Yes. It only takes one party to initiate violence involving two parties.

This is why it is necessary to be prepared for violence even if one never initiates violence.

Violence is for situations when one’s choice of other resolution methods is gone. Such situations do exist.

This is true of everyday people. But a small percentage of people are psychopaths, who are perfectly happy to be violent whenever they can get away with it.

A seriously deprived scenario will make others violent, but there is always a subset that is violent even in comfortable situations.

Thinking that it is better to cause harm o an attacker rather than permitting the attacker to harm oneself is not a dystopian attitude.

A place in which it is possible that someone might try to hurt you isn’t a dystopia. It’s a natural part of reality.

A place in which no aggression exists is, however, a utopia.

There’s a difference between “violent crime exists” and “violent crime is so prevalent that regular citizens need to carry around an implement designed to kill people quickly while they go about their daily lives.”

Only if you haven’t yet experienced violent crime.

I carry a weapon because of one violent encounter I experienced in 2009.

I decided that I never want it to happen again, so I am content to carry a weapon for the 1/1000000 times that it happens.

I’ve had hundreds of thousands of encounters with strangers and only one of them involved the stranger trying to seriously hurt me. That one was enough to change my view on the nature of reality.

Crashes don’t have to be prevalent in one’s life in order to wear a seatbelt.

People should be confined to boxes full of packing foam. This reduces the variable and permits police to control the situation more easily.

No he’s saying that weapons permit people to be equally strong.

Without weapons, big people get to control smaller people. With weapons, a person gets to modify their own susceptibility to being controlled.

I’m guessing you’re a rather large person if you don’t understand this.

No, being limited in self defense to the power of your body is a pre-civilized state. Asking women to punch people to defend themselves is nature rules. That’s where whoever’s biggest gets to take advantage of people.

Well not if you aren’t armed. If you are armed, you do get to kill people.

An armed society is a polite society.

Actually increasing the level of possible violence (and also the uncertainty of violent outcomes) does lead to a reduction in aggression. You have to be willing to think it through though.

My car isn’t driverless, but I as the driver have less control than ever before.

It’s an EV, and it will not shift to drive or reverse if the charging cable is attached.

Great for preventing me from destroying a charger. Terrible for getting away from someone trying to mug me.

Far too much of the safety features these days assume an environment in which all harm is accidental. This comes at the cost of safety in environments where someone is trying to harm another person.

Better rule: when someone sabotaged surveillance state infrastructure, don’t post footage of them doing it

From wikipedia:

In early 2002, Elon Musk started to look for staff for his company, soon to be named SpaceX. Musk approached five people for the initial positions at the fledgling company, including Michael Griffin, who declined the position of Chief Engineer,[17] Jim Cantrell and John Garvey (Cantrell and Garvey would later found the company Vector Launch), rocket engineer Tom Mueller, and Chris Thompson.

So your claim that

Some of those people founded spaceX - Elon didn’t start it, he came in when they were getting off the ground, just like with Tesla

conflicts with wikipedia’s history of the company.

SpaceX broke the decades-long practice of costs-plus contracts for lump sum contracts from DOD. DOD wanted to offer them the same costs-plus contract style they give to other defense contractors and SpaceX turned that down and demanded lump sum on delivery.

Oh yes. Surely the federal government could manage it better than Musk. Think of the progress we could have if NASA were running SpaceX instead.

According to the article, the reason X has taken action is because the dossier contains Vance’s home addresses.

So the way it’s ruining those markets is by making more goods available at lower prices?

Not if the substance is a liquid at room temperature.

Pouring hot bacon grease down the drain will do that, because the bacon grease is only a liquid when it’s hot.

Something like olive oil isn’t going to clog pipes.

Weaponry is a human right.

Yes it is a very coercive relationship. It should only be used on people who have proven incapable of having non-coercive relationships with others.