Communication is only possible between 2 intelligent organisms. This is earth, How many of the hundreds of languages in the world and all of history do you speak?

We can't always talk our way out of conflict. My uncle went for a jog in the afternoon and never made it back home to his family. He was held up at gunpoint, he didn't have any money on him so the robber shot him and stole his running shoes.

How did communication go in that situation? Cause I guarantee that out of all the methods of communication used on earth, only one method is universally understood. The languages of armed conflict, an exchange of visually derived body language and stances. Weapons aimed at each other. In this communication there are only 2 types, that of the person who wants to live and that of the victim who doesn't.

Your question was: "What was the first weapon you were given?" That's what I answered. I recognize, as does any sentient being, that it will not always work. But the same is true with any weapon. It takes a different weapon to kill a bear than it does a deer.

You also went on to say, "Think about this one, a weapon is something which is used to protect oneself..." which presumably means self-defense. Yet in your story, there was no "weapon" (based on your 'updated' version of weapon) for self-defense. So you're right... communication didn't work, but it was the only "weapon" he had in that moment...

"Cause I guarantee that out of all the methods of communication used on earth, only one method is universally understood..." which is patently false. All creatures have many forms of communication. Noises, gestures, songs, glances, facial manipulations...
[wonderopolis.org]
In fact, the mutual language spoken my most creatures is "cooperation," not war. Or to put it into evolutionary terms: Cooperation not competition.

I can assure you, there are way more than two types of persons in the world, and black and white thinking is one of the reasons that weapons are necessary in the first place.

Wrong. The idea that black and white thinking is not applicable is incorrect. If you define your domain broadly enough then it is possible to think of it in a binary sense.

The meaning and purpose is one such tool of analysis. A person either serves the meaning of life or the purpose of life. You cannot do both at the same time.

Also I understand how communication works. But I'm being serious about this. weapons are a statement. They show that you are a person who is not to be messed with.

I did the same as you. I stood back and told them I didn't want to fight, I just wanted them to stop punching my dad. 5 20 year old's vs 1 50 year old man isn't a fair fight. Especially when they started it.

The guys were drunk and I was only 15. I couldn't just sit by as they killed my father in front of my eyes. I tried to save him but got knocked out.

I hated myself for hesitating at the beginning. I should've gouged their eyes, broken their necks and taken them to pieces. But I was naive, I sought peace when there was none to be had. That's why I'm different now, no more hesitating. If I want to protect the people I love, I have to be willing to kill.

@Lancer: I say this in all sincerity, and with no snark. Have you talked about this with anyone? Anger is a great weapon, but again, it doesn't work in every situation and it doesn't help to take it with you everywhere you go. That just escalates every situation and makes everything worse.

I understand the anger: My best friend and his partner were killed in their own home in 2010 and it was only last week that the trial finally went to a jury after being dicked around by the system for seven years. My sister was raped. Her husband's C-130 fell apart in the sky over Mississippi... These things leave marks...

"That's why I'm different now, no more hesitating. If I want to protect the people I love, I have to be willing to kill." That's called a self-fulfilling prophecy, and based on how you're occurring in this conversation it sounds as if you're only interested in violent resolution rather than prevention. I'm not a psychologist, and I'm not trying to "diagnose" you, but your last comment was PROFOUNDLY disturbing on many levels,

@Benthoven
I've talked about it lightly with people but I don't want to bore them with a story of me being beaten unconscious whilst failing to save my dad.

I'm not angry 24/7. I just understand that a targeted application of force is sometimes required in order to reduce the number of casualties.

I prefer and aim to promote peaceful discussion. But if someone won't listen and keeps trying to attack me or my family (Physically) then I will end them.

Although I wouldn't lay a hand on someone if they verbally threatened, abused, swore, etc. at me. Words are just words. If they however backed it up with a physical attack then that's the point where they cross the line and need to be dealt with.

I like the idea but it's very short. Would you please care to elaborate?

Also I'm guessing that what you mean by "instinct" is the natural experience gained by someone who has lived a long time, to be able to anticipate and avoid conflict which might arise in the future?

No worries. Most people have taken it literally.

Honestly I'm kinda sad that so many of the things which were available to the public many years ago are now strictly controlled and legislated. I talk to many people born around the 1960's-1970's who tell me how they used to go shooting or hunting or blow up rocks down by a quarry. My school in Australia used to have a .223 rifle range and a shooting club, the schools used to compete and it was a fun competitive sport. But now shooting is so regulated that it costs $50 just to shoot 20 rounds.

@kreig I'm from West Australia, Perth. I went to Hale school but there wasn't any rifle range there when I studied there.

My teacher just told me about how there used to be one a long time ago. It wasn't a gun club but there was a shooting society a long time ago. It was mainly just .223 for short range 25-50m shooting. They demolished the range though. I guess because the school used to be in the middle of nowhere but as the city got bigger they decided it was a risk to the people who moved out there.

The gun laws did change in 1996. But I think my teacher was talking about quite a few decades ago. Around ww2

I like your comment. I actually think that a name can also be perceived as the first gift that someone receives. I don't really like it when people legally change their names just to sound cooler or anything because I see that as forsaking who you are. It's like taking a gift from your parents and burning it in front of them. It seems disrespectful and arrogant.

I understand that in some cases people need to do it for safety reasons.

But if they do it for any reason other than safety, I think it's disgraceful. We are who we are because of not we do. Our names were gifts, we shouldn't change them on a whim

I like the way you think sir. Good on you.

I find this both confusing and interesting.
Also I was a pretty crazy kid. me and my friends used to run across the rooftops because we didn't understand that if we fell we would die. Life was much simpler back then.

@kreig I have more empathy than most people. I am quite adapt at understanding one event or stimulus from multiple perspectives (even ones I would disagree with) and I have the wisdom to admit when I am wrong or uninformed.

Thank you for the joke my dad tells me the same thing. My dad gets tired of me having "heavy topic" conversations with him so I use this site now.

I can see that we won't always agree on certain points but I do enjoy conversing with you, it's fun I'm learning a lot from them and I hope we continue to do so

@Kreig