It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Four kids, two adults shot dead near Houston

page: 13
20
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 04:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Chiftel


So yeah. Less guns = less shootings and less shooting deaths.

Practically no guns = practically no shootings and no shooting deaths.

More guns = more usage of guns. Not just against game.


crimepreventionresearchcenter.org...

Wrong

try again?




posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 04:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Chiftel
Practically no guns = practically no shootings and no shooting deaths.


Has this eliminated all homicides and criminals possessing firearms?



posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: macman

FAIL.

You can't compare states with stricter gun laws to states with less strict gun laws within the same country or even to the national average.

You have to compare national average of the US with the national average of Japan, for instance. Or France, Germany, Australia...

For the comparison to be relevant.

Because you can simply smuggle your gun over the state boundary with basically no hassle. So gun control in one state is basically meaningless and pointless if the bordering/surrounding states don't give a #.

Whereas you cannot smuggle guns into Japan.

Also, nothing short of actual confiscation of all firearms works.

Anything short of that is destined (and very likely meant) to fail.
edit on C0406f31America/ChicagoSunday by Chiftel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 04:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Chiftel

Title 10 USC 311

You and Hauntwork are wrong with every turn.

Seriously. You need to do some research before you pretend to know what something means.



posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 04:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Chiftel
Practically no guns = practically no shootings and no shooting deaths.


Has this eliminated all homicides and criminals possessing firearms?


A criminal is far less likely to possess a firearm here than over there. We also have a lower 'intentional homicide rate' than you, according to Wikipedia (1.7 rather than 4.8 per 100.000 people):

en.wikipedia.org...

If you can find / want to look for more reputable sources and studies, go ahead.

Eliminated 'all'?

No, of course not. Has surgery eliminated all deaths? Has the NTSB eliminated all aircraft accidents and crashes? Has science solved all questions and answered all unknowns? Has the justice system cured crime?
edit on C0413f31America/ChicagoSunday by Chiftel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 04:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Chiftel
a reply to: macman

FAIL.

You can't compare states with stricter gun laws to states with less strict gun laws within the same country or even to the national average.

You have to compare national average of the US with the national average of Japan, for instance. Or France, Germany, Australia...

For the comparison to be relevant.

Because you can simply smuggle your gun over the state boundary with basically no hassle. So gun control in one state is basically meaningless and pointless if the bordering/surrounding states don't give a #.

Whereas you cannot smuggle guns into Japan.

Also, nothing short of actual confiscation of all firearms works.

Anything short of that is destined (and very likely meant) to fail.


Wait wait wait.

So, you get to tell me, you being a foreigner, how to count something, or show statistics within MY country?? On a topic that you have shown to have little to know knowledge of?
You have got to be kidding me.

Funny, as you don't seem to have had enough time to consume what I presented.

And since when does the US have to compare stats to other countries???

Honestly.. you must have a tremendous view from high atop that horse you are sitting on.



posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 04:13 PM
link   
a reply to: macman

Just keep in mind the 2nd can be repealed. All it takes is two thirds of the states to ratify a new amendment and legal guns go bye bye.

Want to be the mighty oak? Or the flexible willow?

The precedent is already there with the ACA, insurance is a much smaller pill to swallow than an outright ban.

Personally I'd much rather responsible gun owners keep their guns, and keep those guns out of the hands of the insane. But if gun rights activists can't work to solve this problem in a reasonable way, the ban will come.



posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 04:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Chiftel
We also have a lower 'intentional homicide rate' than you, according to Wikipedia (1.7 rather than 4.8 per 100.000 people):

en.wikipedia.org...

If you can find / want to look for more reputable sources and studies, go ahead.


So, people still get murdered even though homicide is illegal? It would appear you are more concerned about the manner of death then the fact someone is killed.

When you can simultaneously prove that murder can reduced to 0.00 and the same percentage that a government will become tyrannical I will consider not owning a gun.
edit on 13-7-2014 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer



posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 04:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: HauntWok
a reply to: macman
But if gun rights activists can't work to solve this problem in a reasonable way, the ban will come.


No it won't. There is no way a ban will come.

Maybe if ten Port Arthurs happen AT ONCE. Even then it's iffy.

Only thing that's going to change this is time and demographics.


originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Chiftel
We also have a lower 'intentional homicide rate' than you, according to Wikipedia (1.7 rather than 4.8 per 100.000 people):

en.wikipedia.org...

If you can find / want to look for more reputable sources and studies, go ahead.


So people, still get murdered even though homicide is illegal? It would appear you are more concerned about the manner of death then the fact someone is killed.


Yes, I do want killing to be tougher, to be as tough as possible. Not easier, not as easy as simply pulling a trigger such that a little kid could murder his dad in his sleep:



Why would you people want killing to be easier if you actually gave a tinker's damn about safety and right to life, like you claim?


When you can simultaneously prove that murder can reduced to 0.00 and the same percentage that a government will become tyrannical I will consider not owning a gun.


This argument is flawed. Any improvement is simply better. Though we know there is no panacea, that doesn't mean we don't continually strive for improvement.

Imagine if nobody would have tried to improve the human condition because they knew they could never attain perfection?

Imagine no one bothered to invent the wheel cause... hell. It wouldn't be perfectly round. And you'd still have friction against the spindle and stuff.

Your government has long been tyrannical. What have you done about it? Nothing. All talk.

It's the New Evil Empire, basically. Like, everyone knows it. We just don't bring it up in polite company, cause we don't want to embarrass our American friends or colleagues.
edit on C0422f31America/ChicagoSunday by Chiftel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 04:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: HauntWok
Just keep in mind the 2nd can be repealed. All it takes is two thirds of the states to ratify a new amendment and legal guns go bye bye.
...

The precedent is already there with the ACA, insurance is a much smaller pill to swallow than an outright ban.


Apples and Jell-O. One is a law originating in the Congress, the other is in the Bill of Rights.

Changing the latter requires a complex Constitutional Convention process and no one is even remotely in favor of changing the Constitution.



posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 04:20 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

a reply to: HauntWok

I really hope I'm misreading this..

You sound almost happy this happened so you can score some sort of creepy ass political points. Hope I'm wrong.

No gun law on Earth could have stopped this. Not even total confiscation, because not even you can guarantee that they'd have got those guns.

How would you, in your infinite wisdom, prevented this? I'd really like to now.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: HauntWok

Lol even just mentioning the pro-gun crowd gets all their panties in a twist. Australia has found a means of diminishing gun violence. Why is is that pro-gun supporters never offer an idea to stop all this gun violence, any idea at all would be fine. Instead they always profess that any change in gun policy will change nothing. Well then what will change it?



posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 04:34 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

a reply to: HauntWok




No one gives a # about gun violence on this board.

they obviously welcome it, embrace it, and celebrate it.


Oh, really, dude? Now you're just makin' stuff up.

No one in this thread has celebrated it. In this thread there are people attempting to use it to score some sort of sick political points.

[/mod extra DIV



posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 04:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: HauntWok
Just keep in mind the 2nd can be repealed. All it takes is two thirds of the states to ratify a new amendment and legal guns go bye bye.
...

The precedent is already there with the ACA, insurance is a much smaller pill to swallow than an outright ban.


Apples and Jell-O. One is a law originating in the Congress, the other is in the Bill of Rights.

Changing the latter requires a complex Constitutional Convention process and no one is even remotely in favor of changing the Constitution.


That's what I keep telling him. No serious gun control legislation will be enacted for the next 50 years, at least.



posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 05:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: GokuVsSuperman0
Australia has found a means of diminishing gun violence.


Oh, the violence only 'diminished'? So they traded their ability to own firearms for a diminishment of homicide, but guess what? They still have gun violence there.



posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 05:25 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull

Throughout this thread, i have pointed out some realistic ideas without involving banning a single gun that may have if not saved lives diminished the frequency of these things happening.

First would be a psychological test, performed by a impartial trained psychologist. The guns aren't the problem, its the crazies behind the gun.

In addition to a real background check, (any violent conviction no gun) this test may have kept the gun of of this guy's hand.

Second is mandatory insurance for firearms. Where in the constitution does it say that we the people have to pay for the mess created by gun nuts losing it and taking out a bunch of innocent people?

Most of these mass shootings were by people who obtained these guns legally.



posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 05:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: GokuVsSuperman0
Australia has found a means of diminishing gun violence.


Oh, the violence only 'diminished'? So they traded their ability to own firearms for a diminishment of homicide, but guess what? They still have gun violence there.


Again this silly argument that any improvement short of attaining perfection is pointless or even worse than the current situation.

Amazing.

Do you feel the same way about all improvements?



posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 05:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: HauntWok
Where in the constitution does it say that we the people have to pay for the mess created by gun nuts losing it and taking out a bunch of innocent people?


To be quite honest with you, your lack of understanding regarding the Constitution is appalling if you are actually a United States citizen. The Constitution enumerates our rights and the function of the government. It does not make specific law but provides a framework into which laws must operate.

The Constitution does not say the People have to pay for the mess created by drunk driving deaths (which number more then gun homicides) yet we do. Where is your outcry regarding this?



posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 05:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Chiftel
Again this silly argument that any improvement short of attaining perfection is pointless or even worse than the current situation.
Amazing.
Do you feel the same way about all improvements?


When it comes to abrogating my rights there is no compromise. I either have them or I do not.

The Founders understood this and that the Second Amendment was the prime mover in the continued sustainment of those rights. Their ability to comprehend that violent action against a tyrannical government, while not certain, needed to be preserved for the continuation of the People to enjoy their natural rights.



posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 05:36 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

It still doesn't prohibit it now does it?

I just don't think that the rest of us should have to pay for the mess that gun nuts create.

It's completely fair, have a gun? Have insurance. Simple.



new topics




 
20
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join