If I put on a tailored suit and gold jewelry, and walk through the trailer park, and get mugged; or if I wear a Pepsi-colors shirt in a Los Angeles ghetto and get shot, is it my liability? Of course not. Robbers and murderers are robbers and murderers, no matter whom they rob or murder! Is it my fault? Am I to blame? Did I deserve it? No! Everyone has a right to be left peacefully alone when not harming or defrauding anyone else.

If I defend myself against either assailant, have I then taken upon myself the responsibility for his crime? If someone suggests I engage in such acts only with adequate defensive tools, is that the same as blaming me for any crimes committed against me? I don't understand how those last two are even questions, myself. They seem completely ridiculous to me. If that were the case, then all self-defense would be considered as grave as the crime, and successful crime survivors would not make reports but instead flee to Mexico.

However, if I actually do either of those two things, and it's true that it is not my fault, and I'm not to blame, and I have every right to defend myself without fear of legal jeopardy, and the people who did it to me are solely responsible, and it is in no way disputed that they are all horrible abominable monsters who do not deserve the mercy of being killed on the spot so much as the rest of humanity deserves rid of them...am I still a FUCKING IDIOT for doing them? I would say, "Of course I am!"

Does saying, "Yes, that is a goddamned moronic thing to do!" equate to "Everyone has a right to rob and slay with impunity!"? Does it make me a robbery apologist, or a murder apologist? If so, how does that work?