Which Groups Are More Likely To Believe That Violence Is Sometimes Necessary To Gain Political Aims?

[Fantine]

If your house is on fire and the traditional exits (doors) are blocked, you will jump out any window to save yourself.

I think young liberals probably feel the same way. They see censorship of any and all media sources disagreeing with the current administration (defunding of PBS and NPR, shutting down Colbert and Kimmel to facilitate FCC approval of desired mergers, teachers and others fired for voicing their opinions, not about the tragic death of Charlie Kirk, but instead about the content of many of his comments and positions, etc., removing exhibits from the Smithsonian, rewriting the history of the pre-Civil War history in textbooks, etc.

They see traditional doors closed to diversity, democracy, etc. and are ready to jump out the window because it's their only perceived alternative.

 

[durangodawood]

This is country that celebrates its violent revolution against a prevailing political order every year with pretend explosions reminiscent of the ones that killed actual people.

This is also a country that that cherishes its right to bear arms on the rationale that the peoples capacity to commit political violence is essential.

 

[linux.poet]

as opposed to those who us automatic weapons of choice for those who commit the violence now

It would be great if all the deranged soul who do violence were restricted to wiffle bats in their attacks.

I think this really misses the mentality difference between shooters and wiffle bat users. People who prefer blunt force weapons in combat enjoy fighting for the sake of fighting, the drama of it. At least, I do. I like feeling my strikes hit the target. Also, a wiffle bat user is trying to make a point about something that the other person will not acknowledge from mere speech. They are trying to *literally* knock some sense into a stubborn person’s head to get them to talk or act differently. They want a change in behavior from the other person that they are willing to go through a fight to get. They are trying to force someone else to change.

By contrast, a gun is easy, permanent, and effective means to end someone’s life. If someone is getting their gun out, they don’t want a fight. They want relief from their situation. This is what happens when one abuses someone over and over again for years and doesn’t change, running the same awful psychological script and insults over and over again. The wiffle bat didn’t work. The victim hit them with the wiffle bat over and over and they are still causing them problems. The gun starts to look appealing.

The overwhelming majority of gun owners are male, and males suffer the most under woke ideology, so they just want relief from their misery, so some of them go killing those who are causing them suffering. They aren’t looking for combat, they are looking for relief. And until we acknowledge the motivation of people in weapon selection, we’re going to be facing violence that we don’t understand. Outlawing certain weapons really won’t solve the problem; instead we need to work on relieving people’s suffering instead of leaving them to look to their weapons for comfort and solutions.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Hard for liberals to be violent when the conservatives own most of the guns. Hmm.

That is just nonsense.

 

[mark46]

Oooo....BLM protests are really really REALLY tricky because it is indisputable that there were Far right provocateurs mixed within those protests. I am 100% not willing to lay ALL the blame of BLM violence on liberals.

Of course not

There was violence on both sides. There were those who instigated violence on both sides.

 

[mark46]

That is just nonsense.

The poster might have more reasonably said that it is hard for liberals to commit violence with guns when the conservatives have the vast majority of the guns.

Obviously, you are correct. The fact that conservatives have the cast majority of the guns does not prevent liberals from being violent.

 

[Larniavc]

I did. I also know that the primary reason for that is that right wing extremists are much more likely to have guns available to them.

CONDITION ONE
A deranged very liberal individual is outraged and egged on by left wing media. He goes out and sets fire to a Tesla or smashes windows, He might even attack folks with his car or a knife.

CONDITION TWO
A deranged very right-wing individual is outraged and egged on by right wing media. He reaches for his gun(s) and goes out looking for trouble. Or worse, he goes to a sight that will help him with explosives or access to more lethal guns.

=======================
However, it is not a good trend to see liberal and those very liberal to be much more willing to accept violence. This trend will simply lead to more and more violence.

And it does kinda imply that if there were fewer guns in Americans hand the level of violence would be less lethal. But that’s not for now.

 

[Larniavc]

Outlawing certain weapons really won’t solve the problem;

Yeah it will. Then they will have to use wiffle bats.

 

[o_mlly]

This is country that celebrates its violent revolution against a prevailing political order every year with pretend explosions reminiscent of the ones that killed actual people.

"Violence" is the immoral use of force. War always involves the use of force and not every war is immoral.

More to the point. Since violence (as I define it) is always evil, does a good end justify violent means? No. But I fear liberalism encourages the use of any means as liberals always presume their end is a good end.

 

[durangodawood]

"Violence" is the immoral use of force.

You just completely made that up, against the well understood and almost universally accepted and correct definition of the term, which is something like:

"behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something"

War always involves the use of force and not every war is immoral.

This is true. Violence is sometimes morally justifiable.

More to the point. Since violence (as I define it) is always evil, does a good end justify violent means? No. But I fear liberalism encourages the use of any means as liberals always presume their end is a good end.

We cant have a proper conversation if you redefine terms however you need to suit yourself.

 

[o_mlly]

You just completely made that up, against the well understood and almost universally accepted and correct definition of the term, which is something like:

"behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something"

Assuming the "term" you refer to is the word "violence":

The Ethics of Force: Against Aggression and Violence

Violence is evil and it should be striven with all possible means, including force. If it were appropriate to speak on some absolute moral command, it would be a command of resistance to evil. This command as such is prior to a command of

www.academia.edu

Violence is evil and it should be striven with all possible means, including force. If it were appropriate to speak on some absolute moral command, it would be a command of resistance to evil.​

This is true. Violence is sometimes morally justifiable.

No. Only the use of force may sometimes by morally justified.

We cant have a proper conversation if you redefine terms however you need to suit yourself.

? Our definitions of violence are essentially the same.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Violence" is the immoral use of force. War always involves the use of force and not every war is immoral.

Violence is not always immoral. Take for example violence in self defense. Jesus didnt tell his disciples to buy swords for shaving their legs.

 

[o_mlly]

Violence is not always immoral. Take for example violence in self defense. Jesus didnt tell his disciples to buy swords for shaving their legs.

Only if you do not discriminate between the definitions of violence and force, as I have. Our Lord knew that just as hate caused his death, so hate would attack those He chose to follow Him. John 15:18-21.

 

[durangodawood]

Only if you do not discriminate between the definitions of violence and force, as I have. Our Lord knew that just as hate caused his death, so hate would attack those He chose to follow Him. John 15:18-21.

You can make your exact point without re-defining enduring and well understood words.

So why do that?

 

[mark46]

And it does kinda imply that if there were fewer guns in Americans hand the level of violence would be less lethal. But that’s not for now.

Indeed

We watch a lot of British TV mysteries and police shows. It is quite amusing to see how often folks are threatened with a knife or a hammer. Guns are relatively rare.

 

[linux.poet]

Yeah it will. Then they will have to use wiffle bats.

No, they will illegally acquire a gun and shoot you anyway, and your wiffle bat will not protect you from the incoming fire.

If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

 

[Fantine]

The poster might have more reasonably said that it is hard for liberals to commit violence with guns when the conservatives have the vast majority of the guns.

Obviously, you are correct. The fact that conservatives have the cast majority of the guns does not prevent liberals from being violent.

I agree that people of all persuasions can be violent. But most liberals don't seem to have that DIY approach to potential dangers.. My taxes pay for police officers, military service, etc. I prevent harm to my person and property by trying to preempt problems before they occur. I try to resolve disagreements through communication using "I" messages not "you" messages. When we disagree we discuss. We treat one another with kindness. I choose my friends wisely. I avoid dangerous situations.
It is a little scary living in a state with so many guns (#1 in the nation) but if any of my friends have guns we don't discuss it. I don't have to like or approve of every decision they make and vice versa. In general, my own social interests and passtimes don't put me in contact with people carrying guns.

 

[Bradskii]

You can have my wiffle bat when you take it out of my cold, dead hand.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

As I said...."you" guys shoot "us", then "we" protest.

Explain.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

As I said...."you" guys shoot "us", then "we" protest.

More like things are not going your way, so you throw a violent and childish temper tantrum against conservatives or anyone who opposed you.