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
Is it beyond your ability to comprehend that in order to defend oneself, one must sometimes attack? The two are not mutually exclusive concepts.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Actually, no. If you draw your gun first, you are the aggressor. That's not that difficult.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
When did we start talking about identifying "the aggressor"? I thought we were discussing the definition of "assault weapon." Regardless of who strikes first, when I draw my weapon, I intend to assault the person assaulting me (or threatening to). That's one of the first things you learn about responsible firearm safety: You do not draw unless you intend to fire. You hope to God you don't have to, that the mere sight of the gun will send the assailant packing, but it's not a toy. You don't draw for shits and giggles, or to dig a hole, or to hammer a nail. You draw to assault someone else, and sometimes you have to assault someone in order to defend yourself. That's just reality.
Most gun owners are not drawing their weapons unprovoked. The only time I've drawn mine was after being thrown against a brick wall in Detroit and having my face smashed in (was only his fist, but felt like a goddamn hammer). The only thing that saved me from a serious beating (for the whopping $50 in my wallet and a debit card) was my CCW and my Glock, which I drew and leveled in my attacker's face. If he had continued to assault me, I would have shot him AND I WOULD HAVE FELT HORRIBLE ABOUT DOING SO, but I still would have done it. Thankfully, he ran away and left me with a nice hospital bill for my troubles.
Whether I defended myself with a Glock or an AR-15, it makes no difference. My AR-15 is outfitted with a 10-round magazine, while my Glock 22 holds 15. So, no, your argument is completely baseless and is informed only by aesthetics. Could I buy a larger magazine for my AR? Of course I could, but as an adult with free will and the ability to purchase what *I* want for my personal use, I stick with the 10. Ammunition is expensive, and loading a 10-round magazine discourages me from going crazy and spending way too much on the firing range (which is the ONLY place I have EVER fired ANY of my weapons).
Done with you and this conversation.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You were the one who said that to defend, you sometimes have to attack.
To draw a gun on someone just because of words seems at the least like an enormous overreaction. Words are words, and until someone actually makes a move to hurt you, I cannot see how it is justified to draw a weapon.
A legitimate case of self defense, sure. I still don't see how an assault rifle would have suited that situation better than the glock you carried.
If your assault rifle carries less ammunition than your pistol, then I have to wonder what the point of having a bulkier weapon is. Better accuracy, more power?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
In this situation:
www.wistv.com/story/19236842/g…
The guy had to fire all 30 rounds from his magazine in order to survive. A lesser gun might have turned this victory story into a tragedy.
Yes you can't carry an AR15 around everywhere, but you can store in your home or workplace, making it an optimal home defense or workplace defense gun. Out in public we have to settle for a pistol as the only practical option, but in the home one has access to better means.
And no, the AR15 is not an "assault rifle" or weapon of mass killing. It's a semi-automatic rifle made specifically for civilians. It fires one round every time you pull the trigger, just like a pistol does. It does not have the ability to fire fully automatic.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I somehow doubt this story is typical for the average situation in which a firearm is useful for defending one's own life, though. Not to mention that that's a pretty big "might"- you don't know that a twelve round magazine couldn't have done the same job.
At home would be better, but I don't think anybody outside the military should own assault weapons.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Whether or not that situation is typical is meaningless. The purpose of a defensive firearm is not just for protection in typical situations. It's to protect you in as many different types of situations as possible. The fact that the guy had to fire 30 rounds speaks to itself in regard to the fact that clearly he was better served with a 30 round mag then a 12 round one. When you are in a shootout to defend your life, you can never have too many rounds. No one who ever survived a gunfight complained about having too much ammo.
Again, the AR15 is not a military assault weapon. It's specifically made for civilians. It fires one round per trigger pull just like a pistol does. It does not have the capability to fire fully automatic.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
There is no shame in defending yourself... thing is some want the public access to military grade weapons... so we worry about the police having them but not the general public because "they're not part of the government and therefore far more trustworth to handle dangerous weapons!"... people who say that are going beyond common sense.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
I don't trust anybody with them honestly. I don't trust average citizens OR the police, but that's the whole point behind that old piece of sage wisdom, "To be prepared for war is the most effective way to maintain peace." Thinking logically for moment, would you really be quick to pull your weapon against someone else who had the same weapon? Be it a gun...a grenade...a bazooka...the idea is to level the playing field so that everyone is capable of returning fire and dealing the same degree of damage. In Chess there are two ways of beating your opponent; check or checkmate.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
".the idea is to level the playing field so that everyone is capable of returning fire and dealing the same degree of damage. " ... remember the cold war?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
The gun pictured is not a military grade weapon. It's an AR15, the civilian version of the Military's M16/M4. It's specifically made for civilians, the same way a hummer is the civilian version of the military Jeep and Garmin is the civilian version of military GPS.
You seem to be badly misinformed on what is a military weapon.
And yes, any weapon the police have access too is something that should be on the civilian market. The cops serve the public, and only use their weapons for self defense, just like the public does. If we can trust cops with it, we can trust lawful citizens with it too And keep in mind, civilians usually don't have the advantage of body armor, a gun belt full of spare mags, and backup just a radio call away
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You might want to tell people that AR stands for Armalite Rifle. The gun control nuts decided that it would fit their agenda if they said that it stood for assault rifle.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
"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." Talk like that makes me wonder if you are going to shoot an innocent in a fit of paranoia one day.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The irony is that you sound more paranoid that I with that statement. Just because someone recognizes the world as the brutal violent place that it is and seeks to keep themselves armed for their protection does not make them paranoid. In fact, I chuckle every time people call gun owners paranoid. What does a person with a gun have to be paranoid about? They're the one with the gun. It's the people who aren't armed that are the paranoid ones...understandably.
Besides, I'm filled with anger not fear, and despite my anger I always make it a point to know who my enemies are; thus making such an event as what you described a most unlikely scenario.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I am sorry, but when you talk about protection form unknown enemies, that is the first thought that I come up with, and you don't do much to change that impression.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Have you heard of stand your ground laws?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes, I've heard of them. Perfectly sensible laws which should remain in place. I fully support the right of an individual to use deadly force, if necessary, to defend their life against an attacker.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
www.freep.com/usatoday/article…
www.theguardian.com/world/2013…
usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/…
Yes but stand your ground laws seem to grant the right to kill someone on your property who looks suspecious.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
www.theguardian.com/world/2013…
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Couldn't have said it better myself. Disarming the lawful only aids the lawless.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Making guns illegal is like saying "We're making guns legal for criminals."
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah, pretty much.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
My new definition of Politician is now: A dangerous idiot with a high IQ who is paid to lie.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
since when was high IQ a requirement? Last I checked you only need some charisma and an avatar of Satan as your campaign consultant
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Also true. But the IQ is needed to pass the bar exam.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
that's lawyers, politicians don't need a law degree. For example, Palin was a journalism major.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
True... So scratch the high IQ part!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
the problem is NOT guns. the problem is EVIL. evil will kill with any tool.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Exactly! So the best defense for those who are not evil is to have whatever tool is best qualified to match or outmatch whatever tool an evil person might use.
That is why the 2nd Amendment says we have the right to "bear arms". People think its talking solely about guns, but arms is short for armaments which means quite simply weapons. The 2nd Amendment isn't limited to guns. Its saying we have the right to have and keep weapons. It makes no distinction of what kind of weapons because the Founding Fathers knew very well that technology would change and weapons would become more advanced. They wanted us to be able to protect ourselves from any threat, because they knew that evil people will use whatever weapons they can get their hands on, so we had best be able to get our hands on those same weapons too.
The two ways to beat someone at Chess is either through check or checkmate.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Please don't bring the constitution into this as if it were doctrine.
That thing was written for a people who were:
1) living under the military occupation of the largest military power in the world
2) on the front lines of an active war
3) often separated from authorities by DAYS of travel
4) often using their "arms" to hunt on a subsistence level
5) (most critically) using muskets. You know, the pre-cartridge, pre-semi-automatic guns that, even for the best of the best only fired maybe a handful of rounds a minute. You literally couldn't be a one-man massacre in those days because of the technology of the time. To take ideas written at a time when a modern rifle would be akin to magic and apply them to our modern world is akin to saying the world is flat.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So I guess the First Amendment can't possibly apply to the internet, or even TV or radio then? Because the founders likely couldn't have fathomed a time when one man could spread an idea across the entire world in a matter of minutes?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Not by the letter of the document. Afterall, it's not like DeviantArt hosts child porn (extreme example but my point stands).
Taking the words as doctrine is far too simplistic to work; not that it shouldn't be done in all cases (the right to a fair trial comes to mind) but it needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Yeah, you can't keep guns out of the hands of criminals! Unless you're Japan of course.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Stop and ask yourself this. Are the guns not in the hands of criminals because of the laws, or because of Japan having a very different culture than the rest of the world?
And if we're going to start bring up names of countries. I got one too. Switzerland!
world.time.com/2012/12/20/the-…
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well considering they actually did have a number of gun related murders before they out right banned private gun ownership (outside of highly regulated sports) I'll go with the government passing laws. More importantly, your argument is that criminals don't follow laws or social lines and therefore will take guns to commit violence on people via the black market the same way people get drugs from the black market. Now why would culture stop this?
Well lets compare their murder rates and see which one is safer.
Switzerland: 0.7
Japan: 0.4
data.un.org/Data.aspx?d=UNODC&…
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Japan's lack of gun murders is due to cultural differences. It coincides with their lack of crime in general. As a whole, Japan has one of the most law abiding populations on earth. All their rates of murder are massively lower then America's, including murders committed with weapons other then guns and murders committed with bare fists. It's not the lack of guns that causes their low murder rate, it's the lack of people who try to kill people.
Even Japan's prisons have less assaults and murders then America's. This is notable since prison inmates don't have access to guns or any type of conventional weapons.
However, it should be noted that Japan has an astronomically high suicide rate. It's even higher then America's even though their population has very limited access to one of the most "efficient" methods (a gun). Once again, this shows that cultural factors play a key role
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
Very true, though the different culture argument doesn't hold some water when accounted for the fact that Japan is also home to one of the most infamous crime organizations in the world, the Yakuza.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
"It's not the lack of guns that causes their low murder rate, it's the lack of people who try to kill people."
In 2008 the US had just over 14,000 murders, more than 12,000 of which were firearm related. What does this mean? It means murderers are perfectly willing to use guns in a society where guns are easily obtained. In 2007 the murder rate in Japan was 0.5, which translates to over 600 murders. Only eleven of these were gun related. Now again, if laws do nothing to stop criminals and gun control would only lead to black market gun sales why is it that only 11 of these murders were gun related? Why didn't a more significant number of criminals capitalize on this oh so helpless population and start using guns? Could it be that even the most extreme criminals simply can't get them do to these strict gun laws?
www.theatlantic.com/internatio…
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Also, your numbers are way off. In 2008 America had 14,222 murders, 9,528 of which were done with guns.
www.economicpolicyjournal.com/…
So we do have plenty of murders using other means then a firearm.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Did you read anything I just wrote? I told you, Japan has very little violent crime in general. All their murder rates are way lower then ours, including murders carried out with weapons other then guns and murders carried out with no weapons. Japan's population just doesn't try to kill people as much as we do, with guns or anything else.
Even their prisons are less violent then ours. But even without guns, their suicide rate is still very high. This shows that cultural factors play the key role.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Maybe I need to simplify my argument: Nearly all the murders in America were gun related (12,000/14,000) this means murderers, if they can, will use guns. However, in Japan, a society that has high gun control, nearly none of the murders (11/650) were gun related. This disproves the argument that murderers (or just criminals in general) under a society with high gun control would still obtain guns via the black market by virtue of being criminals.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I just showed you your numbers were off
www.economicpolicyjournal.com/…
We have many murders done with means other than firearms. Even if all our gun murders vanished, we'd still have a higher murder rate then most nations based on non-gun murders alone. And our murder rate would still be massively higher then Japan. It's not that we have more guns. We have more killers.
In Japan, criminals don't seek out guns to kill very often because they don't kill very often in general. Japan has a very low rate of general violent crime. If criminals were more inclined to commit murder, they'd seek out guns more actively.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I didn't get your message when I was typing out that response. Anyway, even with your numbers my argument still stands. The vast majority of America's murders were gun related, while an extremely small minority of murders in Japan were gun related.
"Even if all our gun murders vanished, we'd still have a higher murder rate then most nations based on non-gun murders alone."
Well lets take your 2008 data and check that theory. According to your data if all the gun murders were gone our total number or murders would be 4,700, which is a murder rate of 1.54 per 100,000. That acctuallly puts us in the lower end of murder rates by country.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_…
"In Japan, criminals don't seek out guns to kill very often because they don't kill very often in general."
Well considering the recidivism for killers in America is a whopping 1% it seems they don't kill very often either. That doesn't stop the majority of them from getting guns to help the job though does it?
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
I'd also like to point out that even with America's high gun murder rate, American doesn't even come close to having the highest total murder rate in the world. Many nations have a higher rate, and most, if not all, have much more restrictive gun laws.
It's easy to point to nations with near-prohibition on gun ownership like Japan, but you neglect to mention nations that have such laws also include North Korea, Cuba and China. Not the same company that most people want to be apart of.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes, but most of those nations with higher murder rates are also lawless, third world hellholes. I wouldn't expect any different.
"North Korea has gun control, therefore I don't want gun control regardless of whether or not it works in other first world countries" -CO85
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Not all of them really fit that definition. And even for those that do, that still just makes my point: That there many other factors determining murder rates besides gun laws.
Your phony quote misses the point. You want to hold Japan up as a shining example of how gun prohibition works, but you ignore places like China, North Korea, and Cuba that also have similar draconian restrictions.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"but you ignore places like China, North Korea, and Cuba that also have similar draconian restrictions."
Maybe because those are all third world countries, unlike Japan?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
<= Prev | | Next =>