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
At least I respect my opponent enough to actually read their full post. If you actually read it, I did give some concessions to your points. Plus, I'm honestly curious on what your response to the success of gun control in Australia among other topics.
The truly weak mind is not one which is unable to understand, but the one which does not even try.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I lie in Metro Detroit. There is always someone "out to get me" because there is always someone who wants to take what I have (or what they perceive that I have). Not all of us live in idyllic suburban communities where everyone looks like they just ambled out of Stepford. Violence and assault are real things that happen every day here. I have drawn my firearm ONCE on someone who attempted to assault me on the street (while I was walking to an open-air market to go antique shopping), in broad daylight. I'm 5'6", 120lbs soaking wet, and female. Until I drew that weapon, my assailant saw me as an easy target. Once I had it pointing in his face, he reconsidered and left the area as quickly as possible. I refuse to be victimized because it makes you less uncomfortable to have people scream for help, wait for the police, or shit, I don't know, allow themselves to be assaulted because guns are scary.
Once again, an AR-15 does not fire any faster than a handgun and the choice to own one is largely based on aesthetics. It is an intimidating LOOKING firearm, so when someone breaks into your home, holding it up and telling them to get the fuck out might pack more a psychological punch than a snub-nose .38 or a Glock-22. I own mine because I LIKE it, I love going to the range and shooting with it, customizing it to my preferences, etc. It has nothing to do with some bullshit Rambo fantasy where I'll save the day by picking off the swarm of "bad guys" (which you wouldn't do anyway with an AR-15, it's not a sniper rifle for Chrissakes).
Do regulations and the regulatory bodies monitoring gun sales, usage, licensing, etc., need a major overhaul? Absolutely. I've seen enough boneheads at the range renting a Desert Eagle (because it "looks cool"), cocking it to the side and trying to fire single-handed and subsequently bashing their faces in from the recoil, breaking their wrists from the recoil, yadda yadda. There also need to be major overhauls to how this country handles mental health care. Adam Lanza's mother thought that she was the best suited person to take care of her son, who had glaring psychological and mental issues. We need to work to end the stereotypes associated with being diagnosed with a disorder so that people like her can accept, without shame or hesitation, that her child needs professional help. We don't ridicule cancer patients for their diagnosis, or tell them to "just stop having cancer," so why do we do this to people with mental disorders? Anyone who takes a firearm into a crowded place and starts firing indiscriminately is NOT mentally balanced, and we almost ALWAYS find out afterward that they have had X psychological issue diagnosed, or in treatment, or never treated. People like to quip "Is it time to talk about gun control in this country yet?" whenever a tragedy involving guns occurs. I'd like to know when we're going to start talking about mental health care in this country.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You raise many good points.
First and foremost is mental health; I couldn't agree more that situation needs to be addressed. I have ADD and multiple family members of mine have related conditions like bipolar and depression.
In fact, if it came down to a choice, I'd choose mental health reform over gun control any day. That said, I find it somewhat ironic that the current gun control legislation, even with NRA and gun manufacturer opposition, is getting far less flak from the right wingers than "Obamacare" which is at least an improvement of the health care system we have (albeit a modest one).
As for your story, what you say is very true. However, I'm curious, is your choice of a gun over a non-lethal weapon like a tazer or pepper spray simply preference or is there another reason? I'm not trying to be sarcastic, I honestly would like to hear your perspective.
Congratulations, you've found the common ground (I think...)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
(a) I can't practice firing with a taser, so I have no idea how accurate I would be with one, and if using a taser that does not have a cartridge (i.e. a taser that does not discharge prongs), I would need to be extremely close to an assailant to make skin-to-skin contact. (b) a taser, however effective, does not look like a gun, and the reason I carry (with a CCW, by the way), is mostly in the hopes that simply seeing the gun will be enough to discourage any kind of assault or confrontation. (c) When deploying pepper spray, you're just as likely to be affected by the discharge as your assailant, rendering you fairly useless in the interim. If there is more than 1 assailant, and you're out of the "fight" because your eyes, nose, and throat feel like they are on fire, you're screwed. If your assailant is not immediately "put down" by the pepper spray, someone of my size especially is SOL. Ultimately, I carry a firearm because I DON'T want to use it. I have no idea if the person who attacked me would have backed off if I'd drawn a taser or a cannister of pepper spray, but I know that he did leave me alone because I drew on him after being slammed against brick wall and punched in the face (a real nice guy, eh?). Honestly, if it had gone further and I had shot him, I would have felt horrible about it... but I'd be alive, with my dignity intact. I will never, ever apologize for protecting myself from someone who values the money in my wallet more than my life. Again... gun CONTROL laws need to be reformed and strengthened, and most intelligent, reasonable gun owners will likely agree. But banning something because it looks scary (while having no real difference between something less scary looking) is ridiculous and ignorant. People from other countries can wail all they want about how "savage" Americans are and how bizarre our "love of guns" is. They don't have to live here, I do. I don't love my gun, I respect as the weapon that it is and take responsibility for the ONLY purpose it serves.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I feel perfectly safe without a gun, also it is much harder for criminals to get any guns here.
Also isn't a fucking AK 47 a bit too much to defend yourself with?
I mean come on these can be used for mass murders.
Also if you are afraid of being attacked at home, why don't you just improve your security system, with better locks and stuff or even a camera. Why would you be targeted in the first place you should ask yourself.
It can be the citizens that go crazy and kill people like most of the times on these schools, when do you guys start learning from mistakes?
I'm fed up with America..
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
And I'm fed up with inferior minds spouting out weak-minded drivel.
"Much harder for criminals to get guns here?" I highly doubt that. The reality is that you probably live some place that does not attract many criminals. There is likely little in your area that would be sufficient to draw the criminal element. However rest assured that would change drastically should some branch of organized crime decide to extend its hand into your town. You would find out very quick how easy getting guns could be then.
And as for mass murders, a person can commit mass murder with a damn pistol or shotgun; I've even read reports of mass murders committed with freakin' knives and axes, so that is a very weak point.
You also seem not to grasp just how the criminal mind works. "why would you be targeted in the first place?" You talk like it makes a damn bit of difference. People have all kinds of crazy, fucked-up reasons for doing all manner of dumb shit. They might be a crazy, psycho nut-job who just so happen to decide to break into your house one night. You can waste your time looking for a reason, but forgive me; for I don't see much sense in waiting around for freakin' reasons, and while I do have a security system and locks on my doors I'd also like a gun in my room as a little extra insurance, because it will take the police several minutes to get to my house; a bullet only takes a few seconds to travel from the barrel of a gun into an attacker's forehead.
...and if you're so fed up with America, why don't you move to England; they have strict gun control...and a much higher violent crimes rate.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Weak minded? Haha have a good day, people like you I don't even feel like talking to.
You are so ignorant...
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
You are so ignorant...
I hate it when people use that word as an insult with a burning passion. Why? Because it's incredibly subjective. Because, from his perspective, you're as ignorant as you think he is.
Also, you think there is nothing you're ignorant about? You hold all the answers to life, the universe, everything (more than just 42, that is)? The word's proper definition is basically an admission that you don't know everything, but people like you have turned it into one of the many hollow insults used to just make the user sound smarter or more enlightened.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Seriously man.
He calls me weak minded because I don't share his opinion.
Yes I call him ignorant so what..
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Because, ONCE AGAIN, you fail to see that you could be just as ignorant as you are from his perspective as well as using perhaps one of the most hollow of insults.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Because calling me a weak minded person isn't ignorant?
He doesn't know a shit about me, so yes by saying I am weak minded he is being ignorant.
Go try to be smart some place else please.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
...You just don't get it.
Okay, I'm done. Have a nice day.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That's an AR-15. It fires at the same rate as a handgun. So no, it's not "too much." It does the same thing that a handgun does, the only difference being an aesthetic one. As for being "fed up with America," well, you're not going to see anyone shedding a tear over it. Lucky for you, you don't live here.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Like you can't kill with that..
I don't get why people can't just buy a security system.
It's just really stupid that you can get guns so easily in America.
And then they are suprised that so many murders happen..
I wouldn't feel comfortable knowing that all kinds of people have a gun in their home.
I don't care that people don't cry about me being fed up with America.
And I am so happy I don't live in that third world country full of spies, a poor healthcare system, enormous debts and such arrogance.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I don't get why people can't just buy a security system.
Security systems don't stop someone from physically attacking you.
It's just really stupid that you can get guns so easily in America.
You obviously have no idea exactly what kind of process is involved with buying a gun. You speak from ignorance.
And then they are suprised that so many murders happen..
I'm getting real sick of people blaming inanimate objects for the actions of individuals.
I wouldn't feel comfortable knowing that all kinds of people have a gun in their home.
Awwww, paranoid much?
And I am so happy I don't live in that third world country full of spies, a poor healthcare system, enormous debts and such arrogance.
Well good for you, cupcake. But unfortunately, not only do you speak from ignorance, you can't even come up with anything more intelligent than spouting off overused, worn-out stereotypes.
I'm fed up with America..
And here is how many fucks I give.
Furthermore, you completely fail to grasp the reason our founders gave citizens the right to own guns in the first place. Here's a hint. It has nothing to do with hunting.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"Security systems don't stop someone from physically attacking you."
That depends on what kind of security system you have, I am not just talking about an alarm but maybe better locks or something.
"You obviously have no idea exactly what kind of process is involved with buying a gun. You speak from ignorance."
kellianderson.com/blog/2013/03…
"I'm getting real sick of people blaming inanimate objects for the actions of individuals."
Objects made to kill. And again it's so easy to get a gun that every sick mind could get one.
"Well good for you, cupcake. But unfortunately, not only do you speak from ignorance, you can't even come up with anything more intelligent than spouting off overused, worn-out stereotypes."
Sad thing is some of these things are not only stereotypes..
"Furthermore, you completely fail to grasp the reason our founders gave citizens the right to own guns in the first place. Here's a hint. It has nothing to do with hunting."
To give citizens the rights to own guns have been a huge mistake.
"And here is how many fucks I give."
Good for you, I don't give a fuck about that you don't give a fuck anyways.
We will see if someone crazy with a gun murders someone you know. Maybe you will change your pathetic mind.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
what kind of security system do you plan to use while walking in the street????to avoid getting mugged???
Objects made to kill - ?? you can kill anyone with almost everything...i can even kill you with a flower vase...should the govt ban those too
giving the citizens a right to protect themselves is a mistake????
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
" Gun Control DOES NOT keep law-abiding citizens safe."
And yet crime rates are much higher in the US that in virtually every nation that has gun control.
How is that possible, huh? Are studies wrong, are the numbers manipulated, or is it due to the US' "particular" history of violence (that is no more violent than those of the vast majority of countries, which are often far older and formed during the barbarism of the Middle-Age etc...)
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
I'd suggest you check your sources again. The UK has strict gun control, but it also has a much higher violent crimes rate then America.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I'm sure it has nothing to do with the poverty rate in the United States, or our much larger population count than most European nations. We do have "gun control" here. We don't have a "gun ban" here.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"our much larger population count than most European nations"
Do you have any idea what "rates" mean?
It takes the size of the population into account.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Right, because an AK-47 is the optimal tool for self defense...
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Hey, I'd prefer a grenade-launcher, but whatever gets the job done.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
That's an AR-15, not an AK-47. It fires no faster than a handgun. The choice of one over the other is based purely on aesthetics.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I could just as well have said "assault rifle". What type it is is beside the point.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Please, explain to me what kind of weapon is not an assault weapon, or what kind of rifle is not an assault rifle? It's a meaningless term. All weapons are assault weapons.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oxford dictionary:
noun
a lightweight rifle developed from the sub-machine gun, which may be set to fire automatically or semi-automatically.
Wikipedia:
An assault rifle is a selective fire (selective between semi-automatic, automatic and/or burst fire) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and adetachable magazine
It's not meaningless. Modern assault rifles lets you fire absurd amounts of bullets at a time, and it's much too dangerous to let just anyone have one.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
AR-15s are not assault rifles. They do not meet the definition posted above.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
The point is you're wrong. The AR15 is very much an optimal tool for self defense. If it was practical to carry one everywhere, I'd carry that instead of a pistol.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
...but it's not practical to carry one everywhere. It's an assault rifle. It's a weapon of mass killing. A pistol is fine, but an assault rifle? In what situation could you conceivably need that?
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
What are you not understanding? An AR-15 fires at the same rate as a pistol. One trigger pull, one bullet fired. It's not difficult. If you want to talk about the number of bullets capable of BEING fired, then you need to talk about the magazine capacity, which is separate from the gun entirely. The only thing that changes between handgun and AR-15 (or any other civilian issue rifle) is how much time you save between discharging a spent magazine and reloading a full jacket. You're talking SECONDS here, for someone who knows what they're doing and is prepared. Limiting magazine capacity IS a debatable issue, as seconds saved or seconds wasted may give law enforcement a tiny window to successfully intervene. Most "mass shootings" perpetrators come armed with multiple weapons, so instead of wrangling a new magazine once the original is spent, they drop said spent weapon and switch to the next, so I'm not entirely sure if limiting magazine capacity is really effective, other than making people "feel" safer. While wikipedia may have a definition of "assault rifle," please ask yourself which rifles, or handguns, or weapons in general, are not meant for "assault"? They all are, which is why they should be treated with respect and handled by people who are properly trained and licensed.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It was to my understanding that a weapon is meant for defense, not attack. The assault rifle certainly isn't designed to defend.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsMr10…
there you go....a larger weapon is more intimidating than a tiny puny one...if you have a larger one, maybe you wont even have to fire a single bullet to scare the attacker..
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Uh, what? An assault rifle is still a weapon designed for war, and way deadlier than a pistol.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
exactly...thats why you will scare away the attackers without even firing a round...
lets imagine 2 situations related with mugging....
a)mugger shows up demanding money...you pull out a swiss army knife...mugger laughs at you along with all the bystanders and then he viciously attacks you while everyone is watching helplessly and you don't even stand a chance with a puny tool..
b)mugger shows up...you pull out a large deadly Gurkha knife...mugger runs for his life crying on his mommy..never attempting to mug anyone ever again....or he may be retarded enough to try attack you and he fails miserably doing so while paying a heavy price
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
A pistol will achieve the same thing. An assault rifle is deadlier because it can fire more rounds faster, but a side-arm kills you dead just as easily. Intimidation factor is irrelevant, as far as I am concerned. Both are lethal weapons which project an image of immediate threat.
a) Your swiss army knife stabs him in the gut, and he bleeds to death. Tah-dah!
b) Your ghurka knife eviscerates him. Tah-dah!
or c) you fail to do anything because most people aren't trained to use knives properly and do not threaten people the same way a gun does, because they're nowhere near as recognizably lethal.
The above scenario is pointless and misplaced. There is a legitimate difference between a pocket knife and a khukhri, due to the size and application of the weapons- a pocket knife is constructed to be a tool, not a weapon, whereas the khukhri is larger and better suited for causing damage. A glock, however, will kill a man dead as sure as an M16 would- unless he wore kevlar. The analogy is too flawed to be useful.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
A pistol will achieve the same thing - it can kill but it can intimidate only retards
An assault rifle is deadlier because it can fire more rounds faster - nope, assault rifles have larger caliber bullets and has an increased range....and the rate of fire depends on weapon itself and not weapon class..a machine pistol can fire rounds faster than an assault rifle
a side-arm kills you dead just as easily - only if you have the guts to open fire on a living thing.....which the attacker knows you probably dont have...only a badass will want to own an assault rifle and the attacker wont fool around with him...
Your swiss army knife stabs him in the gut, and he bleeds to death. Tah-dah! - only a well trained person can give enough stabs on vitals of the attacker with a puny weapon to make him bleed to death...otherwise he will overpower you before you stab him twice and then its game over....personally ive been stabbed by my roommate with a swiss knife on my hands and it hurts like hell, but was not enough to stop me from going...and bleed to death will take a looong time to happen
Your ghurka knife eviscerates him. Tah-dah! - let me tell you it aint that easy to evade when someone swings a large knife at you...only trained people can evade and disarm even if its a amateur who swings their knife....certainly the attacker will choose to live to fight another day than trying to disarm someone with a big knife
and most of if you hold a knife at someone and you hands are trembling...then they get the idea that youre a pussy and will proceed to attack you...but nobody can tell if someone is trained to use a knife or not if they hold their knife steady with a fierce grin...nobody will take that chance to find out your skill in using a knife..only a retard or a meth head will proceed to attack when the odds are against them...
you will know the difference only when you are facing the receiving end of the weapon....when you face a glock and when you fave a shotgun is very very different because you know that a 9mm round wont dismember you like a 12 gauge round would...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You'd have to be legitimately retarded to not be intimidated by a weapon that can and will kill you.
Assault rifles also fires more bullets at a faster rate from a larger magazine. The M16 generally has a 30 rounds capacity; compare this to most handguns which do not go over 15 rounds. In general, compared as classes of weapons, the assault rifle fires faster, has greater accuracy and munitions capacity, and is in general the more efficient killing tool.
only if you have the guts to open fire on a living thing
So yes, it will kill you. Or what, people naturally assume because you don't carry an assault rifle, you must be some sort of spineless coward who'd never hurt a fly? Gee, I wonder why they don't arm policemen with AK-47s. This argument of yours is illogical.
It's surprisingly easy to hit a vital spot- a stab in the thigh could easily hit a major blood vessel, or in the arm. A stab in the gut can eventually kill you. The human body is full of vital arteries that are all too easy to sever.
...well yes, I just said that the khukhri- a large tool for practical things like hacking through vegetation and people- would be efficient at killing people.
Highly speculative. Somebody who is holding a weapon and is ill at ease- such as trembling would imply- is often very dangerous, because they lack the emotional calm to employ their weapon wisely. This is common knowledge. And of course, this assumes that you are trembling in the first place- how is that a relevant point, when you're setting up pure speculation?
Both weapons can and will kill you dead in one accurate shot. Anyone facing that will know this. It doesn't matter if it's 9 millimeters or 16- both means death, and everybody knows it. You're talking nonsense.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
nope..You'd have to be legitimately retarded to be intimidated by a weapon that can but may not kill you
nope...m16a1 has rate of fire about 700-900 rounds per minute wheres a Beretta 93R pistol has a rate of fire of 1100 rounds per minute...the size of a weapons magazine does not relate to its rate of fire in any way....
I wonder why they don't arm policemen with AK-47s. -- our cops are armed with rifles and assault rifles especially ak 47...whos illogical now...
if pistols does the same job...then why dont they arm the SWAT and the Marines with puny pistols then???
its also surprisingly easy to miss those vitals when youre in a struggle and frustrated...if using a puny weapon and if you dont assert enough force then chances are that you wont even penetrate their flesh level...
however a hardened criminal who has more experince especially using small makeshift knives can easily overpower you and grab that tiny weapon from your hand and inflict far more serious damage on you...
because they lack the emotional calm to employ their weapon wisely- dangerous but not effective...and thats exactly why the criminals would exploit such a situation by pumping more fear until you crack and fail miserably...they know that an unsure person is more likely to fail ....and there is absolutely no way on earth to measure the skill of a person holding their knife steady....they may be pros or they may not have ever used a knife ever before ,but theres absolutely no telling when you dont show fear outside...now thats common knowldege..and what goes through the mind of the criminal then will be whats speculative
both weapons kill...but theres a big difference between kill and overkill
ever wonder why many iraqis surredered without even putting a fight when they saw an apache fly towards them???thats intimidation
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
...no. A weapon that can kill you- and in all likeliness will if it hits at all- is a weapon to be intimidated by. You are not making any sense.
The assault rifle, carrying more ammunition, still is more efficient. As classes of weapons go, the assault rifle is always deadlier than the pistol, because most assault rifles hit harder, are more accurate etc than pistols are.
No, policemen are generally armed with pistols. Only under special circumstances are they armed with automatic weaponry. And frankly, if your policemen are armed with assault rifles, you're pretty fucked- that means you're on your way to becoming a police state.
And it's also surprisingly easy to hit them. What of it?
And how would you know the criminal is "hardened", experienced?
I don't even know why you brought this up. It's got nothing to do with anything.
Why would anyone want overkill?
...so what?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
a weapon that can kill you only if it hits the vital spots is less intimidating than a weapon that can cause seriously damage you even if hits non vital spots....
yo..a pistol can have a larger magazine that carry more rounds than the rifle does.....and in short ranges..especially inside a house...an assault rifle is not more accurate than a pistol is.......you could modify the internals of an assault rifle to fire the smaller calibre round as a pistol and hence it wont be any more deadlier....the the looks of the rifle itself is likely to scare away the attacker....
nope..i dont live in a police state...and it wont become one soon.....the criminals are intimidated the the police weaponry....
And how would you know the criminal is "hardened", experienced? - exactly...and thats why you dont want to take a chance with him....better scare him away with a larger weapon than take a chance with a puny weapon to find out his skill...
because winning a fight without even fighting is always better....
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
...only if it hits you in the vital spots? The many, many, many vital spots on the body from which you could bleed out, like your shoulder, chest, gut, thighs, etc?
Even assuming that a pistol is somehow a pea shooter and nobody respects a gun that apparently can't be trusted to kill you- even if that's a massive risk and everybody knows it- being shot can also handicap you for life, and it WILL incapacitate you even if non-fatal, and it hurts. You're still being completely illogical.
Can? I guess, but it generally doesn't. My point is the same- an assault rifle is in general far more efficient.
...that's not how crime works, you bleeding idiot. Crime always exists, and police carrying larger guns doesn't do more than frighten civilians. Assault rifles are for combat, not peace keeping.
A pistol would take care of it just fine. It can kill you from a shot to the head, chest, shoulder, gut- a hit anywhere is potentially death, and nobody wants to be shot to death. Calling it "puny" just makes you ignorant.
Again, a pistol would do that just fine. What are you, twelve years old?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
like the assaulter is gonna stand still for you at point blank just for your convenience to shoot his vitals???very thoughtful
there is a biigg difference between a 9mm round and a .45 round you know...both can kill but the .45 has more stopping power
the guns efficiency is generally determined by the shooter...a dumbass could not even hit you with an assault rifle even if he empties the entire magazine at you from a distance...
that is why the best snipers with a bolt action rifle are far more efficient than an ordinary militia man with an automatic...
Crime always exists, and police carrying larger guns doesn't do more than frighten civilians.
actually it makes civillian like me feel safe.....especially when the crime rate in my town has decreased when the cops started arming themselves with rifles
...the rebels marauding raids have almost ceased to exist after the cops have big guns
It can kill you from a shot to the head, chest, shoulder, gut- a hit anywhere is potentially death, and nobody wants to be shot to death
you probably dont know how a bullet really works...the real world is not call of duty one shot one kill numnut....if the shot even slighty miss the brain then you would see the worst seizure anyone have ever put up...
a pistol would do just fine...fine for what??/killing?? what if thats not your intention?? the big guns definitely scare away attackers without firing a shot..
afterall its the preference of the owner....why would anyone buy an suv if a small hatchback does the same job???
i may be 12 years old, in fact a 12 year old has better understanding than you have...but if youre 60 and still dont understand the facts means youll never understand ever
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
If you are faced with a gun, and you haven't got one yourself, you stand still because of the threat to your life unless you are suicidal. So yes, you would stand still. So would a criminal.
Yeah, pretty much. What about it?
To make crime rates go down, you don't need guns- you need crime preventing programs, you need better education and wealth levels, you need to decrease poverty- that's what decreases crime genuinely. Policemen with guns can't do more than chase after crimes already committed, and assault rifles do not make it better.
...yes, I do know enough about the human body, actually. It's very, very killable. A bullet's no joke, even if it's small caliber- there are tons of vital spots it could easily hit.
For self defense, intimidation, law enforcement. You don't need assault rifles for that.
Well, that would explain it- your arguments are childish and ignorant.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
haha...sounds like youve probably never had someone break into you home ever...they are never gonna come and face you like a retard so that you can have a clear shot at them.....and remember, its suicidal the moment one decide to break into someone elses home without even knowing the inhabitants are armed or not....if there are gun control laws then those guys can simply waltz into your home with zero risk at all...
wrong...to make crime rate go down you have to allow citizens to protect themsleves....instead of taking the attacker to the court and finally letting them free which would repeat the cycle..one should be freely allowed to permanantly drop the attacker...
policemen carrying guns worked here...its pure speculation that it wont work for your place because you havent even tried it...and even if you did and allow the police do their job by shooting criminals, then guys like you will call them racists and show sympathy to dumb rioters and then complain that crime rate is increasing
oh yes there are tons of vital spots but would take a very long time for someone to bleed to death...some smaller calibre rounds wont even penetrate leather clothings
my arguments may be childish and ignorant but it was factual unlike an oldy like you just babbling just for the sake of saying somethin
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"they are never gonna come and face you like a retard so that you can have a clear shot at them"
Then why would it make a difference if you have a rifle or a pistol?
"its suicidal the moment one decide to break into someone elses home without even knowing the inhabitants are armed or not"
Actually no. knowing the person whose home you break into is armed and dangerous, that would be stupid- but not even that is suicidal.
Uh, no. It's been proven- crime rates only go down if you raise living standards. Weapons only protect people, they don't make crime less of a factor.
We don't need it. Never did, actually. Nor does any western country I know of. The only police forces who carry automatic weaponry are dedicated SWAT teams- and that's the way it should be.
It doesn't matter if it takes a long time- a bullet will incapacitate almost anybody instantly. And no, leather clothing is not in any way protective. Kevlar is, but that's expensive and most people do not have it.
Uh, no. Your arguments are to facts what the easter bunny is to reality.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Then why would it make a difference if you have a rifle or a pistol? - because a 5.45x39 rifle ammo will hit him even if he is behind cover
yeah right...walking towards a psycho gun nut who is pointing his gun at you is more stupid than suicidal huh?
like only poor guys commit crimes...lol
if people are protected from crime...then where is the crime?????
more like you dont need it because you were lucky so far...
nah..you will probably have more chance of inficting a flesh wound with a smaller calibre bullet..
a wounded guy will be more aggressive than a normal one...so it matters whether he is bleeding or dead
lol...i doubt whether the 2mm puny kolibri ammo will penetrate cotton clothing?
yeah,..and youre the one who is capable of making mince meat with a swiss army knife..impresive....most impressive..
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
<= Prev | | Next =>