JT>Do we still disagree with each other?
I'm afraid so. "Anti-violence" is a statement against violence, and self-defense often requires the use of violence. Too many people see the use of violence by non-LEOs or military as being immoral and illegal. I realize that they are amoral idiots, but that's the reality we have to deal with. Were the NRA or any other gun rights organization to begin trying to preach "anti-violence", it would be taken as a hypoctical statement by us, and twisted to further undermine what support we do have. "How can you trust anything they say? They say they're against violence, but they want people to have guns so that they can kill them if attacked? Being against violence means that if you're attacked, you just let your attacker do what he wishes, so that you don't add to the violence in society." They never stop to consider that once a goop launches his assault, you're already a part of the violence, like it or not, and your only choice is now to become a victim or a survivor.
Leave the "anti-violence conflict resolution" to those who can teach it. Face it, we teach the judicious, legal, and moral application of violence. The two don't mix.
------------------
Shoot straight regards, Richard
