ordinary americans with guns

riots.jpg

During 1992 LA Riots, police and National Guard couldn’t protect everyone from mobs fo murderers, arsonists and looters.  Ordinary Americans with guns stopped the rampaging mobs, saving countless innocent lives.

  • Leave a comment ?

    36 Responses to ordinary americans with guns

    1. Not even five enforcement agencies can save their own, never mind *the people*. Tonite it’s raining on the Angels of the City. Did anyone prophesize these people? *Only Travis*

      Reply

    2. I really think they should have used someone more white for the “average american”

      Reply

    3. being an ‘average american’ has nothing to do with skin color.

      and it says ‘ordinary american’ anyway.

      Reply

    4. Oh Noes! We don’t want to work, and want to have everything handed to us, but blame whitey for out poverty. Let’s beat up some random white guy for doing this too us. Baby Daddy, Hoodrat, Poe-leese, Gimmie Gimmie Gimmie!

      Reply

    5. And it wasn’t a race riot, it was a LOSER riot. These people are losers. The guy that filmed the beating? White. That’s right, whitey isn’t as bad as you want to think we are. Now stop blaming us for all your fucking problems and get a fucking job!!!

      Reply

    6. ITT: Idiots who don’t know their history

      A lot of the blacks hispanics trashed the Korean business districts following the Rodney King and the liquor store incident. What did they do to protect their shops and stores when the militia weren’t there to protect them? The Koreans began stocking up on arms and ammunition and used that to fend off any intruders. Hence the reason why OP’s post has an asian instead of the typical redneck that many idiots like you expect.

      After that incident, I know many Koreans who resented blacks and hispanics for their racially targeted assaults. After all, the jury that acquitted the Rodney King beaters were all white and one asian. And what did the blacks do in retaliation?

      Reply

    7. Diabeetus: That was only one part of the problem. There was really a low simmer going for the past year or so. Rodney King was just the final bit of flame needed for a boil over.

      Reply

    8. Never trust a chinaman with a gun. Hes bound to shoot your dog and eat it eventually.

      Reply

    9. @Saphykitten.
      Wow, you make me sound tolerant.

      Reply

    10. This ad. makes me sick. Nothing about the racials, more that it states that guns makes you safer.

      Less guns everywhere makes you safer.

      Reply

    11. Less guns make you safer? Are you out of your mind?

      yeah, I’ll just kick the robber in teh ballz, he’ll understand and run away.

      Reply

    12. “Less guns everywhere makes you safer.”
      Which is why in the 31-years that guns were banned from Washington DC crime rates fell and it was the safest city in the country.

      Reply

      • My favourite tale of DC “safety” was the FBI internal memo that directed women members to go in pairs to the washrooms and announced see around corner mirrors throughout FBI HQ. Please provide link to substantiation for your premise.

        Reply

    13. @reboot
      And nothing of value was lost

      Reply

    14. and the Mayor was a shining beacon of morality and law abidingness.

      Reply

    15. @Corinth
      Whatever you’re smoking, I need some. Like right now.

      Reply

    16. And oddly enough, I’ve only ever been robbed in the States.

      Reply

    17. Well, I’ve lived here 24 years, and I’ve never been robbed, so you must look like a real pansy.

      Reply

    18. Wait, “stopping” people with guns doesn’t also mean killing “innocent” people?

      Reply

    19. Not if the “innocent” people are mobs bent on destroying, looting, stealing, attacking, etc. Then they are barely even human. Have you seen the footage of people stampeding at concerts, where they TRAMPLE another human being because their brain ceases to function? Plus, not every gunshot is fatal. Plus, in America, you have the right to defend yourself if you feel threatened, and meet force with force.

      Reply

    20. Well, let’s see. When my apartment complex was robbed, police estimated there were at least 6 armed robbers involved. Even if I was there, and armed, do you think I would have done some amazing Clint Eastwood thing and taken out all six? Sorry, homes, this isn’t the movies. When someone points a gun to your head, it doesn’t matter how manny guns you have under the counter.

      Course, I lived in the city. I guess most of these gun nuts live in all-cracker Gated Communities or else in Bruce-Springsteen hell towns where there ain’t no robbries cuz there ain’t nothin to rob. But when you’re in the city, blocks away from these animals, do you really want to be in a situation where any crackhead can get a gun from a friend with a clean slate for $50 or less?

      I’m not against guns. Out here in the mountains everyone has a hunting riffle, and I don’t care. But you start making it easy for people in the city to carry around handguns that can be hidden in a coat pocket, and you think that’s defence, you’re a fucking nutjob or, more likely, a very sheltered cracker who needs to get to know the world a bit.

      Reply

    21. “When my apartment complex was robbed, police estimated there were at least 6 armed robbers involved. Even if I was there, and armed, do you think I would have done some amazing Clint Eastwood thing and taken out all six?”
      Or you could evaluate the risk from the other side of the equation. If the robbers know that no one has guns, then six armed guys clearly have the upper hand and there is little to no risk. But if a significant percentage of the population is armed, then there is a 1/6 chance of getting their head blown off before they even know it. Even a crack head is going to think twice about that.
      Crime is a complicated, multi-variable function and gun ownership is just one small component. So until someone can empirically demonstrate that outlawing guns lowers crime rates, the best policy is to give law-abiding citizen the CHOICE to own a gun or not.

      Reply

    22. @Caio
      Unfortunately I also disagree with you. I think reboot has the right idea. Being armed is as much a deterrent as it is a defensive advantage.

      In the scenario you describe, if the first person to walk through the door were to get a round between the eyes, what do you think that would that do for the motivation of the other 5?

      And how much better are your odds in a more realistic scenarios, like confronting an opportunistic burglar? Or a mugger on the street? These happen waaaaay more often that the scenario you described, and having a weapon in those scenarios gives you a distinct advantage.

      Don’t you think people would think twice about mugging as a career option, if they knew there was a good chance they might get shot by the salty old lady they were trying to rob?

      I will concede that having a gun does not guarantee one’s defense, as one’s ability to use it when necessary requires just as much mental awareness and preparedness to do so as actual physical weapons training.

      However it makes no sense to prevent those who can use it from doing so, on account of those who can’t, or are too afraid to do so. The criminals don’t really care. Either way they’ll be able to get a weapon if they want one. No point in tilting the odds in their favor…

      Reply

    23. the most realistic scenario in a situation where 6 armed robbers enters your building and you draw a gun is that you die. I think you’d be more likely to survive if you werent armed. Also you could ask the question, is someone taking your stuff/money worth killing for?.

      I think that any safety you get by owning a gun is false safety, and that when its easy for everyone to get guns you just get a bad circle where more and more people feel they need guns. and soon they’re everywhere.

      But maybe im just naive, i live in a small rich country in europe where every adult can choose to buy a gun if they want to, but i dont know anyone owning anything else than hunting rifles and i’ve only seen hand guns when i was in the army.(mandatory military service of 12 months)

      In my country if people knew you owned a non hunting weapon people would think you were weird/dangerous.

      I know that the situation is not the same in America where guns are common, but i cant think that guns beeing common does anyone any good.

      If it were up to me the only ones allowed to own/carry non hunting weapons would be the police/military. And the punishment for owning a weapon would be so high that no one would dare to own one.

      Reply

    24. Some thoughts:
      .
      1) The robbers didn’t break through the door, they climbed up the fire escape. After sneaking into the garage somehow. They only hit the appartments where no one was home (most people weren’t: it was the middle of the day). According to people in the building who heard the glass shatter and an old lady accross the street watching, the whole thing lasted about fifteen minutes. If I was home and they walk in on me by accident, I probably would have been taken by surprise, but they would already have guns in their hand, not me.

      2) There are two kinds of break-and-enter-type robbers: Crackheads and pros. Crackheads have nothing to lose and none of their wits. Pros will have thought every possible situation out and are prepared for it. Your formulas might work in the lab, but there’s no accounting for desperation/expertese. Even if I had a gun in every room in the appartment, they would have the strategic advantage, and they would be more willing to shoot and likely more experience. Plus, they’d have guns in hand and I’d have guns in dresser. This isn’t Die Hard.
      .
      3) Physical altercations of any kind aren’t statistically even or measurable in terms of probability. Let me put this to you: If I walked into the middle of the highway, I’d have a 1/1 chance of getting hit by a car. If I walked over the pedestrian overpass, that chance would drop to nearly zero. Robbers prepare, and they are willing to take calculated risks, as are any people with little to loose. Most with enough money/comfort to have the net just don’t have the state of mind to understand that.
      .
      5) The cops told my father to his face that most break-ins in San Francisco don’t get solved. That’s probably a better indicator of probabilities than anything you guys just thought up sitting there.

      Reply

    25. 6 guys? were they having a rave in the middle of your apartment?

      Reply

    26. Ciao:
      What if you were home, but not armed, and got your ass shot, even if you didn’t have a gun, because they came armed for a reason? Then wouldn’t you at least want to take one with you?

      Also, just because you don’t know how to use a gun, or wouldn’t use one, doesn’t mean I don’t/won’t. Yes, my things are worth killing for, if you think they’re worth stealing. I worked hard to earn money to buy things for myself, some piece of shit isn’t going to just take them away from me without my strong protest.

      Reply

    27. so in a way your for punishing stealing with death?

      Reply

    28. *you’re

      And, yes. If it’s six armed people who have every intention of killing me for my property, yes, I have a right to defend my property, myself, and, if I were married or had children, to protect their lives.

      Reply

    29. @Corinth
      I’m sorry, but I’ve lived in too many places where violence was frequent, unpredictable and illogical, and I think your contention is based on a rather optimistic view of the average armed robber.
      That is not to say that any armed robber is automatically going to kill his victims, however the robber who has made the conscious decision to not kill or harm his victims will usually *not* bring a weapon along… Think about it.
      And to answer your question, *I* do not believe that any material possession is worth killing for, however *many* do, and others will kill to get them.
      I DO believe in killing (where necessary) in self defense, be it to save my life or the life of a loved one in defense against an aggressor, though if it can be avoided, I will usually take that option.
      But if I kill someone in that scenario, it will not be to punish death with death. It will be a last ditch effort to defend myself against an armed aggressor who gave me no other options.

      @Caio
      My opinion comes from experience, not a lab. Some robbers, of both the armed and unarmed variety, will flee if they hear a bullet whiz past their head. The more determined might shoot back. The ones on the fence might be persuaded to leave quietly or may panic and shoot.
      I think that is all besides the point. You cannot determine statistically what will happen in any specific scenario.
      What is for sure is that if they break in intending to do you harm right from the start, your chances of survival are better if you are armed than if you are not. If they are undecided about shooting you, a cool head will be more important than a weapon, but the weapon can still give you an edge.

      Dagnabbit Caio, your excessive writing syndrome is contagious… Quit it… 😛

      Reply

    Leave a Comment




    Advertisements Alcohol Animated Images Art Awesome Things Batman Cars Comic Books Computers Cosplay Cute As Hell Animals Dark Humor Donald Trump Fantasy - Science Fiction Fashion Food Forum Fodder Gaming Humor Interesting LOLcats Military Motorcycles Movie Posters Movies Music Nature NeSFW Politics Religion Sad :( Science! Sexy Space Sports Star Trek Star Wars Technology Television Vertical Wallpaper Wallpaper Weapons Women WTF X-Mas