If that's the case, my enemies should cease moving close and closer to the point where I have no choice but to shoot them.
Explain, how does one go about rendering a dangerous individual, or even a group of dangerous individuals, harmless? A court of justice is only for those who are willing to be taken peacefully. Those that resist do not receive such a guaranteed benefit of the doubt. If they pose a significant risk to those attempt to apprehend them to bring them to a court of justice, their life will not be held to a higher regard than the lives of others who will be harmed in the process.
What of the ones that do not? What of the ones who believe they cannot have peace without harming others for their own benefit? What is the answer when dealing with said individuals who are not interested in peace?
Put them into jail, change their mind, make them leave their evil, destructive ways. There are some more options than just death penalty.
Measured corporal punishment for first offenders who have not committed heinous crimes would, IMO, virtually empty our prisons within a generation. The penitentiary system does not represent progress.
I do not know the answer. I only know that it's hidden in what drives these people to violence. You can kill them but that won't solve the underlying problem.
I agree with that, but self defense is the solution to the part of the problem that individuals come face to face with.
But they often call themselves "Correction Centers". That's a joke. Former prisoners often come out of jail with more hate and anger than they have entered it.
Yes, we were all taught to snicker at the Pilgrims for using the stocks, dunking stools etc, but their approach was clearly more rational than the horrific mass incarceration we relay on to control criminal behavior.
Sure, but then you have to prepare for the next fight. You'll end up in a spiral of violence where nobody wins. Are you Christian? Just listen to brother Jesus.
It would be silly to do otherwise. Eventually, the bad guys will get the hint, and the good guys will win.
An armed people will not deliver Utopia, but it will instantly eliminate almost all violent street crime, while creating a significant barrier against the installation of a fascist totalitarian regime.
Who wins when the public at large is constantly viewed as victims ripe for the picking? Who wins when the victims have no way of responding except to cower and beg? Victory in any given endeavor requires dedicated effort. Even Jesus supported the use of force when it was necessary in a given situation.
Is running away always the default response suggested anytime an individual is confronted with the possibility of violence befalling them? Moving to a new location requires far more than a one week period to properly orchestrate and carry out. And there is absolutely nothing stopping the threat from traveling to the new location as well, which would necessitate the individual moving again, and again, and again, for as long as the threat not only exists, but has the physical ability to locate their victim. Running away, and begging for help from one who is not able to provide that service, are not answers. Not simply viable answers, but rather not answers at all. There will be times when one has absolutely no option available to them but to stand their ground and reply with deadly force, in an immediate fashion. Those who either cannot understand such, or refuse to accept such as being reality, have no business trying to tell others what they do and do not need.
Violence ought not be necessary for anyone. This is why Democracy is so important, i.e. leadership chosen by the people. If the citizenry is compelled to use violence in order to achieve the basic needs (or to defend oneself from those who find such violence necessary) then the nation is at fault. It is no more complicated than that. Take care of your people and violence will all but disappear entirely.
