We need some big fucking guns

Forbrydelse og straf, Multikultur, Sverigetanic — Drokles on May 20, 2013 at 2:05 pm

Snaphanen kan man se fremtidens samfund, hvor politiet ikke kan beskytte sig selv endsige borgerne mod orkerne’s rasen. Hvis ikke politiet kan opretholde deres monopol på vold må, nej skal, borgerne have ret til at forsvare sig selv. Marko Kloos leverer et glimerende forsvar for privates adgang til skydevåben

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone.

Et herligt eksempel kunne man se i Barcelona

Barcelona, 2. März, morgens um 6 Uhr 22: Ein spanischer Geschäftsmann schließt sein Geschäft ab, setzt sich in sein Auto und möchte zum Frühstücken fahren. Ein Marokkaner, der ihn vom Straßeneck beobachtet hat, stürmt heran, hält ihm die Pistole durch das geöffnete Wagenfenster vors Gesicht und will ihn offensichtlich ausrauben. Sein Pech: Der Spanier hat einen Waffenschein, eine gute Reaktion, ist geistesgegenwärtig, schnell und hat keine Bedenken, sich zu wehren. Seht, was dann passiert..

1 Kommentar »

  1. Hej
    Lige på kornet argumentation for våben i en verden der nærmer sig anarki. Orkestreret… afgjort. Se i øvrigt “agenda: grinding us down”.

    Comment by Fairness — May 25, 2013 @ 10:29 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Kommentér indlægget...

Monokultur kører på WordPress