Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
There Is No Shame In Defending Yourself by IAmTheUnison There Is No Shame In Defending Yourself by IAmTheUnison
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. 
Add a Comment:
 
:iconcreeppingdeath:
CreeppingDeath Featured By Owner 3 days ago  Student Digital Artist
nice!
Reply
:iconfujin777:
Fujin777 Featured By Owner Apr 14, 2015  Hobbyist Writer
Good point.
Reply
:iconiamtheunison:
IAmTheUnison Featured By Owner 2 days ago  Professional Digital Artist
Thank you. :bow:
Reply
:iconfujin777:
Fujin777 Featured By Owner 2 days ago  Hobbyist Writer
No problem at all.
Reply
:iconsoulessone12:
soulessone12 Featured By Owner Jan 23, 2015
good point point but i prefer to defend myself with a sword 
Reply
:iconsaradorie:
saradorie Featured By Owner May 4, 2014
Would anyone object to severe limitations on ammo to small caliber rounds for self defense, with everything else limited to gun ranges, police and military. Of course this idea will probably be rejected by those who believe that guns are needed to protect the people from government.
Reply
:iconnamezong:
namezong Featured By Owner Apr 26, 2014
Shameless criminals would dissagree with your message.
Reply
:iconnasa15:
Nasa15 Featured By Owner Apr 11, 2014  Hobbyist Writer
Hurrah. We've got a natural born right to life, and that means defending that life with hot lead.
Reply
:iconzeonista:
Zeonista Featured By Owner Apr 2, 2014
Speaking of those rights that some people are ever demanding of God and man.... Here's the unspoken right of the Second Amendment. You have the Right not to be the victim of a violent crime, or live in fear of becoming such a victim. You have the Right to keep from being a victim by using a weapon to prevent that crime from happening. You have the Right to use firearms, because those are currently the most efficient weapons for that purpose.
Reply
:iconmenapia:
menapia Featured By Owner Mar 6, 2014
Some countries actually had laws that made it compulsory for law abiding citizens to own a gun or rifle, the argument was that the nation that was genuinely in arms could defend itself and so could individuals citizens. 

The Boer republics back in the 19thC required All citizens to own a gun and keep at least 30 rounds of ammo on hand at all times in case of emergency or being called up to serve on Commando which worked like the old colonial militias.
Reply
:iconbortle:
bortle Featured By Owner Feb 3, 2014
Gun control will have no effect if societal factors that contribute so heavily to crime-namely, poverty, inequality and subsequent tension-go unaddressed.
Reply
:iconiamtheunison:
IAmTheUnison Featured By Owner Feb 4, 2014  Professional Digital Artist
And that's really the point that people like me try to make to the sheep of the world.
Reply
:iconbortle:
bortle Featured By Owner Feb 4, 2014
You can always point to the example of Switzerland, where people are mandated to possess firearms by law, yet the lack of societal disparity that would contribute so heavily to crime means that they pretty much never have to use them. Besides, in going after gun owners in broad strokes, people completely overlook that the area where any control would actually be sorely needed would be in providing background checks for the certifiably mentally ill.
Reply
:iconkyrtuck:
kyrtuck Featured By Owner Jan 12, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Ah, but can you say that ALL criminals are inherently, iredeemably evil?  Why should I end the life of some 19 year old over something like property loss?
Reply
:iconco85:
CO85 Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2014
It has nothing to do with property.  The moment someone invades your home or points a gun at you, your life is at risk.  Cooperation is no insurance that you will not be harmed.

Anyway this is all besides the point because there is no requirement you have to use a gun if you have it.  You can always chose not to draw and cooperate if you think that's the best option.  But being armed gives you a much higher chance of survival if resistance is necessary.
Reply
:iconkyrtuck:
kyrtuck Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
If the guy is a destitution-driven criminal like most of them, then yes, Cooperation is a very big insurance you won't get killed. It always astounds me the gun lovers act like all criminals are driven by Charles Manson-like sadism.
Reply
:iconf14ace:
f14ace Featured By Owner Apr 29, 2014
I don't give a damn why he's in my house.  There is no justification you can provide to defend breaking into someone's home and terrorizing them.  I have a right to defend myself and not be threatened by criminal thugs in my own home.  Also, you fail to realize that in the majority of cases where guns are used in self defense, the gun was never even fired because it's mere presence alone was enough to deter the criminal.
Reply
:iconkyrtuck:
kyrtuck Featured By Owner Apr 29, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
You sound like an easily frightened fellow. And oh "joy" more of that "just pointing a gun works" pixie dust!
Reply
:iconf14ace:
f14ace Featured By Owner Apr 29, 2014
Never mind.  After having read your other comments it is clear you have your head crammed up your ass and are not worth debating with.
Reply
:iconthe-conquerors:
The-Conquerors Featured By Owner Oct 14, 2014  Hobbyist Writer
Don't all liberals do though? Have their head up their ass? ~ C
Reply
:iconf14ace:
f14ace Featured By Owner Oct 14, 2014
I refuse to call people like him liberals.  They don't deserve to be called liberals.  They're just left-wing fascists posing as liberals.  I prefer the term "moonbat".
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconkyrtuck:
kyrtuck Featured By Owner Apr 30, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Takes one to know one :thumbsup:
Reply
:iconco85:
CO85 Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2014
No, it's not any insurance you won't get harmed.  People can and do get harmed and/or killed without resisting.  You might get killed so you can't ID him later at trial, or he might shoot you accidentally.  As long as you had a gun pointed at you, you at risk, as most criminals are not too concerned with proper safe gun handling.

When you cooperate with a mugger, robber, etc, you are putting you're life in the hands of someone who clearly does not have your best interests in mind.  Altogether that's not a good situation to be in.  Complying may be the best option under the circumstances, but at the very least, it's reasonable to want the means to fight back in case your assailent decides to kill you or gives you a chance to exploit.  Criminals don't always keep full attention on their victims and if you act like you are a defenseless sheep you might get the chance to take the situation out of his hands and put it back in yours, like what happened in this case:


But for not to be possible, you need to have the proper means.
Reply
:iconkyrtuck:
kyrtuck Featured By Owner Jan 17, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Half my family lives in Tucson Arizona. They been robbed numerous times both when they were in and out of the house, and they never got shot. Not once.
Reply
:iconco85:
CO85 Featured By Owner Jan 17, 2014
Okay, so what?  Just because it didn't happen to them doesn't mean it never could happen to anyone.

My college roomate was in a small town that did not have any murders in the last 20 years when she was stabbed to death by her ex-boyfriend.  You never know when or where you might be when you draw the short straw.
Reply
:iconkyrtuck:
kyrtuck Featured By Owner Jan 17, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Exactly! I'm practically a fatalist. When youre times up its up. Guns scarcely make any difference.
Reply
:iconco85:
CO85 Featured By Owner Jan 17, 2014
Well I hope you can understand that not all of us are resigned to accepting such a fate without at least trying to alter it.  And in that matter, guns do make a big difference.  They won't ensure you will survive, but they will ensure you have a chance of it.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconhermafrodite:
hermafrodite Featured By Owner Dec 18, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
thank fucking god somebody said it!
Reply
:iconvegan33:
Vegan33 Featured By Owner Dec 18, 2013  Hobbyist Artist
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 )...
Reply
:iconmike-the-cat:
Mike-the-cat Featured By Owner Dec 19, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Just because you want the system to be abolished doesn't mean that you don't keep yourself out of trouble in the meantime.
Reply
:iconvegan33:
Vegan33 Featured By Owner Dec 20, 2013  Hobbyist Artist
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.
Reply
:iconco85:
CO85 Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2014
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.
Reply
:iconvegan33:
Vegan33 Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2014  Hobbyist Artist
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.
Reply
:iconfreeking:
FreeKing Featured By Owner Dec 17, 2013
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?
Reply
:iconco85:
CO85 Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2014
"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.
Reply
:iconjack2345:
jack2345 Featured By Owner Mar 14, 2015
Preach it brother!
Reply
:iconprofessorolivera:
ProfessorOlivera Featured By Owner Dec 15, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Amen Brother!!!! Truth shall be spoken!!
Reply
:icongumboassassin:
GumboAssassin Featured By Owner Dec 15, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
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.  
Reply
:iconlonelyimmortal:
LonelyImmortal Featured By Owner Dec 16, 2013
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.
Reply
:icongumboassassin:
GumboAssassin Featured By Owner Dec 17, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
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. :)
Reply
:iconlonelyimmortal:
LonelyImmortal Featured By Owner Dec 17, 2013
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.
Reply
:icongumboassassin:
GumboAssassin Featured By Owner Dec 17, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
lol
Reply
:iconblackstrike:
blackstrike Featured By Owner Dec 15, 2013  Professional Photographer
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/…
Reply
:iconinfernoraptor117:
Infernoraptor117 Featured By Owner Dec 15, 2013
" 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.
Reply
:iconiamtheunison:
IAmTheUnison Featured By Owner Dec 15, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
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.
Reply
:iconinfernoraptor117:
Infernoraptor117 Featured By Owner Dec 15, 2013
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.
Reply
:icongrandechartreuse:
GrandeChartreuse Featured By Owner Dec 15, 2013
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.
Reply
:iconinfernoraptor117:
Infernoraptor117 Featured By Owner Dec 15, 2013
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...)
Reply
:icongrandechartreuse:
GrandeChartreuse Featured By Owner Dec 16, 2013
(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.
Reply
:iconlushiadopts:
LushiAdopts Featured By Owner Dec 15, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
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..


Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×




Details

Submitted on
December 14, 2013
Image Size
1.4 MB
Resolution
3072×1463
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
1,731
Favourites
74 (who?)
Comments
236
×