2 ms·
> It's as simple as that. Nothing is ever as simple as that. Not only is it a foolish, immoral and illegal, you've also just communicated murderous intent. Hav
by elric 7y ago
> It's as simple as that.
Nothing is ever as simple as that. Not only is it a foolish, immoral and illegal, you've also just communicated murderous intent. Have fun spending 20-to-life in a cell because you thought ultraviolence would be a good way to do your part towards society.
I've had more than my fair share of violent confrontations, and I assure you, no matter how well you think you are prepared, once the metallic taste of adrenaline hits you, all your plans and delusions of grandeur go out the window.
A bit of violence can be acceptable. Murder over property is not.
- vunie 7y ago> you've also just communicated murderous intent. No I have not. It's your bias that colored it that way. Reread my comment. I never said I want kill a thief for stealing. I simply stated that I will take back what is mine. If, and only if, the thief tries to kill me will I respond in kind. Again, it has nothing to do with grandeur and everything to d with doing what is right. I will take back what is mine, and threatening my life wont stop me.
- natmaka 7y agoI agree with the underlying principle, however force on force is always a dangerous proposition, especially when it's not planned. Even without weapons it can seriously hurt a bystander (you run into a weak or child, he falls down on concrete...), and all bets are off if a gun is drawn (especially in a crowded area).