It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Four kids, two adults shot dead near Houston

page: 15
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 08:03 PM
Am I missing something here?

How does murder equate with "law abiding gun owner"? Murder, with a gun, hammer, knife etc... is against the law, last time I checked. Does the OP really believe that someone who will murder, given the penalties of doing so... would be stopped by gun laws?

I most have missed the memo where gun ownership = murderous rampage.

I can not help but wonder if anti-gun ownership folks have such a lousy handle on their OWN rage, that they just presume everyone else must be afraid of their OWN personal rage as well.

One thing is clear... I hope these gun grabber types never own guns... they clearly are frightened by their own lack of impulse control!

a reply to: HauntWok

posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 08:08 PM
a reply to: dasman888

Yeah you missed a lot.

Like the fact that most of these mass shootings are carried out by people who legally own the guns they use, and that in many cases they are mentally ill.

posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 08:26 PM
a reply to: HauntWok

This guy could have killed his family with poison, or smothering them.

We can't regulate, nor stop crimes stemming from mental illness.

The gun just happen to be the tool of choice and your OP is baiting people to argue guns.

posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 08:35 PM

Enough with the rancor and personal insults!

Understand that this is a charged topic. This is also a discussion forum; further insults or personal jibes will be actioned.

Thank you, carry on, have fun, but please be civil.

(post by wyrmboy12 removed for a manners violation)

posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 10:11 PM
I dont know who is more dangerous, the guy that kills his family...

...or the guy that created this twisted thread.
edit on 3412x6734America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago7 by six67seven because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 10:44 PM
Dear mod,

It could have been an intelligent discourse discussion if it were not for the provocative insults from one or two members that you allowed to post here.

I am all for the exchange of ideas regarding finding a way to reduce the murder rate in this nation, but when I am viciously attacked by non American citizens telling me that they advocate the removal of the "Bill of Rights" from our U.S. Constitution, I draw the line there.

My father side of the family came to VA. in the mid 1600's long before it was the USA, and he served in the US Navy during ww2 and had seen many of his shipmates blown to bits.

My mother served in the Army air corps as a way to preserve, protect , and defend our freedom of speech, but not to extend that right to a foreign national ragging about the US way of life.

Because of your allowing this to become a pissing contest where some foreigner is allowed to piss on our flag, I am out of this pigpen.

posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 12:03 AM
This is the most funny thread in years. Bravo kind troll, you spread truth by saying the most extreme opposite.

posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 12:32 AM
a reply to: HauntWok

trolling, and political baiting at their finest....don't you have anything better to do?

posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 12:52 AM
a reply to: Realtruth

We sure as hell can try and make sure people with mental illness don't have access to guns.

In this case 6 people died, if he didn't have a gun, the probability is much higher that more of the children would have survived at least.

posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 12:59 AM

originally posted by: Chiftel
You are perfectly correct, Spirited.

What is needed is not another law. It's a simple, sweeping ban + confiscation of all firearms.

And a simple change in the penal code such that if you are in possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony or you're an accomplice or accessory to someone who is, you get the chair, squad, noose or injection, whatever the actual felony.

This is the flawed logic I just dont get

Make law againt guns so people dont get killed

Kill all the people who break the law

Isnt that just yanother killing ?

Is it ok because it is state sanctioned?

How does anyone justify killing people in order to stop the killing?

posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 02:08 AM
a reply to: Another_Nut

it's more of this idiotic "the state knows best" drivel...

the mindless notion that the state is the supreme power in our lives, and has the right to dictate to us the terms by which we live...

why only such a wise institution should have the authority to decide who lives, and who dies....surely, you can understand this....

wicked is he who believes lowly citizens should shoulder any kind of responsibility, and even wickeder still, he who would suggest the notion of free thought...

no....the state knows best, may they forever remain wise, and all-powerful, so they might continue to use us as they see fit, on the chessboard of life..

posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 04:55 AM
a reply to: Daedalus

Might I ask if you have any relevant input to add into this thread or are we to surmise that at this point, you yourself are indeed trolling, evidenced by the fact you have already previously replied to the original post?

What, i am looking for here is realistic solutions from the pro gun crowd to solve the epidemic of mass shootings in this country, most of which are committed by people in lawful possession of a legally purchased firearm.

We can no longer accept the apathy from the pro gun crowd of "we can't stop or reduce mass shootings, don't try."

I've come up with a couple ideas that might reduce the frequency of these events, without having to ban a single gun. Can you come up with any that aren't "enforce the laws we already have" because obviously those don't and aren't working.

Anything? There are no bad ideas here.

posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 05:53 AM
I've seen you say many times that we should have Mental Health screenings to buy a weapon. I'd say slippery slope since mistrust of government is already making its way into that area. But for the sake of discussion I'll say lets ignore the fact that the government might use this power for evil.

Now, how do you plan on screening for mentally ill people? Will every gun store have a shrink onsite to do the screening or will everyone need to apply with the state and be screened for a weapons license? Or do we rely solely on Doctors offices to report those that they diagnose?

I'll tell you right now that most of our mentally ill citizens aren't even seeing a doctor so that won't work, not to mention the fact that if you mandate that doctors report information lots of people will just decide not to go.

As for the state or the stores doing the screening, all I can do is laugh at that. Most crazy people, at least the ones that are going to plan to kill someone and then go purchase a gun to do so are more than capable of passing any sort of test you can muster up. Psychopaths only get diagnosed as such if they go to a doctor willingly and are actually honest with the doctor. And a psychotic break cannot be predicted, and can happen to anyone if the situation is right for your personality.

Most mentally ill people don't stand out like a sore thumb, and I question our ability to screen for them unless they want to be found.

posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 06:04 AM
a reply to: HauntWok

I could care less about comparing Hungary, Romania or timbuck too to America.

Compare the constitutions of the countries as well.

The Hungary/Romania that surrendered all privately held
weapons to the communist government leaders in 1939
which resulted in 2.5 million of their countrymen being
killed, which so depleted the intellectual gene pool that
what remains is little less than oatmeal?

That comparison?

posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 06:04 AM
a reply to: XTexan

I was was thinking an independent agency.
Something connected to the county of the state and not the federal government. For the purpose of buying a gun.

But yes, those reports would go to the feds. Sorry, but mentally ill people should not have access to firearms.

It's an idea, I'm not seeing the pro gun crowd coming up with anything.

posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 06:07 AM

originally posted by: Chiftel
Indeed. And only gunshot murders we've had are police or military personnel (invariably male) killing their spouses and girlfriends (I think there have been 3 or 4 such shootings in the last 25 years). But even these are rarer than hen's teeth.

Cause gun control actually works.

If it's not done half-arsedly, as if to purposely fail.

Oh, wait. I actually lied. There was this one guy that used his hunting shotgun to murder his wife's (a former model) lover but got away scot-free cause it was ruled self defence.

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.

I do not care. your country's pusillanimous history with guns speaks for itself.
just wait, armed American testosterone filled males will be over there for a
third time to pull Europeans bacon out of the fire.

posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 06:11 AM

originally posted by: HauntWok
a reply to: XTexan

I was was thinking an independent agency.
Something connected to the county of the state and not the federal government. For the purpose of buying a gun.

But yes, those reports would go to the feds. Sorry, but mentally ill people should not have access to firearms.

It's an idea, I'm not seeing the pro gun crowd coming up with anything.

On the surface and in writing it looks good. I don't have a problem with the idea of keeping firearms away from mentally unstable people. Just like I have no problem keeping them away from felons (I do have some issues with this, but thats another day and thread). But like I said, how do you enforce it? What mental illnesses are covered? How do you deal with the fact that no true psychopath will ever fail that test unless he/she wants to? How would this idea have prevented the incident in Houston?

edit on 14-7-2014 by XTexan because: add a question

posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 06:16 AM

originally posted by: HauntWok
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.

the second amendment of the bill of rights cannot be repealed.
Study the preamble to the bill of rights, with a dictionary open in your lap.

The 2A is just listed as an inalienable right. Most of the founding Fathers were at least Deists.
Study that philosophy to understand the thinking that went into the bill of rights.

posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 06:21 AM

originally posted by: GokuVsSuperman0
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?

you cannot read very well.
there are laws on the books now that if they were enforced,
would reduce a lot of illegal activity, including deaths, via guns.

new topics

top topics

<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in