Interesting passage of Self-Defense

[Josh Oakley]

In every civilized country, the basis of the relationship on which the community rests is this: no individual is allowed to settle his differences with another by force. But does this mean that if one threatens to take my purse, I am not allowed to use force to prevent it? That if he threatens to kill me, I am not to defend myself, because "the individual citizens are not allowed to settle their differences by force?" It is because of that, because the act of self-defense is an attempt to prevent the settlement of a difference by force, that the law justifies it.

But the law would not justify me, if having disarmed my opponent, having neutralized his force by my own, and re-established the social equilibrium, I immediately proceeded to upset it, by asking him for his purse on pain of murder. I should then be settling the matter by force--I should then have ceased to be a Pacifist, and have become a Bellicist.

-Norman Angell

 

[Mike Hamer]

Hmmm...intersesting

 

[Deaf Smith]

Virtualy all civilizations allow the use of force, or deadly force, to defend one self from the unlawful use of force or deadly force. I know of no country, even in Europe, that does not allow that now.

It's the use of illegal force that civilized countries do not allow. They expect you to either settle it by mutual agreement or take it to a court of law. But unprovoked use of force or deadly force can be met in kind as long as the force or deadly force is used to just stop the attack.

Deaf

 

[MA-Caver]

In every civilized country, the basis of the relationship on which the community rests is this: no individual is allowed to settle his differences with another by force. But does this mean that if one threatens to take my purse, I am not allowed to use force to prevent it? That if he threatens to kill me, I am not to defend myself, because "the individual citizens are not allowed to settle their differences by force?" It is because of that, because the act of self-defense is an attempt to prevent the settlement of a difference by force, that the law justifies it.

But the law would not justify me, if having disarmed my opponent, having neutralized his force by my own, and re-established the social equilibrium, I immediately proceeded to upset it, by asking him for his purse on pain of murder. I should then be settling the matter by force--I should then have ceased to be a Pacifist, and have become a Bellicist.

-Norman Angell

bellicism the advocacy of war. I had to look that up.
One does not have to be either practice pacifism or bellicism to do what is right in the area of self-defense. One only needs to do what is necessary to ward off any harm to self or to others around you... particularly family/friends/property. Whatever the law may say where-ever you live there are ways around it depending upon the circumstances. Obey the law where-ever possible in regards to self-defense but obey the rule of survival foremost to be able argue your actions with the law later.
The only thing you need to take away from an attacker is their ability to hurt you. Not necessarily their ability to hurt others, but while it would be a good thing you're only truly obligated to yourself... prevention of harm for others is just doing the rest a favor of not having to deal with the scumbag... ever! But again it's a last resort and only a last resort when there is no given alternative to prevent death.
We as civilized people do not need to share the same bloodlust as those who choose to be uncivilized. I as a civilized human being will do what is necessary to stop those who are uncivilized enough to attack me (or my friends/family)... doing so does NOT make me as uncivilized as they.