Self defense? Only on the battlefield? Only to achieve a ‘noble’ end?

  • sbv@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    30·
    1 year ago

    Nobody else has mentioned proportionality.

    When responding to aggression, the response should not significantly escalate the risk. So lethal force should only be applied in scenarios where there is a lethal threat, etc.

          • VaultBoyNewVegas@lemmy.world
            5·
            1 year ago

            I’ve been caught in a bomb scare, guns would have done fuck all when there was a massive police presence that the trains were stopped and the shut down a whole part of a city. In fact a gun would have made me more likely to be killed than going the fuck home.

        • PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works
          4·
          1 year ago

          You’re not required to risk your life for someone that’s victimizing you. You didn’t create the situation and your responsibility is to defend yourself and your loved ones.

          • VaultBoyNewVegas@lemmy.world
            1·
            1 year ago

            Sure I’ll keep a knife on me and shank every cunt that walks near me as they might be a threat

            Sounds totally fucking sane. No wonder this planets fucked when there’s people looking for an excuse to put someone six feet under.

            • PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works
              3·
              1 year ago

              You should chill a bit and not make wild assumptions.

              Can you respond to me directly with what you find wrong with the idea, or present an actual situation you think I’d be okay with?

              I’m talking about clear and obvious aggression. If someone pulls a knife, you’re allowed to defend yourself. You don’t have to wait to get stabbed.

              And I would recommend a firearm for defense, but that’s on you. I carry a knife so I can kill myself if I feel like it.