sigh, ok let's reroll:
- you post: It's bad that populace is not armed
- I ask: what good would it have done the caricaturists?
- you reply: maybe nothing, it is irrelevant if this specific people died
- I ask you what is your point then and add in advance for a possible answer that an armed populace means more violence in general
- you answer: People are responsible for defending themselves and (in your typical oh so smug ironical way) more violence is actually a good thing
- to which I reply that I can understand violence on a personal level but on a bigger scope it doesn't lead to anything
- from that point you ignored that second part and kept going on that the gain of killing terrorists is not to die
- I remind you of what I said
Now your argument is you don't care about what I am talking about because the argument started with a statement of yours? wtf?
And what the hell got soft and hard targets to do with the general not military populace being armed?
Half-speed version: it is every individuals responsibility to protect themselves, except when the government takes their ability to do that away from them, in which case it becomes the government's responsibility. If the government doesn't impede on your ability to defend yourself, and you fail to do so, you have only yourself to blame.
- you answer: People are responsible for defending themselves and (in your typical oh so smug ironical way) more violence is actually a good thing
Yes, it is indeed a good thing when it means that it's a two-way shooting range instead of a one-way shooting range.
- to which I reply that I can understand violence on a personal level but on a bigger scope it doesn't lead to anything
Of course it "leads to something." All authority stems from violence. Only a total sheep would advocate what you're advocating: letting terrorists kill you and your family because, oh, defending against it would be so
violent.
Now your argument is you don't care about what I am talking about because the argument started with a statement of yours? wtf?
First of all, that wasn't an argument - maybe you should look up the definition - and second of all, it means that you did the equivalent of saying "well, yeah, guns help protect people, but they don't make for a better chocolate sauce"... and I don't care about chocolate sauce, and I never mentioned chocolate sauce in my post, so why the fuck would I care about your chocolate sauce (which you pull out after three posts, three posts which I obviously erroneously assumed had something to do with the thing you quoted, not chocolate sauce...)
And what the hell got soft and hard targets to do with the general not military populace being armed?
I'll let you figure that one out. Hint: go google it, then think about what makes a soft target, what makes a hard target, and how targets are chosen. Why didn't these two guys attack SAS headquarters, surely SAS has done more evil things to them than some caricature artists?
