not under our conscious control, and are non-voluntaristic.
Ego-defense mechanisms are natural and normal. When they get out of proportion (i.e., used with frequency), neuroses develop, such as anxiety states, phobias, obsessions, or hysteria.
This involves individuals attributing their own thoughts, feeling, and motives to another person (A. Freud, 1936). Thoughts most commonly projected onto another are the ones that would cause guilt such as aggressive and sexual fantasies or thoughts.
For instance, you might hate someone, but your superego tells you that such hatred is unacceptable. You can 'solve' the problem by believing that they hate you."
The hallmarks of Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) are grandiosity, a lack of empathy for other people, and a need for admiration. People with this condition are frequently described as arrogant, self-centered, manipulative, and demanding. They may also concentrate on grandiose fantasies (e.g. their own success, beauty, brilliance) and may be convinced that they deserve special treatment. These characteristics typically begin in early adulthood and must be consistently evident in multiple contexts, such as at work and in relationships.
People with narcissistic personality disorder believe they are superior or special, and often try to associate with other people they believe are unique or gifted in some way. This association enhances their self-esteem, which is typically quite fragile underneath the surface. Individuals with NPD seek excessive admiration and attention in order to know that others think highly of them. Individuals with narcissistic personality disorder have difficulty tolerating criticism or defeat, and may be left feeling humiliated or empty when they experience an "injury" in the form of criticism or rejection.
Nice try, however your criteria generally does not fit. "Arrogant" is the only characteristic listed that could potentially apply to me, and even that is within a highly constrained framework (as I have explained to you before, it is more true that I am "aware" of my place, which is many levels below my professors and plenty high enough (above you) to make you look/feel silly--my Professors, PhD students I'm friends with, ect. certainly wouldn't describe me as "arrogant". It is only when I converse with people like you (of low intellect/education) that this claim comes out, due to your own deep insecurities/lower status perspective/ect.--also, this dynamic applies in other areas as well).
Since when was the gun violence in america mainly because of people thinking that shooting someone is defense or whatever batshit lunacy you are excreting now? It's pretty much NEVER about that, it's usually just someone going crazy and shooting a bunch of people, it's not americans conflating offense with defense that's the problem, it's crazy people conflating humans with target practice that's the problem. Also you need to get it through your thick skull that sometimes you need to ATTACK in order to DEFEND...If someone was on top of you, and was beating your cranium with their fists and pinning you down in such a way that you can't defend your face by blocking, but you can reach a hypothetical knife that happens to be on the floor and move enough to stab them in the dick, then the logical thing to do is stab them in the dick, which will give you the opportunity to throw them off you, thus you will have defended yourself by stabbing them in the dick because if you didn't stab them in the dick they would have smashed your face like a watermelon.
Yes it is, you liberal loon. I might not want a gun, but if someone else does, you bet your ass I'll support that right for lawful reasons. What if your life is in danger? Don't YOU have the right to live. Guns for lawful uses are a right for mentally healthy non felons.
My life is only in danger if there are idiot psychopaths like you walking around with lethal weapons. The solution you propose is the actual problem itself.
Don't YOU have the right to live.
Yes and that's precisely why YOU shouldn't be allowed to end me with the click of a trigger.
There is nothing wrong with inflicting whatever damage needs to be inflicted on someone who has malicious intent towards you. Once someone tries to harm someone else they should be seen as fair game, if they are a threat to you it is only logical to destroy them without mercy! No just God would expect you to just let some scum bag attack you without shooting them in the face. I've already shot 6 thousand people (with force lightning) cause' the thing is, there is little chance that if someone wants to shoot you that they will ever turn to the light side, but you already know you are good, so why let evil win when they will probably just be scum forever anyway? as for me I am so evil that I am good..good...so if someone wants to shoot you then kill them...kill them now.....DO IT!!!!
There is nothing wrong with inflicting whatever damage needs to be inflicted on someone who has malicious intent towards you.
But you can't tell someone else what their intent is because you don't know. You can't read minds. Instead, you must rely on audio/visual clues which can often be interpreted incorrectly. Gun advocates view their own snap judgements to be more important than the lives of others, and the sort of person paranoid enough to be carrying a gun in the first place is not the kind of person you want making decisions about whether you should live or die.
if they are a threat to you it is only logical to destroy them without mercy!
Again, what is considered to be a threat largely depends on the individual making the decision. For example, Hitler considered Jewish communists to be a great threat to Germany, and look what happened there.
I feel like Americans are deliberately raised to conflate self-defence with excessive force. If you are in danger then get out of danger: that's self-defence. If someone tries to rob you and you shoot them: that's excessive force.
Also, you're a FactMachine alt account. You give your accounts away every time you spam my inbox with your drivelling, imbecilic rants.
My original account got banned so I'm using this one right now, I wasn't even trying to hide it.
Nomenclature when someone is attacking you you don't have time to worry about their life, because it is YOUR life that THEY put in danger in the fucking first place you FUCKING COWARD PUSSY SPINELESS CUCK FAGGOT DIEDIEDIEDIEDIEDIEDIEDIEDIEDIE Shoot you 5 billion times
