If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
i'm under the impression that history is full of wars ...where both sides are armed to the teeth.
where most abuse and vio;ence and murder actualy happens.
the work places in klint world are void of rivalry and ambition and bitterness.
the pubs ...havens of peace and tranquility.
you need to talk to blagsta about your crack problem.
Wars are started by people who do not fight.
How many wars have there been between two peoples who both have nukes?
None. As soon as the starters of wars come under fire, the war ends. This is the whole goal of military campaigns, to get within reach of the leaders to put them under threat so they give up. As soon as that happens, the war is over.
The bigger the power disparity the more likely the abuse. Hence, children are the most abused people on earth.
Not at all. They are absent violence because it's not economical.
How about answering that question?
many kings and princes have gone to war.
as for families ...brother kills brother ...son kills father wife kills husband ...child steals from parent ...but your view is very selective and narrow and biased.
you use the child as victim ...ignoring the rest of the family ...to push your strange agenda.
like i keep pointing out ...your understanding of people is very limited.
your view that the family represents some ideal ...is very strange indeed coming from you.
So lets make it a new international law that any national leader or politician who presses for war as a policy option has to take a place on the front line before asking anyone else to go.
That would put a damper on the warmongers like Rifkind in short order! lol.
You done it lately?
Seriously, and you already know you have lived a pretty rum life, how often have you seen violence in your day to day life?
You seen it once a day? A week? a month? 6 months?
How much of that was at the hands of people in the "state"?
Children are the most likely to be abused because they cannot fight back effectively. That was my only point. If everyone on earth could point at anyone else and instantly kill them, what would be the effect?
it doesn't matter how much i've seen personaly.]
let the facts speak for themselves ...most murders are within a family or close relationship situation ...many brothers kill brothers ...many sons and fathers kill each other ...many women injure or kill their spouse.
have a look inside jail.
you alter the truth or deny it ...to get your point of view across ...get honest.
by getting honest ...by looking at the facts ...you'll find that using the family as an ideal for running the world ...fails.
guess what ...politiciasns and kings and princes ...are human as well.
Where did you get those "facts" from ?
Bollocks.
Heres what you really know - what you've actually experienced. Everyone I ask tells me the same shit - "theres violence everywhere, blah blah blah". Then ,as I am wont to do I ask them how much they have ever seen, and the answer is "well, not much actually" and who did most of that?
Usually the police!
Theres a hell of a lot of propoganda and media coverage of murders etc but that's because they are really pretty rare.
Well quite. Between two men with a gun, the one more prepared to use it has the advantage. Thinking that being armed makes things fair in any way is the opinion of a naive fool who's never been in a fight in their life.
most murders are pretty easy for the old bill to solve cos guess what ...it is usualy between friends and family.
This is nonsense. If there is a fight, the victor is the one who acts first almost always. So? That's not the point I am making. As an armed man are you more likely or less likely to attack an armed person or an unarmed one?
The unarmed one. Less risk. What you always want to do is to make the risk of being the initiator of violence as great as possible. If every woman on earth was a gun owner, would instance of rape go up, or down?
It would obviously go down!
We have some violence here. But I can't help but notice that in my oewn life and everyone that I have talked to it makes up so little of their experience that it's hardly even an issue. The fear makes it seem larger than it really is. And the media helps this process.
So, Blagsta, given your work, where you live etc. How much violence have you seen?
Do you see physical attacks daily? Weekly? Monthly? Yearly?
If you and Rolly answer the question we might get somewhere.
Yes it does. Because as I keep pointing out and you keep missing, it's power disparity that causes abuse and violence. Kids rather obviously cannot fight back and so are prime targets. How many people do you know got hiding's off their old man until around 15/16 when suddenly they were too big to hit?
klintock's back garden, yesterday
Good answer. Ever thought of working psy ops for Clandestine?
your going way off the point here ...the point being ...someone asked you about doing away with government ...how or who would run things ...you suggested that from your observations the family would be a good idea.
Nahh. Why would women be so jumpy if they knew rape was less common and they could defend themselves?
Most rapes are done by acquantances or "friends". Assumedly, the women concerned know where said rapist lives. Is he really going to chance getting shot on his front doorstep?
True that. Other people with guns don't have this problem, is this something to do with the guns or with the people?
Self defence isn't murder, that's never ever going to occur and if you yourself are squeamish at the tought of carrying a gun, don't worry, you won't have to. Just the fact that it's likely you have one will be deterrent enough.
And then die immediately afterwards.........what a loss......
You know full well that the "weapon wielding maniac" is the stuff of fiction and that most victims know their attacker. Those sociopaths that do the random victim stuff aren't stopped by the state and nothing else will stop them either. With armed victims there is at least a chance they die in the attempt.
Is it really worth having something as utterly monstrous as a government in the hope that something that cannot be changed will go away?
I agree. The only thing that's more dangerous is having a few people who are very well armed controlling everyone else.
klintock is again showing his lack of understanding human behaviour.
if klint doesn't have a gun ...i have no reason to shoot him ...if i know he has one ...he poses a threat so i will shoot him.
klintock doesn't believe america exists so he can be excused for not knowing that gun ownership in america has resulted in the biggest death toll in the western world along with the biggest prison population.
Yeah, course. Wherever there is a power disparty, you find abuse.
I am arguing that everyone who wants one can have a gun. You cannot kill everyone, right?
Bigger than the billions killed by government last century?
Don't think so.....
And the prisons are full because there is $$$ in it for the state, you know that.