HOME | DD
IAmTheUnison — There Is No Shame In Defending Yourself
Published: 2013-12-15 01:55:43 +0000 UTC; Views: 9509; Favourites: 201; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
I feel a deep swell of pity for anybody so foolish as to disarm themselves before their enemies...and reality check, people! YOU ALWAYS HAVE ENEMIES!! Even if you don't know them yet. Such is the nature of the world we live in. There will always be those who seek to do you harm for whatever reasons they may have, and it is your responsibility and your responsibility alone to defend you and yours. Do not make the foolish error in judgement of thinking that someone else will defend you; for it is a very stupid person who blindly puts their safety in the hands of others; especially those who are pawns of a flawed and corrupt system such as what exists in this thing we call government.The police are not your first line of defense. The military is not your first line of defense. YOU are your first line of defense. YOU are responsible for you, and the sooner all you weak-minded, weak-spirited spineless worms wake up and realize this the better off we'll all be...namely 'cause the rest of us will no longer have to endure your childish whining.
To be prepared for war is the most effective way to maintain peace. Gun Control DOES NOT keep law-abiding citizens safe. It DOES NOT keep guns out of the hands of criminals. It just makes gullible suckers more easy targets for those who don't give a damn about the laws, and the corrupt swine who abuse the laws for their own selfish ends. Keep your guns! Because nothing wards off criminals and tyrants like a bullet to the head.
And if you are one of those brainless sheeple too feeble-minded understand the importance of this infallible truth, then you had best prepare yourself to succumb to the effects of Darwinism.
Related content
Comments: 374
Firearm self defense is more common then kids dying in gun accidents. In fact, it's more common then firearm murders, accidental deaths, and suicides combined.
www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/…
82,500 times per year according to a 1994 study by the Department of Justice. That was back before most states had legal CCW laws, so the number is probably a lot higher today
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
My home town had one insatnce of a kid killing himself when playing around with a gun. And ZERO homocides and self defences. Persoanl expirience outweighs "people on the internet I've never met saying stuff" every time.
And a great big MEH to your links and statisitcs too. The Internet's overabundance on data is truly a mixed blessing. I could find a thousand links saying this, a thousand links saying that. Published article says keep calm, youtube video screams stop burying your head up your ass. Mainstreams a lot o brown nosers, fringe is unhealthy wehn taken in large doses. I just plain dont care about much of it.
This may be hard for you to grasp, but this site is called Deviant ART. Im here to be an artist. 98% of my Gallery is completely unpoloitical related. If this were Deviant ARGUE, then sure I'd indulge your inner rage gorilla and link to random shit 20 hours a day, since thats what youre clearly into.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Personal experience doesn't cancel out nationwide trends. The link I just gave you was a government study, not some random anecdote. If you are going to ignore clear-cut documented facts whenever they are provided, they we certainly have nothing further to talk about.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Even clear cut documented facts have multiple interpretations or mitigating circumstances. For example, the government of Nepal did a survey census thing that showed that the majority of the people there were Hindu. But many of those "Hindus" had observed holidays and ceremonies and did traditions from other religions.
If you claim that self defense killings outweigh murder killings, all you'd have to do is really redefine self defense. Like the Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman case. Many people think of it as Emmet Till 2.0, but almost as many shout that it was all self defense.
Anyway, a trend can't truly be nationwide if it hasn't affected the place where I live, now can it?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You're grasping at straw here. Just because the Zimmerman case was disputed doesn't make firearm self defense in general any less real. Again, look at the study: 82,500 defensive gun uses per year, and again we probably have a much higher amount now due to the legalization of CCW in all 50 states. In contrast, there were just over 8,000 firearm murders in 2011.
www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/…
You see how disproportionate those numbers are? Even if 2/3 of the reported defensive gun use turned out to be false, defensive gun use would still be way more common then firearm murders. Defensive gun use isn't just more common then gun murder. It's massively more common. The numbers just aren't even close.
Also, the 82,500 number could easily be an undercount. Defensive gun use isn't always reported, especially when there are no shots fired (which is the most common kind of defensive gun use that takes place, few defensive gun use incidents actually result in death). People sometimes don't report it because they are worried about being prosecuted even if they were in the right, or they just don't feel it's worth the effort to file a report in cases where no shots were fired and no one got hurt.
And yes it can be a nationwide trend even if it doesn't take place in every single nook and cranny in the nation.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No no no, you missed the point, all you'd have to do is redefine what self defense is. A neo nazi bastard murdering minorities who did him no wrong could be considered "pre-emptive self defense" for some people.
Anywhoozles, its still people dying from gun use. And thats what troubles me, they think nothing of ending another persons life just because their OWN safety was threatened. People aren't even talking about defending their families, theyre just talking about their OWN SELVES. What, can you see all ends? Was the person you killed really truly beyond redemption. Its selfish and animalistic. I don't see Jesus, Buddha, MLK or Ghandi approving of it. The only people I'd give guns to, are those who'd be skilled enough to routinely make non-lethal, like Vash the freaking Stampede.
And wait wait wait wait, you consider Gun USE to be Gun USE, even when NO SHOTS WERE FIRED!? You should be ashamed of yourself. Really.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh come on, you don't really think you need to fire a gun every time in order to use it for self defense do you? That's ridiculous. Most of the time all you have to do is point it at someone and that will get them to stop their assault. That makes up the overwhelming majority of firearm self defense cases.
The idea that this somehow "doesn't count" as self defense is laughable. Of course it counts. That's the best possible outcome: the assault it halted and no one gets hurt.
But that's how the gun banner playbook goes. The facts clearly show widespread firearm self defense use, so you try to deny it by writing the overwhelming majority of self defense cases out of existence by claiming they somehow "don't count". Really you should step back and take a look at how absurd your position is.
It's clear that the only person he trying to "redefine self defense" here is you.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Nuh-uh youre trying to redefine self defense the mostest. NOT FIRING A GUN counting as gun USE!? I dunt know what alternate universe-space alien planet youre coming from, but here on planet earth, the only gun USE is knowingly and delibrately firing a gun at the direction of another living thing. Firing shots in the air is NOT use. Pistol whipping is NOT use. Just pointing a gun is NOT use. This is just so goddman fucking ridiculous I can't even believe I having to expalin why. Really, you could just as well be saying that making a gun finger gesture counts as "gun use". Or pulling out a children's toy gun as gun use. ooh, better yet, how about I consider sidorizing myself with a rifle barrel as gun use.
And doncha know that firing shots in the air pussyfooting is exactly how they inflate that so called "statistic" to such unbelievable proportions!? And no, Mr. Faith Trust and Pixie Dust, pointing a gun does not make people stop, pointing a gun is what gets you fired on more than compliance. Fuck a duck, in the comic I linked you to, it had a statistic that said people with a gun are 4.5 times more likely to get shot in an assault, and this was by the University of Pennsylvania (you didn't even read the whole thing, god you love demeaning yourself). And yeah, that makes perfect sense. If I was a criminal I know I'd be more likely to shoot at someone that was pointing stuff at me than someone doing what I wanted.
Sigh, either youre just trying to be an irritating troll, or youre yet another mindless grass eating zombie commie sheep slave to the almighty GUN INDUSTRY, spreading their filthy lies about HOW WE NEED THEM.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You have now reached a point of absurdity that simply defies rational explanation. If someone threatens you with a crowbar, you point a gun at them and tell them to get lost, and then they run away, that is defensive gun use. That is textbook indisputable defensive gun use. That is the best possible outcome of defensive gun use. That is the most common outcome of defensive gun use. That is the most desirable outcome of defensive gun use.
I just don't know how much clearer I can make this. The best thing about defensive gun use is that usually doesn't require any shots fired, because pointing a gun at someone is often enough to get them to re-think their actions. The notion that you can just write the most effective, most common, and most desired outcome of defensive gun use out of existence has got to be one of most pathetic and laughable notions I've ever seen. It like some little kid trying to change the rules of a sports game when he's losing badly. You ignore facts, studies, numbers, and now you're going to ignore the basic definition of what defensive gun use is. Absurd doesn't even begin to describe your position.
Good lord, if this is the best you can come up with, no wonder your side is getting whipped so badly, it the legislature, in public opinion, and in the courts.
Oh and for the record, that University of PA study was pure garbage. Most of the people in the study admitted to having criminal records, which makes that sample group more likely to get victimized then the general population. Plenty were carrying a gun illegally, which puts them in a different category then lawful CCW holders. Finally, the authors of the study inflated their numbers by counting people as "armed" even when they didn't actually have a gun on them when they were assaulted. They just had a gun somewhere in the general area nearby, which is clearly not the same thing as being armed.
For more details debunking that worthless study, see here
www.forbes.com/sites/modeledbe…
www.volokh.com/2009/10/05/guns…
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
That guy is such an asshat. Now I regret even responding to his drivel.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
You still haven't learned what gun USE is in spite of all that I just tried to cram into you. And thats exactly the inflation and crap survey taking that I was talking about. Youre just hopeless man
And youre using FORBES as a source now!? Its like you want to wear a sign saying I IS A TOOL OF CORPORATE AMERICA AND NOT A LIVING THINKING FEELING HUMAN BEING.
Hopeless hopeless hopeless. But hey, go on and keep embarassing yourself. Its all free entertainment for me.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Defensive gun use is precisely that: gun use. It doesn't matter how you use it. As long as you achieve the aim (protect yourself) it's gun use. Shots fired or not, gun use is gun use, and your wild deluded fantasy that it can be defined out of existence simply cannot override basic reality. If you're not going to accept the most basic and fundamental facts of the issue, we have nothing more to talk about.
This certainly was amusing. I've heard plenty of whoppers from the gun-ban crowd, but I've never heard anyone among them try to deny something so basic and indisputable. Do you also want creationism taught in schools? You'd fit right in with that movement.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh were moving into Creationism now all of a sudden? Ho'kay. The Theory of Evolution IS ONLY A THEORY wurrhurrhurrhurrhurr 
There, I gave sarcastic, yet legitimate sounding defenses for something I don't even believe in. Who says I ain't open minded?
And gee wilikers, I now see how aiming a gun without firing is gun use. Here lets celebrate by just holding beer cans in our hands, because that counts as alcohol consumption. And lets just hold lit cigarettes in our hands because that counts as smoking. And lets threaten to burn down buildings with lit Zippo lighters in our hands because that counts as arson. And the sky is brown and the grass is purple.
And now thta I think about it, just pointing guns is now a plus for gun control, 'cause now all we have to do is ban gun bullets. Hey, youre the one who said that just pointing guns is enough for the majority of the 800,000-whatever cases you claim that happens annually, and that criminals apparent;ly just use knives and crowbars and never shoot back. I couldn't get better help if I asked for it thanks.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You really can't see the difference between simply aiming a gun at something vs aiming a gun at someone attacking you and causing them to stop their attack? Yes, when pointing a gun at someone causes them to retreat or surrender and wait for the cops to arrive, that is most certainly defensive gun use. That is the most common and most desirable kind. It doesn't matter whether or not shots are fired. What matters is that a gun is used that gets an attacker to do something (retreat or surrender) they would not have done if there was no gun present in the hands of their victim. That is absolutely, 100% gun use.
But obviously for such gun use to work, the user needs to be able to fire said gun, so yes bullets are needed. Otherwise criminals would know guns can't be fired, and thus pointing a gun at them would never have any deterent effect at all. And yes criminals do sometimes have guns and shoot back, so sometimes defensive gun use does involve firing. But the best thing about defensive gun use is that it usually doesn't.
I really can't believe I have to explain all this. A 5-year old would have been able to figure this out by now.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
How would a criminal know a gun was loaded if no shots are fired? Guns are obviously not deterrents until shots are fired. But youre the 4 year old trying to tell me otherwise, way to stick your own arguments in the mud.
Anywhoozle, why would a criminal think compliance would equate his own survival when saner less aggressive innocent citizens don't think the same? Gun lovers keep trying to tell me about how inhumanly vicious criminals are after all, I seen one guy say "those who don't like guns never had to shoot a pedophile", and another one telling me about how Neo Nazi bastards are suddenly commonplace. Youre whole argument here is broken down and dettached from the rest of the gun lovers community.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
He doesn't know, that's the good part. But if bullets were banned, then he obviously would know guns are unloaded since people couldn't access bullets in the first place. Guns are obviously deterants so long as they have the potential to be fired, which is in fact their best and most common utility. Ask any cop how many times they have ever fired their weapon on duty, and most will say never or maybe once or twice. But most will say they have drawn it and pointed it at criminal suspects many times. Again, just the potential of the gun being fired is often enough to solve problems on its own.
Running away at the sight of a gun is not "compliance". That's self preservation and looking out for one's own interests, which is the main thing criminals are concerned with. True there are some criminals so aggressive they will fight back every time, but guns are perfectly suitable for handling them too.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
If just pointing a gun works in regular times, it will work in bullet banning times. All mr. Citizen has to do is lie about the gun being loaded. An unborn fetus is smart enough to see that. And I'm not seeing the difference between compliance and self preservation and looking out for one's own interests.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Pure fantasy. A gun only has deterant effect if the real possibility of using it is there, and it wouldn't be if bullets are banned. No lie would work if it was widely known that lawful citizens couldn't get bullets. Besides, live ammo is always needed for the cases when a display of a gun isn't enough. Just because brandishing is the most common form of defensive gun use doesn't mean one shouldn't be able to take the next step up when needed.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Exactly why its so damn retarded for you to bring up gun pointing at all! Now is there anything else you want us to wast abhorrent amounts of time on Mr. Asshat?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's retarded that I bring up the obvious fact that brandishing is defensive gun use, something that you insist on denying despite logic, common sense, and the theory that you supposedly have a functioning brain.
Nah sounds like we're done here, especially when all you have left is first grade insults.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
SO now youre denying shit you yo-self stated? Pathetic. Almost as pathetic as you insisting that "defensive" gun use is even a thing, and that pointing without firing is "use", when any and every dictionary in the world says otherwise.
And hay, whuts the nahsty attitude about? I don't even like political debates, I've only been continuing this because you like the sound of your own voice so very much. I'm the one doing you a favor.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The point of defensive gun use is to protect yourself from harm, not see how many shots you can get into the center mass. If you make someone back off without firing, it's still gun use. What makes it use is altering the actions of your attacker, not how many times you pull the trigger.
To this day you remain the only person I've ever found what can't comprehend such simple logic. Not even the most fanatical gun banners I've talked with have ever put so much effort into disputing the indisputable.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Gun use is pulling a trigger and firing. Nothing more nothing less. Furthermore as lethal weapons, the whole entire purpose is to kill your opponent or wound as severly as possible. If you don't like that you get yourself non lethal weapons. Plain simple cut and dry.
To this day I've never seen any gun lover so wrapped up in his own dellusional pixie dust and denying the obvious.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Clearly you've watched too many action movies. The purpose defensive gun use is to protect, not to kill. The less injuring and killing it takes to protect yourself, the better the defensive gun use is. If you can use a gun to drive away an attacker without firing it, that's the best type of defensive gun use possible. Killing might be necessary, but it's far better when it isn't.
In each post you are sounding progressively more violent. And to think, it's your side that tries to stereotype us as the violent ones.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
If there was ever someone to champion fundamentalism and denialism, this guy would take the title of Grandmaster Denialist Extraordinaire. Dear lord... this is a prime example of someone who was CLEARLY scarred by experience.
And not in a good way.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
thank fucking god somebody said it!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
law-abiding citizens? Lets think about what is wrong when someone calls himself an Anarchist ( without Government ) and a law-abiding citizen ( governed by laws )...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Just because you want the system to be abolished doesn't mean that you don't keep yourself out of trouble in the meantime.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It does, because if you want to abolish government you have to disobey its law - that goes from taking drugs to burning down churches or whatever your views motivates you to do.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That's not true. You can desire the abolition of government and still follow it's laws until the day it happens. It's called pragmatism. For the record, I'm not an anarchist, but I don't think anarchists are inherently criminal.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And how do you think change takes place rather than by breaking the law you want to change?
Example: if a great number of people smokes marihuana government can't prohibit it for long.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Of course law-abiding citizens ALWAYS stay that way and never act in affect or rage. Thank fuck the world is black and white, right?
"Because nothing wards off criminals and tyrants like a bullet to the head."
And nothing makes criminals and tyrants more than the ability to put a bullet into somebodies head.
The USA has by far the highest gun-murder rate in the world... if they were all forbidden, do you seriously think it would go up?
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Automobile accidents kill more people than shootings per year. Should we ban cars?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Logical fallacy. Cars are means of transportation. Guns are means of killing.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So are knives and axes, and we're not trying to ban them.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Because they have a different primary purpose. Guns primary purpose is killing stuff. The fact that a lot of things can be used to murder people doesn't mean they should be banned. But guns are weapons, period. They have no other uses. And claiming that "defending oneself" or "averting aggression" constitutes as a secondary use for guns is a logical fallacy and not a good reason whatsoever to keep them.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
We keep guns for defense. Defense from criminals, from wild animals, from ( God forbid) invasion, and when the government decides to become Soviet America. The Second Amendments original purpose was to ensure the people could protect themselves from our own government, if it starts to abuse its power.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That's a pretty paranoid reason to keep killing machines nearby. Sure am glad I'm not living in that kind of society where I need to be afraid of these things.
I mean, I live in Europe, so I don't need to be afraid of animals. Crime is a problem, but since only a small percentage of criminals has guns, the worst thing to expect is a stabbing. Still, no reason for me to keep a gun around. And as for the government abusing its power, I suppose that our idea of democracy and faith in our government is a far greater than yours.
So yeah, I am glad that I can feel safe without a gun.
And if I were you, I wouldn't be arguing for your right to keep arms, I would be arguing against a society that makes you feel it is necessary. Because this discussion of whether or not you should have the right to bear arms is a symptom of the disease of American society that keeps expressing itself over and over and over again with killing sprees, riots and discussions on the internet about gun control.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, the right to bear arms has been a part of America since its founding. From a military standpoint it's a good idea. Theoretically it means we should be able to defend ourselves until authorities arrive. And ever since Nixon and the Watergate scandal, few people trust our government, and Obama hasn't helped things. I live in Texas, were we traditionally don't trust anything federal, not to mention were I live is smack dab in the woods. We get everything from cotton mouths to wild hogs, which all makes me thankful for the shotgun in the closet. To be honest, if governments don't have a reason to fear their people, we get the Soviet Union and North Korea. Now, I don't think we need military grade assault rifles either. It's actually difficult to get a fully automatic weapon even here. Semi-autos are much more common and are used in sport hunting, and shooting events. What I think would help is a mandatory gun safety course in schools or something like that. Guns are just tools. They may be made for killing, but just about everything can turned into a weapon. And wasn't it the British that made a sub-machine gun that can be made in a garage?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
"Of course law-abiding citizens ALWAYS stay that way and never act in affect or rage."
We don't restrict people based on what they theoretically might do some day. If someone becomes a criminal, we can treat them like one then.
"And nothing makes criminals and tyrants more than the ability to put a bullet into somebodies head."
That doesn't make someone a criminal or tyrant any more then a car makes someone a drunk driver. How a gun is used depends on the user, not the other way around.
"The USA has by far the highest gun-murder rate in the world"
No we don't. In terms of all nations, our gun murder rate isn't even in the top 10. We do have a high gun murder rate, but we also have an exceptionally high non-gun murder rate too. The problem isn't our high amount of guns. It's our high amount of killers.
"if they were all forbidden, do you seriously think it would go up?"
Do you honestly think criminals would just hand them all in, and never try to seek out guns any more? Criminals don't obey gun bans.
What a gun ban would do is decrease our rate of defensive gun use, which is also exceptionally high. In fact, that is probably the highest in the world. Funny how that always gets left out.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Amen Brother!!!! Truth shall be spoken!!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I usually don't comment on these types of things, but there are people on here debating you don't need more than a hand gun. I guess because of how many rounds it holds. It does not matter how good you are at a gun range. when your being attacked or you home broken into. There is all the fear adrenalin, a moving target, and all kinds of other factors going in to this. Your going to be the worst shot ever. Unfortunately practically everyone in that has been in that situation would attest to that. We have all at one point had the hardest time putting a key in a door, car, or what ever if we have been freaked out. ( whether the issue was real or not ) Now apply that to staying alive in a situation you have never been. I think also it boils down to the break down of the modern family, mental illness, and even some of the psychotropic drugs used to treat mental illness when it comes to things like school shootings. Those are my thoughts.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Read and learn: www.nrapublications.org/index.…
They don't always put the crooks in the ground, sometimes not even in the hospital - but then again sometimes shots don't even have to be fired to stop the criminals in their tracks. Point is, these are all armed "average joes" that did NOT totally lose it when confronted with attackers/etc.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I Don't know if you are agreeing with me or disagreeing with me. All I know is if I need to use a gun. I should have the choice of having as many rounds if I need. I'm here for art though.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ah, I see...I was misinterpreting where you were coming from regarding losing coordination when scared. I thought you were trying to argue against using a gun at all due to that, my bad.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
US police fire more bullets in a month than Germans use in a year
German police used 85 bullets in 2011, according to a report. LA police fired 90 in one incident last month
LAST UPDATED AT 11:41 ON Mon 14 May 2012
GERMAN POLICE fired just 85 bullets in the course of duty across the whole of 2011, according to astonishing figures reported in the newspaper Der Spiegel .
Of those rounds used, 49 were not even discharged at a suspect, being fired as warning shots. Of the remaining 36, 15 resulted in injuries and six led to fatalities.
"Our police officers are not 'thugs in uniform'," observed Lorenz Caffier, the Christian Democrat leader of the state Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania. "[The police] alone are the law and are committed to fulfilling the task that we as a society [entrust to] them, based on the rule of law."
While the figures omit the 9,000 shots fired at sick and dangerous animals , many commentators online have compared Germany's trigger-shy police officers with their counterparts in other countries.
British police come out of the comparison well. Last year only two people were shot dead by police in England and Wales, while the country's largest force, the Metropolitan Police, fired just six shots in the 2009-10 figures.
However, the figures for American police paint an altogether bleaker picture. While there are no nationwide figures compiled for firearms usage across the various police forces in the US, individual reports show single incidents when more bullets were fired than in the entire German year.
Russia Today (rather gleefully) reports how in Los Angeles in April 2012 LAPD officers unloaded more than 90 shots in an incident that led to the death of a 19-year-old man, and in the same month New York police fired at a suspected murderer 84 times.
But perhaps shootings aren’t the worst risk in the US. Amnesty International estimates that more than 500 people have been killed by police using supposedly 'non-lethal' Tasers since 2001. ·
Read more: www.theweek.co.uk/crime/46907/…
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
" YOU ALWAYS HAVE ENEMIES!!"
Someone has been watching too much Fox news.
Listen, there is no one (statistically) out to get you. Let's look at some numbers, shall we?
Among those who died in 2009 in the US, 1 in 340 were killed via "assault by firearm".
That may sound like a lot but that's not all that likely; 1 in 150 died in falls, 1 in 108 died in car accidents, and 1 in 28 by upper respiratory infection to name a few (link: www.nsc.org/news_resources/inj… note that this doesn't account for every cause of death, but it's a good benchmark.)
That said, I can hear you thinking "but that still means there are people killed in gun assaults! I need to defend myself!"
That said, your logic has some remaining flaws. For example; why do you need an assault rifle to defend yourself when a pistol would be far more effective? Heck, police officers are at far greater risk than most of us average Joe's/Jane's and they don't carry around the heavy caliber stuff all the time. The only time you'd need an AR or high-capacity weapon would be when you have multiple targets to hit. Last time I checked, the guy in that situation is the guy committing the crime.
In addition, what you've said about criminals getting guns is true. BUT, there's a reason it's called "gun CONTROL" not "gun prohibition"; these laws limit the ability of less stable people to get guns, decrease the killing ability of the people who do get guns, and make it more difficult for guns to get into illegal hands. (I know I said "more difficult", just because a law won't be 100% effective doesn't mean it shouldn't be tried. We have laws against murder, don't we?)
Finally, as for "Gun Control DOES NOT keep law-abiding citizens safe", try a little research into Australia. After their gun ban, firearm-based murders dropped 59% (without an uptick in gun-less murders). (link; www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/w… No, this isn't perfect, but why waste an effective tool?
Oh, one last thing, if you want to convince people of something, don't insult them by calling them "weak-minded, weak-spirited spineless worms", that's just bad rhetoric.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
I didn't even bother reading all of this. After your first statement, I could tell you're one of those weak-minded ideological fools with a limited grasp of reality...and frankly I've long grown tired of reading the dribble which pours from your feeble minds.
Yes, my simple-minded friend. You do always have enemies. That is the nature of the world we live in. If you are stupid enough to disarm yourself in a world filled with people with egocentric views who will think nothing of harming you to get what they want you deserve whatever comes your way.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
<= Prev | | Next =>