I am convinced that most people are cattle like slaves who will obey every absurd law their masters come up with. Even taxes as high as 80% and daily anal exams would be accepted as a norm if they were introduced slowly.And the funny thing is that people would still claim that they live in a free democracy.
>If you care about privacy you are a weirdo with something to hide
>If you care about the ability to defend yourself you are a paranoid madman
>If you want lower taxes you are a piece of shit who just uses resources and does not give back enough
Normalcattle does not want freedom. All it cares about is safety and stability.
Australian normalcattle agreed with banning airsoft. UK normalcattle agreed with banning acid and limited the ability to carry knives.Our taxes are already at over 40%
>WooWee, we got a heard of niggercattle, we got such a big docile heard of niggercattle, and they shit, and watch TV, because they're niggercattle, and we got a big heard of nigger cattle, a big heard of nigger cattle Woo Wee
>>17693 >All rules I don't understand are stupid and arbitrary
That's called autism.
>>17695 >UK normalcattle agreed with banning acid and limited the ability to carry knives.Our taxes are already at over 40%
Under-18s are banned from buying acid because they have no use for it except as a weapon to permanently disfigure people.
Everyone is banned from carrying knives with a fixed blade over 3 inches in public because knives are useless for self defence, the only reason to carry one is to attack people.
Tax is not 40%, it's taxed in bands so if your salary is 60k then the tax is 10k @ 40%, 27.5k @ 20% and 12.5k @ 0%.
If you don't agree with the laws you are free to vote for a different party or emigrate somewhere without stupid laws (Zimbabwe is nice).
>>17698 >A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither
Again, the shithole negro countries with no laws are that way. What are you waiting for? Off you fuck.
>>17697 Here's an example of a boot licking normalnigger.
>Under-18s are banned from buying acid because they have no use for it except as a weapon to permanently disfigure people.
Nope. You need a special permit to purchase acid.
>Everyone is banned from carrying knives with a fixed blade over 3 inches in public because knives are useless for self defence, the only reason to carry one is to attack people.
Knives are better for self defense than anything else the Brits can legally carry. A knife is a tool used for cutting.
>Tax is not 40%, it's taxed in bands so if your salary is 60k then the tax is 10k @ 40%, 27.5k @ 20% and 12.5k @ 0%.
Income tax is not the only tax dummy.You also get taxed whenever you purchase anything leaving most countries with a tax that is between 30-40%
>If you don't agree with the laws you are free to vote for a different party or emigrate somewhere without stupid laws
Voting changes nothing and most laws are not voted on.
>>17705 >Income tax is not the only tax dummy.You also get taxed whenever you purchase anything leaving most countries with a tax that is between 30-40%
Not true for europe. There it's more around 70%, if you add VAT and all those other taxes on everything you could want to pay for. Fuel is more than 50% taxed, so is electricity, and so on.
>>17704 >Again, the shithole negro countries with no laws are that way. What are you waiting for? Off you fuck.
Nigger countries are shit because the population consists of niggers you filthy lying kike.
European nations did just fine decades before these faggot laws. We weren't going around throwing acid at each other. You CIA nigger kikes brought in the subhumans who do that.
You're a shill and probably a jew. Even contemporary selfdescribed fascists and nationalsocialists aren't anywhere close to you, when it comes to their bootlicking capacity.
Fuck off, jew. The holocaust never happened. Get over it.
>>17712 At least he's playing the role of the brainwashed cattle pretty convincing. I've never heard so many braindead cliched coming out of a single mouth.
>>17697 >t.bootlicking brainlet
Most rules feel arbitrary and useless to non-retards like OP(and they are) cause most laws are designed with retards in mind.
Truth is that we should have different tiers of rules for different kind of people cause there are differences between people.
>If you don't agree with the laws you are free to vote
Voting is the biggest fraud in the history of mankind, voting will not change anything cause the masses are being manipulated and made docile through propaganda("modern" movies and videogames) and mental manipulation(social media, news).
>emigrate somewhere without stupid laws
Nowhere to go that is not a cucked democracy or full of niggers.
If you really think that the only 2 choices for humanity are being cucks or a nigger monkeys, then you are at the final stage of bluepilling.
>>17710 >The holocaust never happened
Bullshit, it did happen and it was beatiful.
>>17705 >Knives are better for self defense than anything else the Brits can legally carry.
Do law enforcement carry knives for self defence? Well there you go then.
You can't win a knife fight, you just bleed out later.
>A knife is a tool used for cutting.
And what are you cutting on the streets of a major city?
>Income tax is not the only tax dummy.
What other tax is "40%"? Don't tell me you're just adding up random taxes together.
>>17709 >European nations did just fine decades before these faggot laws. We weren't going around throwing acid at each other. You CIA nigger kikes brought in the subhumans who do that.
What's your point? If violent subhuman savages are the problem, how does repealing knife laws and lowering taxes help with that?
>>17727 >Most rules feel arbitrary and useless to non-retards like OP
If you are a non-retard you would understand why the laws exist. Unironically thinking things you don't understand don't apply to you because you're too smart is chuunibyou autism.
>>17802 >knives are the best option
I do think the rule is retarded but honestly any kind of heavy metal rod is better than knife. All it takes is one proper whack literally anywhere on the body and the danger is gone. You also have an extra range and no sharp corners.
I believe they make pocket telescopic versions. I mean i dont have niggers in the area so its not like id need such a thing, its just basic observation really
>Do law enforcement carry knives for self defence? Well there you go then.
They carry firearms. Carrying firearms would be better than carrying knives, but carrying knives is better than carrying no weapon at all. Pepperspray isn't a weapon.
>You can't win a knife fight, you just bleed out later.
What an idiot you are. Of course you can win a knife-fight. You pump the blade into the attacker until he collapses. Of course, it's stressful, but it's doable, especially if you don't warn the attacker beforehand. That's a luxury firearms allow you, which knifes don't.
>What other tax is "40%"? Don't tell me you're just adding up random taxes together.
WTF?! Of course. If you want to know how much you're paying, you're adding all taxes you're paying, and not just the income tax. How han a single person be that stupid. On the other hand, you've voted for a government that's letting your nation be fucked by sandniggers, so you must be up pretty high on the stupidity-scale.
>What's your point? If violent subhuman savages are the problem, how does repealing knife laws and lowering taxes help with that?
You can kill subhuman savages with weapons in self defense, and knifes are weapons. Firearms would be even better, because they equalize numbers. You alone can shoot five attackers with a firearm. If you're unarmed, only their numbers count, and they'll attack you when you're alone and they're in a group. So you must be armed with tools, that enable you to kill a group of people in self defense. Especially, if you're physically weak.
>Of course, it's stressful, but it's doable, especially if you don't warn the attacker beforehand
>kill a group of people in self defense
<IN SELF DEFENSE
<don't warn the attacker beforehand
Just brilliant.
Anyway you are clearly holding a lot of aggression in. It might be advisable to do exercise or to enroll into some judo/boxing courses. Maybe then you will stop thinking about fights in such a poor way. Because this
>Of course you can win a knife-fight. You pump the blade into the attacker until he collapses.
is really retarded.
If you are against one attacker and pull out a knife, it's a sign of starting a fight possibly to death. If he isn't scared and has a knife, you are likely to get cut, because 99.9% you don't know any moves against an enemy with a knife or cannot pull them off (reliable ones involve high leg kicks). Needless to say, a club in experienced hands will probably be an advantage over you. As said before, clubs have more reach and clubs hurt.
If you are against multiple enemies, you better just run, honestly. If you pull out a gun, enemies could do the same, and you don't know what they have. If they are unarmed and you have a knife, you are still at disadvantage, because they can surrond you and even if you cut a couple, the rest can immobilize you and rape your virgin ass.
Just stay safe and strategic bro.
Anyway came here to post this
nigger countries are shitholes because they have tyrannical laws
Every time a nigger country becomes free of crushing overlegislation there is an economic boom and the standard of living and wealth of the nation shoots way up until it attracts attention from the roving hordes in africa (coming in from other countries and raiding the businesses) and from the hostile attention of existing tyrannical systems.
t. nigger
>>17820 >dude lmao
Maybe I phrased this retardedly.
I mean you can kick a knife out of an attacker's hand and that's the only reliable way to do it if you are unarmed.
>>17802 >What is your point here?
My point is >>17800 >You can't win a knife fight, you just bleed out later.
Learn to read.
>If your income tax is 20%...
>>17697 already explained to you that's not how income tax works. In hindsight it's obvious that someone with such low IQ is not making >£50K and is just autisticlly adding together unrelated taxes.
>>17805 >carrying knives is better than carrying no weapon at all. Pepperspray isn't a weapon.
If it's self defence you don't need a "weapon". Pepperspray will immobilize the attacker more reliably, at longer range and with less risk to you than a knife.
The point still stands, the only reason to have a knife is to start shit, not defend yourself and that's the reason carrying them in public is restricted by law.
>Of course you can win a knife-fight. You pump the blade into the attacker until he collapses.
What you're saying is stab the dude to death before he gets his knife out and still unarmed, that's not a knife fight and definitely not self defence.
>You can kill subhuman savages with weapons in self defense, and knifes are weapons.
You realise most people don't want to live in a society where everyone is shooting and stabbing each other. That's the point you seem to be missing. Additionally, whatever makes you think you're somekind of immortal superhero who would be better off in such a world is severely misguided.
>>17810 This is actually where I was going eventually. Fat pussies larping as libertarians think they need knives and guns to defend themselves because they don't know how to fight.
>>17820 >Every time a nigger country becomes free of crushing overlegislation there is an economic boom and the standard of living and wealth of the nation shoots way up
Example?
>It might be advisable to do exercise or to enroll into some judo/boxing courses.
Actually, I do, which is exactly why I prefer weapons. If the other guy has a knife, your black belt won't help you. They're not teaching offensive knife techniques, because that would make it obvious, that defensive techniques are impractical and don't work.
>If you are against one attacker and pull out a knife, it's a sign of starting a fight possibly to death.
Yes, that's what self defense is. You do whatever is neccessary to stop an unlawful attack as quick as possible. Damaging someone in such a way, that he stops his attack within a few seconds often has the sideeffect of killing him within a few minutes. That's also how the police do it, if they're rushed - they shoot as fast as they can, until the attacker goes down, which usually kills him soon afterwards.
>If he isn't scared and has a knife, you are likely to get cut, because 99.9% you don't know any moves against an enemy with a knife or cannot pull them off (reliable ones involve high leg kicks)
First, if you'd try high leg kicks against me, I'd rush into grappling distance, cut your femoral artery while doing so, and eviscerate you as soon as I've closed the distance. Your best unarmed chance against knifes is grappling with a heavy emphasis on arm-control, dislocating shoulders, breaking arms, and stompkicking heads while controlling him on the ground, which also implies doing heavy damage towards the attacker, but with a much higher risk of being stabbed into vital regions, and much less effectiveness against several attackers. Everything related to striking just gets you cut in the regions you're striking with, and you should expect the part you're striking with to be instantly paralyzed. Nerves are everywhere.
Second, that's why a knife makes it neccessary to incapacitate an attacker before he even knows, that you have a knife. Therefore, no warnings. You can warn people, if you can incapacitate them at a distance, like when you're already pointing a gun at them. If they rush you, you still can shoot them. That's not possible with knives.
>Needless to say, a club in experienced hands will probably be an advantage over you. As said before, clubs have more reach and clubs hurt.
Depends, but maybe. But why are you telling me this? I'm not for banning any kind of weapon. If you prefer bashing an attackers' head in with a club, be my guest. You're the one who finds it reasonable to make it illegal for normal people to be able to defend themselves.
>If you are against multiple enemies, you better just run, honestly.
See, that's why people that are for banning firearms really are pricks. I can't run, due to a knee injury. I either win, or I lose. Running away is not an option for me. As is isn't for old people, fat people, sick people, injured people, and so on. Banning weapons makes sure, that people, which can't run, are always at the mercy of any attacker.
Think of women with some kind of knee-injury. What you're argueing for leads to those women being raped every time some wannabe-rapist feels the urge of doing so. To be honest, I find your behaviour even more disgusting, that what the rapist does. At least the rapists risks something. You don't. You're just a sheep making sheep-noises from the safety of your living room. Honestly, should you or your family-members ever get raped, robbed, mugged, get their face cut, of just be killed by some sandnigger, I'd have sympathies for the perpetrator, and would hope, that he never gets caught, and does it again to another member of your family.
>If they are unarmed and you have a knife, you are still at disadvantage, because they can surrond you and even if you cut a couple, the rest can immobilize you and rape your virgin ass.
Assuming, I'll do things my way with a knife. Meaning, I'm crying and begging for mercy, and suddenly the first one goes down, with either blood spilling out of his neck or upper leg, a large slit between his ribs, or his guts coming out of his underbelly - Would you risk to be the one who goes after him? If you would, your career as a perpetrator would be a short one. Most people I could encounter therefore would run.
>>17828 >Second, that's why a knife makes it necessary to incapacitate an attacker before he even knows, that you have a knife.
So it's useless in a self defense situation.
>why are you telling me this?
I think the point is that literally anything is better than a knife for self defence. Blunt instruments have stopping power, unlike a knife. Unless you get someone in the heart on your first strike, they are going to be mobile enough to retaliate straight away and the only realistic outcome is you're both going to the hospital/morgue.
>Yes, that's what self defense is.
No it's not. Self defence is *deescalating* the situation and only using necessary force to overcome a threat. Not stabbing people to death whenever you feel threatened.
>>17828 >Actually, I do, which is exactly why I prefer weapons.
How often do you get your ass kicked lol?
>They're not teaching offensive knife techniques
It's mostly about thinking while fighting.
>Yes, that's what self defense is. You do whatever is neccessary to stop an unlawful attack as quick as possible.
I am pretty sure an attack on an unarmed individual resulting in severe injury or death is not "self defense" and is not a fair fight either.
>That's also how the police do it
Police gets away with worse shit and it's probably not qualified as "self defense".
>First, if you'd try high leg kicks against me, I'd rush into grappling distance
The whole point of kicking is to keep you at kick distance, idiot.
And further on your violent fantasies don't leave any place for enemy actions, while they are likely to be as fast as you.
Anyway clearly just shooting a fuck with a knife is a better choice if you have it.
>Therefore, no warnings.
The jail awaits man. Not that I want you to get jailed but I certainly wouldn't be surprised.
>You're the one who finds it reasonable to make it illegal for normal people to be able to defend themselves.
Pepper spray is a better way to do a "preventive strike".
>I can't run, due to a knee injury.
Maybe you shouldn't walk around in dangerous places then.
Anyway I'm not decided on the whole firearms thing. I just see knives as a really bad option. Guns are better but if your opponents have guns the safest play is to retreat or to give up, because for every shot you make, you could receive a <number of enemy guns> back and if you're that fucked you better just live, tell the tale, make a strike squad or something and get your revenge later.
>I'd have sympathies for the perpetrator, and would hope, that he never gets caught, and does it again to another member of your family.
I live in a much safer place than you, I guess, so no luck for you. Anyway if stupid shit like you describe happens on a regular basis, the best bet is to never let the weak walk alone, period. Apart from physical ability, you also need a skill and a will to fight.
>I'm crying and begging for mercy, and suddenly the first one goes down, with either blood spilling out of his neck or upper leg, a large slit between his ribs, or his guts coming out of his underbelly - Would you risk to be the one who goes after him?
This is retarded on several levels dude. Just stop.
You shouldn't assume you deal with somebody with just one hit, you shouldn't assume they are slow, you shouldn't assume you break their morale by taking one of them out, etc.
>So it's useless in a self defense situation.
Self defense is what you do to incapacitate a unlawful attacker. Warning someone doesn't incapacitate him. Warning someone is not part of selfdefense, and should only be done, when it's practical, but not, when it's disadvantageous.
So a knife is a good tool for self defense, but it requires to act in a lethal manner before the attacker is even aware, that you're defending yourself. But that's still selfdefense. If any attacker has a problem with that, he shouldn't choose to become an attacker.
>They're not teaching offensive knife techniques
>It's mostly about thinking while fighting.
Without knowing how to attack, you can't know how how to defend. That's why teaching how to defend against a knife is useless, if they don't also teach how to kill with a knife.
>I am pretty sure an attack on an unarmed individual resulting in severe injury or death is not "self defense" and is not a fair fight either
A victim can't know, whether the attacker is armed, and any attacker should therefore always be treated as an armed attacker. Self defense also has nothing to do with a fair fight, but with ending an attack by any means neccessary. If the attacker gets killed, it's his fault, because he choose to become a attacker, while the victim didn't choose to become a victim.
>The jail awaits man. Not that I want you to get jailed but I certainly wouldn't be surprised.
Where I'm living, we have strong stand your ground laws, so I'd be acting in a lawful manner. BTW, any law, that forces you to be victimized, should be considered null and void, and a crime in itself.
>Pepper spray is a better way to do a "preventive strike".
I've been training how to bash your skull in after being peppersprayed. It's easier than you think. Everything gets pretty rough, if you've been peppersprayed, because you can't see, while your face hurts. So the only thing that counts would be to finish the attacker in the crudest way possible. Which is possible, if you can close the distance. Which you can.
>Maybe you shouldn't walk around in dangerous places then.
The problem is not me walking in shitskin-places, but shitskins walking in my places. So shut the fuck up, and stop victimblaming.
>Anyway if stupid shit like you describe happens on a regular basis, the best bet is to never let the weak walk alone, period.
So always walk in a group, just like shitskins do. Question: What is your group of women and elders, unable to run like cowards, going to do, when a larger group of shitskins comes along?
>Apart from physical ability, you also need a skill and a will to fight.
I'm sure, there are more people in the UK, with those attributes, than there are people allowed to carry usable weapons in public. And you are from the UK, if I understand you correctly, which is criminalizing people, which would be able and willing to defend themselves, from doing so, and forces them into the role of either becoming cowards or victims. And you're actually argueing, that that's a good thing, because "you don't need the neccessary tools in public".
>You shouldn't assume you deal with somebody with just one hit,
Opening a major artery sends you into shock instantly. Cutting a nerve paralyzes the affected limp instantly. Opening up your belly sends you into shock instantly. Cutting through your eye blinds you instantly. Stabbing your kidneys sends you into shock instantly. Opening you ribcage in such a manner, that air can stream in, collapses your lungs within maybe a minute, so that's more of a secondary target. Anyways, I never said, that it's enough to do only one of those things. Stop putting words into my mouth. I explicitely stated, that you have to repeat doing those things in the fastest pace practical, until the attacker collapses.
>you shouldn't assume they are slow, you shouldn't assume you break their morale by taking one of them out, etc.
I'm assuming, that they're normal human beings, and normal human beings need a few seconds to realize, that they're in a fight. Let's say 2-5 seconds. Until they've realized that, they're unable to effectively counter whatever one does to them. And that's how selfdefense with a knife works. Any attacker must be incapacitated before he had time to realize, that there'll be a fight.
With guns you can warn people, and tell them, that you won't comply. With knives you don't have this luxury. If killing someone with a knife sounds too brutal for you, then you should be against gun control.
>>17834 >Without knowing how to attack, you can't know how how to defend. That's why teaching how to defend against a knife is useless, if they don't also teach how to kill with a knife.
I proposed judo/boxing. They generally don't teach knife fighting at all. It's a sport.
>If the attacker gets killed, it's his fault
Honestly the way you say it it's a way to justify any murder, so I say you're either mistaken or shitting me.
>Where I'm living, we have strong stand your ground laws, so I'd be acting in a lawful manner
Say three unarmed nigs flex on you in a shady valley, you cut one of them, the other two stop you from doing anything else and later coppers show up and take you all in custody. The one you cut dies and two others testify against you that you attacked them for no reason and there is no other witnesses. What will your actions be and what will the law be?
>It's easier than you think.
I dunno. Did you actually got peppersprayed and tried to do a meaningful attack afterwards? You get disoriented and the best you can do is to attack in "that general direction". If a "victim" is not retarded, they just run away asap.
>The problem is not me walking in shitskin-places, but shitskins walking in my places.
Whoever walks near your places is not necessarily a thug. And if they are, you have a lot of problems beyond some random self-defense.
>What is your group of women and elders, unable to run like cowards, going to do, when a larger group of shitskins comes along?
That is not a situation I had in mind. I mean you have to guard them, because whatever it looks like is more of a war zone than some random town. Which in turn makes me think you're shitting me and you don't have any such danger in the first place.
Anyway them having weapons going against of a group of thugs who are most likely to have weapons as well and starting a fight would result in all of them dead or injured. Some thugs would be too, so I guess it's a win for you.
>I'm sure, there are more people in the UK, with those attributes, than there are people allowed to carry usable weapons in public.
Are you some nigger from London ghetto or what the fuck? No, I'm not from the UK.
Anyway I was talking about the weak. If you have a legitimate reason to carry a weapon, the law won't stop you, like it doesn't stop criminals. I have certain doubts about whether you need one though.
>Opening a major artery sends you into shock instantly.
Stop.
You're assuming that you hit vital points in one strike.
You're assuming a specific shock response.
>you have to repeat doing those things in the fastest pace practical, until the attacker collapses.
You also said you had to backstab them lol.
>I'm assuming, that they're normal human beings, and normal human beings need a few seconds to realize, that they're in a fight.
I dunno. Unless you do some crazy ninja moves, you will be able to deal with 2 enemies tops (first the one before anybody realizes anything and the second within those 2-5 seconds). If you're counting seconds here, any deviation from your devious calculations will cause the delay. I suppose if you're legitimately a trained fighter and your opponents are not, you have more chances but again, that's some assumptions and from the looks of it you have never been in the real fight.
>With knives you don't have this luxury.
That's why they are bad.
>If killing someone with a knife sounds too brutal for you
It's just too dangerous. You pull out a knife = you are likely to get cut.
>>17834 >So a knife is a good tool for self defense, but it requires to act in a lethal manner before the attacker is even aware, that you're defending yourself. But that's still selfdefense. If any attacker has a problem with that, he shouldn't choose to become an attacker.
Again, escalating the situation from "I feel scared" to "stab him quickly until he's dead" is not self defence. If anything that's what's causing knife violence in the first place.
>That's why teaching how to defend against a knife is useless, if they don't also teach how to kill with a knife.
To defend against an untrained thug on the street you need to train to be a knife assassin, then learn to defend against a trained knife assassin? We're approaching epic levels of autism here.
>you are from the UK, if I understand you correctly, which is criminalizing people, which would be able and willing to defend themselves, from doing so, and forces them into the role of either becoming cowards or victims.
Knives are useless for self defence so anyone carrying a knife is part of the problem not the solution. Is it really such a difficult concept to grasp?
>Stop putting words into my mouth. I explicitely stated, that you have to repeat doing those things in the fastest pace practical, until the attacker collapses
Yes you said the only effective way to use a knife is to strike before you're in danger, but that isn't self defence.
In an actual self defence situation, you stab, get stabbed, stab, get stabbed until one person dies, then some time later the other person dies.
Using literally anything else for self defense and letting the police round up knife carriers is an objectively better solution.
>Any attacker must be incapacitated before he had time to realize, that there'll be a fight.
In that case they're not the attacker, you are the attacker.
>If killing someone with a knife sounds too brutal for you, then you should be against gun control.
What were you saying about putting words in people's mouth?
>Honestly the way you say it it's a way to justify any murder, so I say you're either mistaken or shitting me.
The difference between murder and lethal selfdefense is, that the former effects the death of a victim, while the latter prevents the proceeding of a crime. Both are two different categories.
>The one you cut dies and two others testify against you that you attacked them for no reason and there is no other witnesses. What will your actions be and what will the law be?
I don't understand the question. My actions will have been self defense, and the verdict would be "not guilty" if the judge doesn't believe the remaining two niggers, or "not guilty due to lack of evidence", if he doesn't know who to believe, of "guilty", if he believes, that I attacked three niggers without reason, which, in the case you've portrayed, would be a miscarriage of justice.
>Did you actually got peppersprayed and tried to do a meaningful attack afterwards?
Yes.
>You get disoriented and the best you can do is to attack in "that general direction".
We had two different drills. One was me being peppersprayed, and beating up people waiting on a parcours with a padded stick, and the second one required grappling. Both can be done. Sometimes we also got some during sparring, just for the fun of it. In any case, what happens, is basically that you become ultraagressive, and it becomes really easy to lose control. You're nearly blind, and really, really aggressive, and want to get this over with as fast as possible. If you can grab someone, you'd bash his head onto the ground until you're exhausted, and start to think again.
>Whoever walks near your places is not necessarily a thug. And if they are, you have a lot of problems beyond some random self-defense.
Are you saying, that law-abiding people, who are living in bad neighborhoods, don't deserve the right to defend themselves, when they're being victimized by some lowlife? If not, then what's your point? Do you want to tell me how privileged you are, and that everyone can become a trust fund kid? Maybe those people don't have the money to flee their neighborhood. Or they just don't want to run away. What you're doing is blaming the victims, if they're not as entitled as you appear to be. Doesn't this make you feel at least a little scummy?
>Anyway them having weapons going against of a group of thugs who are most likely to have weapons as well and starting a fight would result in all of them dead or injured.
You're forgetting, that thugs make less than the minimum wage on average, while normal people are pretty rich in comparison. If both parties arm up, thugs are at a disadvantage. So in the end, mainly thugs would die, which would be a good outcome indeed.
>If you have a legitimate reason to carry a weapon, the law won't stop you, like it doesn't stop criminals.
Are you aware, that the law stops lawabiding people from carrying a weapon during their daily lifes, if carrying a weapon is made illegal?
>Stop.
>You're assuming that you hit vital points in one strike.
>You're assuming a specific shock response.
Dude, the femoral artery in your upper leg, or the carotid and subclavian arteries in your neck, are hard to miss. If they're cut, your bloodpressure sinks so much, that you'll black out within seconds, and you'll bleed out within minutes.
Other than that: What I said is, that you have to induce those responses in a fast pace, until the attacker collapses.
>You also said you had to backstab them lol.
Maybe, if they're attacking someone else, with me being unnoticed, I'd may go for Kindneys&Carotids before introducing myself. But I can't remember talking about backstabbing before.
>With knives you don't have this luxury.
>That's why they are bad.
Worse than firearms, but better than nothing. And if you want to allow firearms, which are more effective, why not also allow the less effective knifes? Doesn't make sense to me.
>It's just too dangerous. You pull out a knife = you are likely to get cut.
You have nothing to pull out = you're likely to get raped without introducing any risk on the side of the perpetrator.
>Again, escalating the situation from "I feel scared" to "stab him quickly until he's dead" is not self defence.
Not dead, but collapsed. As I already said, that's what the police do even in the most pacifist countries, when they're being rushed. Only with firearms.
>To defend against an untrained thug on the street you need to train to be a knife assassin, then learn to defend against a trained knife assassin? We're approaching epic levels of autism here.
To defend against a untrained boxer you have to learn boxing - which includes knowing how to box. So yes, in order to be able to defend against a knife, you must be able to attack with a knife, or else you don't know what you're defending against, and you also don't have competent sparringpartners. That's really, really obvious, dude.
>Yes you said the only effective way to use a knife is to strike before you're in danger, but that isn't self defence.
Me being victimized by an attacker doesn't imply that we're engaged in a fight. Selfdefense is there, so I can enforce my legally protected interests against any unlawful attacker. My legally protected interests are more than just my right of not being physically injured. So my right to selfdefense already kicks in, if someone tries to steal from me, damage my property, and so on, even if he's no threat to me. Even in the most restrictive jurisdictions it's enough, that it's reasonable to believe, that he'll become a threat, if I'm trying to prevent him from violating my lawfully protected interests. At this point my right of not being slapped in the face overrides his right to live.
>In an actual self defence situation, you stab, get stabbed, stab, get stabbed until one person dies, then some time later the other person dies.
No, what you're describing is a fair fight, which is something you may engage in with your friends, but certainly not with criminals, and certainly not while defending yourself against people you don't know.
>In that case they're not the attacker, you are the attacker.
No, I'm the defender, if I'm protecting my legally protected interests against an attacker. If outright murder is the only way to protect what's protected by law, then selfdefense sanctions outright murder.
>>17841 >Why are you still replying to this bootlicker/fed? People like him will always find a reason to justify servitude.
I know. I have a kind heart. Sometimes too much so.
>>17844 >Both are two different categories.
At this point I want you to quote real laws in places like yours and real court cases. This goes for all such questions.
>My actions will have been self defense
You say so. I will repeat: does an attack with a knife against an unarmed individual justify this? Law quotes.
In this particular case: the evidence on the crime scene confirms their words, i.e that no struggle besides you attacking and then them restricting you.
>miscarriage of justice.
I don't think it helps you really. As for "miscarriage", you killed a person while your life wasn't threatened. Regardless of what his circumstances were, it is pretty much a murder.
>If you can grab someone
Assumptions. That was the point. I was talking that since you're nearly blind (possibly completely blind) and in pain you might jump, shake your head and lose any sense of the target.
But I wasn't peppersprayed so I cannot tell exactly.
>Are you saying, that law-abiding people, who are living in bad neighborhoods, don't deserve the right to defend themselves, when they're being victimized by some lowlife?
Pepper spray and run. Don't leave the crowded streets. Rely on police, that's what you pay them for. If some scum camps your door, then I dunno, aren't you fucked regardless? That would likely imply they are organized. Then, provoking them makes it worse. If you cannot follow through with a full cleanup of the "gang", you might get ambushed later on. Maybe it's exceedingly paranoid, but it might happen.
>What you're doing is blaming the victims, if they're not as entitled as you appear to be.
Not really. There is just much more plays than confront some random enemy you know nothing about. Losing is fine sometimes.
>If both parties arm up, thugs are at a disadvantage.
That's a bit far-fetched. If thugs do extortion for a living, they could be pretty well armed and armoured (to a degree) already.
>Are you aware, that the law stops lawabiding people from carrying a weapon during their daily lifes, if carrying a weapon is made illegal?
I was making a point that if those concerns are real, anybody would try to do something, anything. Rally up some cops, carry weapons, whatever. All you talk about is how you're going to cut some throats. Were you actually extorted out of your cash or what?
Regarding that, we need some real crimerate statistics in whatever place you have in mind.
>hard to miss
If your target doesn't move, maybe. But what the fuck is this shit, really? Will some girl or a random boi or a random clerk (the actual proposed target audience) have to carry a seamless execution of such strike just to tickle your knife fetishes or what the fuck do I read here? The knife will most certainly give them some false confidence, too.
> Other than that: What I said is, that you have to induce those responses in a fast pace, until the attacker collapses.
So, you have nothing to reply to the fact that once you slip up, it's not as smooth and cool, especially against a group. OK.
>But I can't remember talking about backstabbing before.
You didn't. I referred to "stabbing without a warning" as "backstabbing", in a sense of a sudden underhanded attack.
>why not also allow the less effective knifes?
They are likely to kill a ton of untrained civilians who would carry them in false confidence.
>You have nothing to pull out = you're likely to get raped
If you're talking in a literal sense, then unless you're a woman, you really don't have much to worry about. And if you live in a poor hood, you are poor as shit in the first place and probably don't have anything valuable on you. Losing 100$ or so once isn't a big deal compared to some heavy injury. This is a problem only if it becomes a pattern.
>without introducing any risk on the side of the perpetrator.
They do risk. They risk getting reported. They risk doing that shit in public. They risk living that life in the first place.
>That's really, really obvious, dude.
OK lol.
Whatever. Sure. Let everybody become a competent knife fighter. This is so gonna happen. It won't >ou must be able to attack with a knife, or else you don't know what you're defending against, and you also don't have competent sparringpartners.
The sole fact that you want to get into "grappling" with a knife fighter shows how fucking incompetent you are. Any closing of a distance to that degree is just sticking yourself onto a knife.
Random knifing video with grappling:
KeM2Lp3T6sk
Can you see how many times the bjj guy was stabbed? The other guy (like, a host) got fucked couple of times too. Any time you try to "control the knife arm" you just open yourself to be cut badly.
>>17693 >All it cares about is safety and stability.
And even that they actively fight against because all the solutions feel bad and FLOWER POWER feels good.
I really want to know (((who))) is behind modern-day "democracy" (which is completely unrelated to the ancient regime the word democracy actually refers to). It wasn't the niggercattle, they don't think.
>>17695 Most nordic countries have taxes of at minimum 50%. Supposedly because they used to have a culture of communal property and it only felt natural at some point but has gone so horribly wrong in the present day.
>>17844 >My actions will have been self defense, and the verdict would be "not guilty" if the judge doesn't believe the remaining two niggers, or "not guilty due to lack of evidence", if he doesn't know who to believe, of "guilty", if he believes, that I attacked three niggers without reason, which, in the case you've portrayed, would be a miscarriage of justice.
If the *jury* (judge has nothing to do with it) doesn't know who to believe then the facts are 1 dead person + you holding the knife = murder. People are not going to automatically side with you believe yourself to always be in the right.
>Not dead, but collapsed. As I already said, that's what the police do even in the most pacifist countries, when they're being rushed. Only with firearms.
To use a knife you need to move into stabbing distance.
If you're in stabbing distance with an armed attacker then you're going to get hurt.
If you're in stabbing distance with an unarmed person then *you* are the attacker.
>better than nothing
Not better than nothing, read the post you're responding to >>17838 >Knives are useless for self defence so anyone carrying a knife is part of the problem not the solution.
>Using literally anything else for self defense and letting the police round up knife carriers is an objectively better solution.
>my right of not being slapped in the face overrides his right to live.
Your understanding of the legal system is a bit deluded. The world doesn't revolve around you, the flawless hero who can kill everyone who looks at you wrong.
>>17853 >Most nordic countries have taxes of at minimum 50%.
<Income tax is 20%, VAT is 20%, fuel is 50%, tobacco is 16.5%, alcohol is 40%
<UK TAX IS 146.5%!!!!!!!11111ONE
Just fucking stop already.
Now I'm kinda bored by this discussion. Sheeps won't stop being sheeps if you just talk to them.
Anyways, please have a look at what lawyers say in your own region regarding self defense, especially regarding the technicalities, which often are the most important things, when it comes to law. Where I'm living, self-defense doen't only enable you to protect your personal safety, but all your legally protected interests, which means, that you are allowed to respond with violence to unlawful attacks against those interests, if violence is neccessary to stop them. The amount of violence you're allowed to apply isn't strictly limited. You're expected to use the smallest amount of force neccessary, to protect all your legally protected interests, but those include not being lightly slapped in the face, or not letting someone rip your cloth by grappling with him, or not allowing someone to damage any of your property, no matter how worthless. If you can argue, that your two options were either to act in a manner where your cloth may get dirtied by the attacker, or murder the attacker in cold blood, it would be okay to choose the latter. It would also be okay to kill a fleeing attacker, if you want to sue him for damages (very important, btw, because it's not your right to punish, but only to ensure your legally protected interests, like being compensated for damages), and killing him is the only way to prevent him from fleeing.
I won't come with legal texts for this, because I'm not living in an english speaking country, you wouldn't be able to decipher what those laws are saying, especially, because the text of the law really doesn't matter, while the jurisprudence does, so you'd have to read books with explanations of the meaning of the law, if you want to understand it. But let me ensure you, that, when it comes to the place where I'm living, I know about selfdefense what any local lawyer would know.
Furthermore, your arguments against knives are stupid. There's no princible behind them. You're argueing according to your feelings and opinions, so your arguments are full of logical holes. That's what makes you sheeple. You're subordinated to feelings and opinions, rather than to facts and logic. You're also like little children, which are totally depending on their parents, when it comes to the state.
>BJJ guy
How many times have I already said, that I don't believe in fair fights? I'm talking about the inconsiderate slaughter of unsuspecting attackers, which is distinctively unfair, but it works. I'm also not presenting this as the perfect solution, but as a necessity which results out of any ban on carrying effective firearms in public. Of course it would be better to shoot any attacker out of a safe distance, but if that option is barred by reprehensible lawmakers, the violence either gets intimate and more brutal, or you'll simply be dominated by lowlifes.
Increasingly so, because the life of the lowlife is being protected by those reprehensible lawmakers, which enables them to multiply their numbers, which then makes it neccessary for the police to increase their numbers, and demand increasingly authoritarian laws, so they're able to stay on top of the lowlifes. Rinse and repeat. What you'll end up with is lawabiding people being slaves of a totalitarian state, with them not being able to protect themselves neither against the dystopian state nor against the lowlifes, which will learn to live and prosper within the dystopia. Every dystopian state has a very high rate of lowlifes among its populace, against which lawabiding people can't protect themselves, while they're being constantly victimized by ever increasing numbers of lowlifes, whose whole existence is in fact being protected and enabled by the authoritarian state.
That's the path most of the west went on for quite some time, and you're the ones argueing for its continuation. In my opinion, the only way to handle any society, that's dominated by such people, it it's total destruction. If allowed to exist, such a society will become as dystopian as is physically possible, and will then disintegrate, but not without destroying everything that's outside of such a society, because its only way for such a society to exist while failing is to destroy all viable alternatives even faster, than it fails itself. That's what you sheeps are creating. It will be a good day, when your cities are being nuked.
>>17858 >Where I'm living
Where I'm living, self-defense which brings severe injuries (broken bones, loss of sight/hearing, incapacitated limbs/fingers) is punishable by law, and courts do convict those people.
The stuff you talk about may be qualified as an intended murder, which it really is according to what you say lol, because you do indeed plan a murder. It's cool if your law allows to just kill people like that, I guess. If I wanted to become unreasonably violent like that, I would have to enlist into some army.
> Furthermore, your arguments against knives are stupid.
You didn't disprove any, so whatever.
>How many times have I already said, that I don't believe in fair fights?
That particular argument was about you not realizing how to fight against an armed (knife) attacker.
>the violence either gets intimate and more brutal
Clubs and such are pretty brutal too, but far less lethal, that was the point.
>the last 2 paragraphs
Funny enough, nobody was talking about politics.
That point of view is questionable and full of holes. You don't say "it becomes increasingly authoritarian and dystopian" while claiming that "lowlifes be on the rise". Lowlifes get really fucked by this and all you have left is statemafia, basically.
Another point to make is when you make a totalitarian state, you become the strongest and you solve all internal problems like you want, and by proxy, external problems become less threatening because you can whip the population into doing shit you want when you want. I don't say it's a good way to solve problems but it is a persistent one and it's not that far from what you want. You want dictatorship in a form of your tiny ancap nonsensical place where you gonna make sure stuff runs exactly how you want. The bigger diCKtators think on a different scale though, and you're butthurt you're not in control.
>If allowed to exist, such a society will become as dystopian as is physically possible, and will then disintegrate, but not without destroying everything that's outside of such a society, because its only way for such a society to exist while failing is to destroy all viable alternatives even faster, than it fails itself.
I would say it's severely delusional but I'm interested in how you reached that conclusion. Like, historical facts, models and reasoning behind all that.
In my opinion people in relatively "wild" societies did much more genocide and cultural domination. Totalitarian places, if anything, tend to be closed.
I find myself thinking that the sorry state of the west/the world came with vast industrialisation of everything, the totalitarianism included.
>>17861 judges decide matters of law, juries decide matters of fact. Whether your allowed to kill somebody for looking at you funny is a matter of law, whether those particular niggers gave you sufficiently mean looks is a matter of fact.
>You didn't disprove any, so whatever.
As I said, you weren't following principles, but feelings and opinions. It's impossible to disprove feelings and opinions, because they don't follow any meaningful standards, and are arbitrary.
>That particular argument was about you not realizing how to fight against an armed (knife) attacker.
You'd win against an heavily armed Marine in full combat gear, while you're naked and only armed with a pencil, if said marine doesn't expect you to suddenly jump him and stab his vital regions with your pencil. You also don't need elaborate techniques, so talking about how to do it seems kinda pointless.
>Clubs and such are pretty brutal too, but far less lethal, that was the point.
More people in the trenches of WW1 were killed with clubs than with knives. Clubs are of a similar lethality as knives are, but people find it psychologically easier to use them. There are studies about this. People find it displeasing to penetrate other peoples bodies with sharp objects, and prefer it to use blunt objects to smash brains. I personally don't have this resistance against penetrating other people, so I'd prefer knives, as they're also usable against people in protective garments, and I have a very strong natural inclination towards grappling.
>You don't say "it becomes increasingly authoritarian and dystopian" while claiming that "lowlifes be on the rise". Lowlifes get really fucked by this and all you have left is statemafia, basically.
WTF, I clearly stated, that more lowlifes lead to more state control, while more state control lead to more lowlifes. Both are working hand in hand to achieve dystopia.
Look at the RL-dystopias like the soviet union. After the soviet control crumbled, you also had lots and lots of criminal businesses in place, which made money in any illegal way possible. Everything from drugtrade over organized theft, to racketeering and blackmail to forced prostitution of underage russian girls in israel and the west immediately sprang into existence and was well organized. This happened, because during the soviet control, russia literally had the largest black market in the world. Something around 30% to half of the whole soviet productivity happened on the black market. Russia also had one of the most fascistic policeforces in the world, and they were far tougher on crime than anyone else.
>I don't say it's a good way to solve problems but it is a persistent one and it's not that far from what you want.
A totalitarian state is the opposite of what I want. What I want is to tell the state to fuck off and solve my problems on my own. What any totalitarian state wants is to create problems, while denying me the ability to solve them, so I'm in need of more totalitarianism.
Contrary to the state, having increasing problems doesn't make me stronger or increasingly powerful, so my interest must be focused on solving problems, while the states interest must be focused on creating problems, and preventing them from being solved. That's exactly what happens.
>In my opinion people in relatively "wild" societies did much more genocide and cultural domination.
Primitive people may have genocided each other for fun and profit, but they really weren't successful in destroying differing ways of life, which could seamlessly take over, should one of them fail. So you never had a state of total societal failure among primitives. If some tribe started to fail, it was taken over by some other tribe, their men were killed, their women were raped, and their children were enslaved, and everything became good and healthy again. Systematic societal rot never could penetrate everyone. Only small fractions of the populace was at risk, and was eliminated as soon as negative symptoms showed.
But you have total societal failure in modern societies, though. Look at the soviets, or at the nazis, if you believe the jewish propaganda. Look at the direction the west is steering towards. That's where dystopia and total failure is located.
>I find myself thinking that the sorry state of the west/the world came with vast industrialisation of everything, the totalitarianism included.
Rome was more totalitarian than the middle ages, even though the middle ages were technologically more advanced. What the romans did was big, but low tech, and depended upon the work of slaves, while small-scale technology really florished only after the destruction of rome, and productivity increased sharply. History rhymes.
>>17864 >It's impossible to disprove feelings and opinions, because they don't follow any meaningful standards, and are arbitrary.
This is exactly what can be said about you. Your aggressiveness is borderline paranoid.
>You'd win against an heavily armed Marine in full combat gear, while you're naked and only armed with a pencil, if said marine doesn't expect you to suddenly jump him and stab his vital regions with your pencil. You also don't need elaborate techniques, so talking about how to do it seems kinda pointless.
>More people in the trenches of WW1 were killed with clubs than with knives.
You could stop talking random shit also.
>Clubs are of a similar lethality as knives are, but people find it psychologically easier to use them.
First time I hear about it. Just don't hit them in the brains and not too many times lol.
>Both are working hand in hand to achieve dystopia.
That doesn't make sense unless lowlifes are employed by the state. But then they become the bosses and the goons.
>Look at the RL-dystopias like the soviet union.
Nice theory. Would be nicer if you actually knew something about Russian Empire/USSR history. All that shit was pretty much inherited from the Empire. To understand the amount of hatred/controversy in Russia-that-was, look at the number of casualties during Civil War and compare the percentage of population loss to any other civil war in history. Russia is still standing as a nation state because it's totalitarian and it has been that way for centuries.
>What I want is to tell the state to fuck off and solve my problems on my own.
Totalitarian state wants your personal wants to fuck off and solve its problems on its own. See, same reasoning.
>while the states interest must be focused on creating problems, and preventing them from being solved.
That's not the case, especially in case of a well coordinated totalitarian machine. States do solve their problems.
>they really weren't successful in destroying differing ways of life
They were.
That whole paragraph is delusional, sorry.
>But you have total societal failure in modern societies
What exactly do you mean by "societal failure" and to be more precise, what does the contemporary society lack, in your opinion? Not to imply you're wrong, we need some concrete examples to talk about here.
>Rome was more totalitarian than the middle ages, even though the middle ages were technologically more advanced. What the romans did was big, but low tech, and depended upon the work of slaves, while small-scale technology really florished only after the destruction of rome, and productivity increased sharply.
Another really questionable claim.
There were no fundamental differences. Basically the same iron age level everywhere. Rome had much more in a way of engineering, including steel production of course. Including concrete. Including water aqueducts. And a gazillion of other things.
While medieval cucks were sitting in the buttfuck nowhere while reading Latin shit to inherit some of that knowledge eventually. Fuck, they partly are Romans (provinces of the Empire) to begin with. The medieval tech didn't move anywhere until the very end and apart from some copies, is pretty much non-existent.
>Rome was more totalitarian than the middle ages
The same with this. It's really subjective to treat Rome that way and not medieval Europe.
Republican Rome was about as "democratic" as you could get back then, with a mode of operation such as: we are the warriors -> we conquer land -> we distribute it according to military service -> we make slaves work on that land. Patricians and plebeians had their rights and it was pretty ok until the Empire came along.
The Empire was pretty OK too in a sense of delivering according to the service still and in a sense of the law being in place. Slaves could even enjoy life or be freed. But later they just stopped expanding and honestly probably became lesser versions of themselves, because peak performance Rome would never fall to barbarians.
On the other hand, the medieval Europe went the serfdom route. It's like slavery but you enslave your own people lol. Of course you would also bleed them dry with taxes and beat everybody brave enough to revolt into a fucking ground with a pack of goons on horses.
>More people in the trenches of WW1 were killed with clubs than with knives.
>You could stop talking random shit also.
>Clubs are of a similar lethality as knives are, but people find it psychologically easier to use them.
>First time I hear about it. Just don't hit them in the brains and not too many times lol.
I'm certain, that what I said is true - During WW1, when close combat still was common, more people were clubbed to death than stabbed to death. But you don't pay me enough to look up an english source.
>That doesn't make sense unless lowlifes are employed by the state. But then they become the bosses and the goons.
Dude, please start thinking. Drugdealers make huge profits, and face almost no competition, precisely BECAUSE drugs are illegal. Here you're getting really stupid.
>Would be nicer if you actually knew something about Russian Empire/USSR history. All that shit was pretty much inherited from the Empire.
Dude, you're aware, that the soviets killed almost all former officers and policemen, after they took over, and completely recreated the red army as well as their policeforces from scratch?
>Totalitarian state wants your personal wants to fuck off and solve its problems on its own. See, same reasoning.
Dude, WTF?! You're saying here, that two opposing things are equal.
>That's not the case, especially in case of a well coordinated totalitarian machine. States do solve their problems.
Which problem is solved by giving welfare to sandniggers living in western countries, which normally should have been repelled at the border?
>What exactly do you mean by "societal failure"
"Societal failure" is what's causing societies to disintegrate on a large scale. I'd say the pension system in the west is one such thing that's gonna cause disintegration. Old people didn't make enough children to support them when they're old, but yet they've voted generous pensions into existence, for which their nonexistant children have to pay. Undfortunally, there are to many old people, and they're such a burden on the young, that young people can't get further themselves. What's happening now, is, that the dysfunctional west is conquered by welfarerecipients from sandniggerstan, that will take down the whole west as soon as the welfare runs out.
Such a thing is hard to imagine without an incompetent state at the center of society. If europe were made up out of citystates, those funny experiments would fail, the neighbors would conquer and make use of what's left of the failed state, and things would go on. But with huge nationstates, everything's going to shit for everyone, as soon as the nationstate fails.
What you have now in the west is like being conquered and probably permanently destroyed without even having lost a fight. That shows you how deep the rot goes. Westerners don't even need an enemy anymore to experience the penaltys of being defeated. The western model is defeating itself, and therefore is a failure.
>and to be more precise, what does the contemporary society lack, in your opinion?
Good health and individual freedom, by which I mean the kind of theedom which has a high death rate, and really exterminates the weeds. The problem of the west is, that it became humanitarian, which implies, that all humans are equal. They aren't. If people don't weed out the weak and bad ones, the next generation will be degenerated, and the generation after that will have been degenerated even more. At some time your people become non-viable within mother nature. And there's nothing outside mother nature, so degeneration means death.
>Rome was sooooo advanced
Dude, you're really uneducated... Rome had no wind- or water-mills, rome had no spoked wheels, roman harnesses strangled farming animals, and so on. Rome had nothing but a huge amount of slaves, which it worked to death on huge plantations, so the senators could bribe the populace with the dole (welfare) while ruining the roman industry. Rome was nothing but constant stagnation as soon as it ran out of easy conquests.
>Rome had much more in a way of engineering, including steel production of course.
Roman steel production was based on bloomeries. Medieval europe had blasting furnaces. Of course you don't know what that means, but if you would, you'd feel stupid for saying, that both methods play in the same league.
>The medieval tech didn't move anywhere until the very end and apart from some copies, is pretty much non-existent.
No, the roman technology didn't move anywhere. The middle ages were in constant change. BTW, people also lived longer during the middle ages, than romans did, so destroying rome appears to have been a healthy thing.
>Rome was muh democracyyyyy
Dude... Really - Who told you this shit?! Do they teach you in school, that even the romans were a democracy, and they were oh so modern, just like us, but we're even better than them, oh yeah, we're so great, we're so great, we're the greatest people that have ever lived, the great romans would such our dick, oh yeah. Seriously dude, do they teach you narratives like that in school? If so... Well, you're letting the state brainwash your children with lies. Look where this got you.
>On the other hand, the medieval Europe went the serfdom route. Muh evil slavery.
Serfdom became progressively uncommon during the middle ages, and every book about the middle ages I ever read states, that serfdom and slavery were entirely different things. You also have more in common with what you think a serf was, than a mediel serf. In essence, a serf was a citizen of one of the many thousand protostates that were the basis of society during the middle ages. Just for fun, try to find out, how many days of labour a german serf owed to his lord during the 11th century as tax-payment, and compare that with the very low estimate of what you think your tax-rate is. If you pay any taxes at all, I mean.
As I said, you're really uneducated when it comes to history. What you're repeating sounds like the indoctrination program I'd expect in a government school, which tries to instill whatever is neccessary to overcome your ability to think critically about your own society. It's a fairytale, that makes you think, that your society basically is the crownjewel of the whole creation, while in reality you're just a sheep that's part of a herd of dumb animals.
Read some primary sources from rome, or the middle ages. What's similar between rome and the west is, that both show similar symptoms of decline. Women that looked like whores were common in rome, as was welfare, as was inflation, as was stupid entertainment for the masses. STDs also were as common among romans, as they are among niggers nowadays. And that's basically where the similarities end.
I'm really bored now. I hereby end this conversation. Not out of ragequittal, but out of boredom. You don't pay me enough to educate you.
Niggers don't see how hard the government fucks them.
I work in a factory managing the production of custom "metal pieces". Every little thing is taxed to hell. Everything you buy is at least 70% taxes before it gets to you.
I'm really surprised by how people do not revolt by how much they're oppressed by the government. I'll not take it lightly forever.
I live in a area with a historical desire for separation. I will set fire to government offices without getting caught eventually.
>>17874 >I'm certain, that what I said is true
"I'm certain" won't cut it here. With logic like that, the clubs were more lethal before the knifes were invented because people were clubbed to death more often.
>Drugdealers make huge profits, and face almost no competition, precisely BECAUSE drugs are illegal.
And after that you come to conclusion that government and criminals work hand in hand. You have to do better than that.
Also they do face competition after all.
>Dude, you're aware, that the soviets killed almost all former officers and policemen, after they took over, and completely recreated the red army as well as their policeforces from scratch?
This is irrelevant to the fact that the amount of scum over there was pretty impressive to begin with. Russian way to deal with this was to become a police state.
Also you connecting the Russia of the 20s and the Russia of the 80s is largely invalid. A lot happened within that timespan, part of that being gulags.
>You're saying here, that two opposing things are equal.
Two opposing totalitarian states are equal in a sense, too.
>Which problem is solved by giving welfare to sandniggers living in western countries, which normally should have been repelled at the border?
"Sandniggers" shouldn't be "repelled at the border" just because you don't like them.
The problem they ((())) want to solve is "you not working at the factory 18 hours a day because you have nowhere else to go", because masses want cheap products. For some reason though they thought that giving people welfare will make them cheap labor lol.
Also they want to solve the problem of waning labor force in general. They try different methods but universally on the globe people after demographic transition just don't want to breed, it's not exclusive to the West but has an apparent connection to industrialization.
>"Societal failure" is what's causing societies to disintegrate on a large scale.
Following your logic, the West is going to disappear as soon as their nationstates fail. Exactly why do you think this is true? Later on you say that you don't even like nationstates.
>If europe were made up out of citystates
Greece was made up of citystates. That didn't work out for them.
>the neighbors would conquer and make use of what's left of the failed state
With genocide and cultural assimilation being 2 most prevalent options.
>The western model is defeating itself, and therefore is a failure.
Some people see the West as the idea. The amount of various folks coming to Europe from all the different places for centuries and becoming one of European nations defeats the "nation centered" model of success.
>The problem of the west is, that it became humanitarian, which implies, that all humans are equal.
There is a simple explanation for that. In a factory, it doesn't matter who you are, apart from your duty, like an engineer or a worker.
Hence the broad and deep industrialization is the root of the problem, not politics.
>If people don't weed out the weak and bad ones, the next generation will be degenerated, and the generation after that will have been degenerated even more. At some time your people become non-viable within mother nature.
The funny thing is that it's not entirely impossible that humans fuck up the globe and themselves, start to live in domes and make robots do most of the work, and they still would survive.
Another thing to mention is that genetic engineering will solve those problems. Not that I am a proponent for that but it is a legit solution.
Also the evolutional factors you are afraid are going away are still there. Stronger and healthier people are more beautiful and attractive, and provided the degeneration has been going for a while now, in some cases for centuries, and that we still have some ok genetic makeup, it's ok.
>Rome had no wind- or water-mills, rome had no spoked wheels, roman harnesses strangled farming animals, and so on.
Did you just list all of the medieval advancement or what lol?
Rome was definitely more advanced than 5-10th centuries AD Europe and for a lot of European advancement you have to account for them standing on the Rome's shoulders (not in every way, but still).
As for later, big businesses and big trading companies in the high middle ages actually emerged, making your point of "small scale tech" kinda void.
>Medieval europe had blasting furnaces
Emerged after like 6-7 centuries of bullshit.
Apparently invented by a monk order. Latin language. Christianity (Roman religion).
>the roman technology didn't move anywhere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_technology OK lol.
>people also lived longer during the middle ages, than romans did
Maybe some people lived longer, like in a country, but with urbanization of the high ma it all went to shit anyway.
<no real sewage
<le black death
>that even the romans were a democracy, and they were oh so modern
It's evident that they were governed by the law more than any European state for centuries to come, and the law system Europeans live at has been influenced by Roman law.
So yeah, it's no wonder everybody sucks Roman dick. If you have some useful points other than your butthurt, feel free to tell.
>that serfdom and slavery were entirely different things
Because there was slavery as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_medieval_Europe Serfs certainly had a bit more freedom and a bit more care, but in some jurisdictions they had to sacrifice their lives for their lord should the lord tell them so and probably everywhere a nobleman could just kill a peasant and not give a fuck about anything.
>Serfdom became progressively uncommon during the middle ages
Not entirely true, some backwards shits have been enslaving themselves until 16th, 18th or 19th century.
>It's a fairytale, that makes you think, that your society basically is the crownjewel of the whole creation, while in reality you're just a sheep that's part of a herd of dumb animals.
That's a lot of assumptions you make. Anyway if all you gonna do is talking shit, then this talk has no point indeed.
>What's similar between rome and the west is, that both show similar symptoms of decline.
Has everything been in decline since we left the anprim heaven or what's even the point of such random claims?
>Not out of ragequittal, but out of boredom.
Sure.
Hint: for me to believe you you had to stop replying.
>>17863 >judges decide matters of law, juries decide matters of fact
Well Googled.
>Whether your allowed to kill somebody for looking at you funny is a matter of law, whether those particular niggers gave you sufficiently mean looks is a matter of fact.
No law lets you kill someone for a "mean look", that's just your autistic fantasy.
For self defence to be valid it has to be proportional to the threat.
>>17864 >As I said, you weren't following principles, but feelings and opinions
To use a knife you need to move into stabbing distance.
If you're in stabbing distance with an armed attacker then you're going to get hurt.
If you're in stabbing distance with an unarmed person then that's not self defence.
Pepperspray would keep you out of distance from the attacker's knife and resolve the situation quicker.
If the attacker is trained enough to attack after pepperspray then you were never going to win with a knife anyway.
Knives are extremely bad for self defence so anyone carrying a knife is part of the problem not the solution.
>>17878 >If you're in stabbing distance with an unarmed person then that's not self defence.
>without a knife, it is impossible for anybody to materially threaten anybody
fuck, are you dumb
>>17883 >without a knife, it is impossible for anybody to materially threaten anybody
The response has to be proportional to the threat for self defence to work as a legal defence and the only response you can do with a knife is kill someone.
Maybe you should step outside your autistic bubble for a minute and flip the chessboard around.
<be you
<walking down street
<shady guy comes other way
<give him the eye so he knows you're not taking any shit
<he thinks you're going to attack him, pulls out a knife and stabs you to death before you can react
Even if you lie and say that's 100% fine and you would love to live in a society like that, you should be smart enough to realize most other people don't.
>>17916 I don't understand why you think the outcome will be different but ok, let's try.
>without a knife, it is impossible to kill anyone
The response has to be proportional to the threat for self defence to work as a legal defence and the only response you can do with a knife is kill someone.
Flip the chessboard around
<be you
<walking down street
<shady guy comes other way
<give him the eye so he knows you're not taking any shit
<he thinks you're going to attack him, pulls out a knife and stabs you to death before you can react
<MUH SELF DEFENSE
<dude goes free and does the same to the rest of your family
The only reason you think it's ok to kill everyone who looks at you wrong is because you're too autistic to imagine yourself on the other side of the confusion.
>Do law enforcement carry knives for self defence? Well there you go then.
In strongly policed states like the USA they sure do. And if you ask them, most of them will be the first to tell you that in close quarters they're far more afraid of knives than guns (despite carrying a sidearm themselves). The right knife in the right domain can be very effective. (Consider: Spyderco Civilian.)
>>17934 >In strongly policed states like the USA they sure do.
I don't see any evidence for that.
>most of them will be the first to tell you that in close quarters they're far more afraid of knives than guns (despite carrying a sidearm themselves).
So knives are more lethal and difficult to defend yourself from. Is that really the point you want to make?
>>17945 >I don't see any evidence for that.
https://www.bladehq.com/item--Spyderco-Civilian-G10--5089 >In the 1990s Spyderco was approached by a specialized branch of U.S. law enforcement about making a knife for their undercover agents. These plain-clothes LEOs found themselves in situations where they often could not carry a firearm but carrying a knife was not a problem.
If Law Enforcement only use knives as a last resort for undercover folk and more scared of facing a knife than a gun, that seems like an argument in favor of banning them to be honest.
>>17940 >the response has to be proportional to the threat
killing someone is proportionate when your life is threatended. Try to stretch your brain and imagine a situation where an unarmed person could threaten your life. It really isn't very difficult to do. No, the worst they can do is not "look at you funny".
>ITT intellectually dishonest discussion part 2
Get a life losers instead of meaninglessly constantly discussing about retarded crap.
It's like you are fucking kids, nanochan is so lame lately.
>>17697 >because knives are useless for self defence, the only reason to carry one is to attack people
Knives win versus guns in close combat. Knives are actually a purely valid self-defense tool.
Besides you can't really own a gun in britbongistan. So not being able to own a knife either is absurd.
>>17946 >If Law Enforcement only use knives as a last resort for undercover folk and more scared of facing a knife than a gun, that seems like an argument in favor of banning them to be honest.
It's considered a "last resort" by most officers not pushing papers or issuing tickets in small towns for minor traffic violations, not just the undercover ones. And it's only an argument for regulation if you're the kind of person who believes the law-abiding majority should be unable to legally exercise the fundamental right of defending their own lives and property when officers are unable to intervene.
I would very much like to live in a society where carrying a gun or knife is not at all necessary, but I don't live in such a place. In my experience, the high possibility a citizen on the street might be lethally armed strongly deters coloured trash. When you de-weaponise a society and make self-defence effectively illegal, you are effectively telling your citizens to submit and even encourage violent crime by just lying back and learning to enjoy it.
>>17959 >Knives win versus guns in close combat. Knives are actually a purely valid self-defense tool.
Law enforcement and self defence is about controlling violent situations, not killing everyone you bump into.
>>17961 >It's considered a "last resort" by most officers
The point is, when confronted with a knife or other life threatening situation, does law enforcement pull out a knife? Or do they use something else? (no guns)
>When you de-weaponise a society and make self-defence effectively illegal, you are effectively telling your citizens to submit and even encourage violent crime by just lying back and learning to enjoy it.
Re-write your sentence without the "make self-defence effectively illegal" bullshit.
There are much better ways to defend yourself than a knife, especially *against* a knife.
You can't win a knife fight, you just bleed out later.
You can't de-escalate violent situations with a knife, once you pull it out you are committed to a lethal confrontation.
Knives are extremely suboptimal for a defender, they're only any good for attackers.
(all this has been covered in the thread)
>>17964 >The point is, when confronted with a knife or other life threatening situation, does law enforcement pull out a knife? Or do they use something else? (no guns)
The point is that a "last resort" is when other less dangerous options to de-escalate aren't available to you. It is no more nor less than that.
>Re-write your sentence without the "make self-defence effectively illegal" bullshit
I do not understand why you object to my wording. If your locale subscribes to the notion of duty to retreat and has no laws that effectively implement castle doctrine, then self-defence is in effect not legally provided for.
I'm not discussing the other points because I wasn't even trying to address them.
>If you care about privacy you are a weirdo with something to hide
>If you care about the ability to defend yourself you are a paranoid madman
>If you want lower taxes you are a piece of shit who just uses resources and does not give back enough
Normalcattle does not want freedom. All it cares about is safety and stability.