I have thought a great deal about violence and I have a hypothetical solution (that works but won't be used LOL) for consideration. Let's say you're dealing with a group of people where a fight broke out. What I would do is severely punish the person who threw the first punch. It is important to recognise everyone's need for self defense so I would let everyone else off the hook. Now I know that some of them were not using self defense but rather used the fight breaking out as an excuse to initiate some action of their own. But trying to sort those out from the true self defenders is a "rumplestiltskinian" task so I wouldn't even attempt it.

Now with the first person being severely punished, the incident of fights breaking out would be curtailed. The level of punishment for the first offender could be raised until it all stopped. The trouble with this is:

If we all were to vote on this solution, we would vote it down despite its ability to solve the problem. And the reason why is because many of us can still relate to the one who throws the first punch. Some of us have reconciled our own dark side enough that we could vote for it, but not everyone. This is why Gandhi said: "We must be the change we seek in the world".

Can you imagine a world wide cease fire?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rd68

Even though you don't write it in.But that what your really saying.I might be a little dumb but i'm not plumb dumb. I can see where your going with all your little remarks about gun control.You might have some people like NeedKarma fooled with your thing about gun control but not me.I see the hidden messages your writting down.

---

No, that's not what I'm saying, just as you aren't really saying you will shoot anyone who steps foot on your property (or are you really saying that?).

What you are seeing is your own paranoia about gun control. Like many who hide behind the alleged protection of the 2nd amendment, you seem to be opposed to any reasonable gun control legislation. You think that each law about gun control is an attempt to deny you of your perceived rights.

You claim to see hidden messages where I tell you there are none. Did it ever occur to you that NeedKarma is the one seeing the truth and you are the one being fooled by your own prejudices? Because that IS what's happening.

I will state my position again. I believe that Americans have a right to own firearms for sport, for hunting, for personal protection. I also believe that Americans should be required to show that they will be reasonable and responsible in the exercise of that ownership. I do not believe that firearms should be unilaterally banned.

That is my position. If you want to read anything else into it, then you are making a mistake.

Scott - Stop With The Hidden Messages!! 1111!! You're Trying To Brainwash Me1!! 1!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Scott - Stop With The Hidden Messages!!!!1111!!! You're Trying To Brainwash Me1!!!1!!!!!!

---

Hosing down Needkarma to rinse off the brain wash :D

People who live in the USA are lucky they have the right to defend themselves. In Canada, it is nearly impossible to own a handgun unless in a gun club and carrying one is not allowed. Even long guns must be registered and must be stored unloaded and locked in a cabinet separate from ammunition. Even unarmed people who defend themselves in their own homes from a burglar can face assault or murder charges. Even stun guns and pepper spray is not legal for civilians. I love Canada but the rules about self defence are clearly ridiculous.

Because we very rarely have to self-defend ourselves. I rather like it that way.

I am now closing that thread seeing that it is a year old.

Meanie :p