Previous Post
Next Post

“I’ll never understand how watching unarmed people get shot is supposed to make me not want a gun.” – TTAG Commentator the ruester

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. You’re supposed to pretend that reality doesn’t exist. You’re supposed to pretend if we use a piece of paper to ban an object, people will stop doing bad things like murder.

  2. I would change it slightly to,

    I’ll never understand how watching violent criminals attack unarmed people is supposed to make me not want a gun.

    To me, it doesn’t matter whether the violent criminal attacker has a firearm. Even without a firearm, they have the advantages of surprise, tactics, location … and almost always youth, strength, speed, numbers, and alternate weapons.

    • Or does it? Maybe it’s crystal clear to our elected representatives and what they reject are the implications.

      Suppose all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, including RKBA, and that governments are instituted among men to secure these rights.

      Allowing people then armed self-defense would be an admission that government cannot secure all of our rights for us and that government is not our provider, master and benevolent(ish) dictator. These are, even in 2015 America, outlandish ideas and far from self-evident truths for vast swaths of our population. The last thing our overlords want is to introduce powerful physical reminders of the truth.

      Rather, they want to keep the sheep forever afraid and ever in need of government guidance and protection. To do that they must fabricate threats and eventuate our weaknesses. Keeping people disarmed and incapable leaves them vulnerable and malleable across all aspects of society. It sets the government up as our permanent guardian against all ills, not just physical threats.

      Fostering firearm freedom, on the other hand, reverses that decades long trend toward dependence, which is exactly the opposite of the government’s interests.

  3. Many people don’t think they can fight back. They see evil or violence and assume there’s nothing they can do. For them, the solution is not to get empowered, but to neutralize the evil. They may know it’s an impossible task, but in their minds, the alternative is too terrible to consider.

    • And if they’re unarmed, they may be right. If you don’t have a weapon and someone who is younger, faster, stronger, and more skilled at fighting than you attacks you, what can you do apart from sustain some defensive wounds? That’s why guns are such great equalizers!

    • The biggest part of this problem is an issue my wife and I have been discussing at length lately…

      Our society doesn’t understand the importance of appropriate violence. Violence is bad, it’s scary, and “good” people abhor it. The reality is that violence is an inevitable part of life. The important distinction we need to teach our kids is the difference between righteous violence and criminal violence.

      • I’m with you Matt, and I would further define the term. “Violence” is what evil people use to try to get what they want. The righteous use of force in defense against such evil is not violence.

        • Unfortunately Curtis, you’re wrong.

          Violence IS violence, full stop. Trying to reclassify it is slipping into the “violence is inherently bad” trap. I don’t see this as a hair to be split. This, like many others, is a term that is being redefined and it has worked. We have a society consisting almost entirely of pantywaists to prove how effective the campaign has been.

        • We already have a word for that — “coercion”, though it covers non-violent means as well.

          Coercion is wrong, because it presumes ownership of others. They may rightly respond to coercion with violence.

        • It should be noted that coercion is often not violent, as in the case where people stage sit-ins and the like. They’re trespassing, they’re trying to get yout to cave in to their demands, but they aren’t being violent. No physicial assault.

          They *are* using force and violating your rights however.

  4. Agree and I like Uncommon-sense’s edit. We also need to keep reminding people that the police will not be there to stop the violence and that they have no legal obligation to even do that. That is a very poignant fact that often gets left out by the liberal press and that most people don’t think about until violence happens to them or someone they know.

  5. I still can’t understand the lack of personal responsibilty and not being able to defend one’s self at any given moment. I guess coming from farmer/rancher family in west Texas we had a different attitude. It was always engrained in me to take care of one’s self, family and friends at all cost.

    • As our nation has become more urbanized, we have become further removed from the idea of self-reliance. When you live in a city where the government provides the very water you drink, it’s not hard to adopt the mindset that the government should provide everything else.

  6. Eventually, everyone will come to the inescapable realization that the only way for a free people and a free society to defend itself, collectively and individually, is concealed carry.

  7. This has a racial component to it. Does as anyone want to talk about how black churches are more likely to not allow guns in their houses of worship? When I go back and check on this web site for comments when white churches were shot up, will I find people saying the opposite when a white church is involved?

    TTAG has already covered the issue of white churches having gun raffles. Progressives do not understand this. That’s because the godless do not know the history of churches with gun ranges in their basements.

    “Gun worshiper wins semiautomatic weapon at church raffle in upstate NY the New York Daily News”

    Jewish people are also having to deal with attacks on their houses of worship.

    “The wording of Georgia’s gun bill was amended so that concealed weapons were permitted in places of worship only if the institution had a specific policy allowing people to do so.

    The bill prompted many Georgia synagogues to post signs prohibiting weapons and to email congregants to remind them that the synagogue is a no-gun zone. “

    Why do Jews and black christians say no guns? Why do White christians say yes to guns?

    The mentally ill shooter at the Los Angles California jewish center (1999), Buford Furrow Jr, stated he avoided the more conservative jewish centers with armed guards posted at the front door, and went to the liberal reform jewish center with no posted armed guards and shot people there.

    Like other recent mentally ill shooters, Furrow was the under care of doctors and had been arrested by the police for a knife attack on his wife long before the shootings he committed. I believe he passed a background check.

    • Why do White christians say yes to guns?

      Do you mean White Christians like Biden, O’Malley, Malloy, Manchin, Toomey, McCarthy, Pelosi, Brady, Pope Francis, the Archdiocese of every American city, Elizabeth Warren, Sheldon Whitehouse, Chris Murphy, Durbin, Gillibrand, Pat Leahy, Markey, Menendez, Mikulski, Jack Reed and Dingy Harry Reid?

      Do not delude yourself.

      • Please do not delude yourself. The bible belt is where civil rights are growing and being protected. In the progressive west and northeast civil rights and freedom are going away.

        Seattle, San Francisco, Portland, Denver, New York City, etc, etc. Oh ya you have freedom to get intoxicated on Marijuana, crystal meth, or perhaps just plain beer.

        In the great progressive homosexual power city of San Francisco millions of citizens have access to hundreds of sex toy stores. And only one heavily regulated by strict local law gun store since 1950. All the others were forced to close.

        Also I understand the homosexuals in San Francisco tell people what to do the their bedrooms when it comes to firearms storage. I thought progressive homosexuals wanted the government out of the bedroom?

  8. Fight or flight is as human as it gets. Survival and self preservation are considered normal and healthy. If my family was attacked, why would it be considered normal to not want to survive? For people like Giffords and others who have been attacked yet turn against survival methods (for everyone else) causes my brain to short circuit. Not only is it an abnormal reaction but irresponsible and oppressive to all others who choose in a normal behavior. The sick people are these.

  9. Could a bear convince themselves they are in fact sheep, unable to effectively defend themselves from a violent attack by another bear? Human beings, as the top predator of the food chain are the only natural born predator that could delude themselves into believing they are incapable of using violence in defense of self and others.

    Human beings might technically be more intelligent than animals. But they are much more prone to delusional and down right insane behavior than the so called “lower” species.

  10. Let’s consider what the government can do for us. In a number of court cases, municipal police forces have denied that they have any duty to protect people. The community yes, in the abstract, but not you as an individual. They have an obligation to photograph your corpse, and investigate the murder so far as evidence leads toward a conviction. The job of preventing your murder in the first place, falls squarely on your own shoulders. This is where the herd majority fail in their thinking. They think the police will do the job. They won’t.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here