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: 17
20
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: HauntWok

Really ?

Because I seem to remember soe mass stabbing In china

Maybe I was mistaken

But I wasnt




posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 10:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: HauntWok
You cannot kill as fast with a hammer or a knife as you can with a gun.

Not on the scale of a mass shooting.


What part are you not getting? Mass shootings are a tiny percentage of all homicides. You are fixated on the manner of death, not that people are being murdered.

This subject is guns, that's it. Deflect all you like, you are only doing so to not answer the question of what to do about people with mental illness who legally purchase firearms and then carry out a mass shooting.


Frankly, there is not much you can do about it. If a sociopath wants a gun they will get one.

You cannot ever carry out a mass shooting with a hammer.
You cannot carry out a mass shooting with a knife.


But you can stab multiple family members like the person in California did. Where is the outrage?

Is obvious you don't like my solutions, come up with one of your own that isn't "enforce the laws we already have". That plan doesn't work as obviously the man in the op was able to get a gun legally and had a serious mental health problem.


And the point is none of yours would work either.



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus


And the point is none of yours would work either.


Suggest one, just one that would reduce the frequency and severity of these mass shootings.

Not a copout "enforce the laws we already have" come up with your own idea to keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill people.



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 10:43 AM
link   
a reply to: HauntWok

well, now that you mention it...

it'd be real nice if the anti-gun crowd would back off, and stop perpetuating the myth of an "epidemic of mass shootings". you lot talk about "mass shootings", and "gun violence", and all that...

20 years ago, we called them murders...now you and your ilk want to try to make it sound like something new and dangerous that MUST be addressed, and combated with all possible haste, and measure....

it's hyperbolic doom porn..

perhaps i missed your list of grand ideas...i don't remember if i read the rest of this thread....all i saw was your usual "guns are bad" "ban guns because guns" drivel....the same kind of trolling and baiting you're all too well known for here.

i'm not trolling at all...i'm stating facts, and calling things as i see them..



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 10:45 AM
link   
a reply to: XTexan

i've heard this idea before as well, and my argument against it was that when you give the government the ability to define what constitutes mental illness, you give them the ability to label us ALL as ill...especially if it means they can disarm us..

besides, i believe a measure like this would come into direct conflict with the constitution.



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 10:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: HauntWok
Suggest one, just one that would reduce the frequency and severity of these mass shootings.
Not a copout "enforce the laws we already have" come up with your own idea to keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill people.


There is no effective or unintrusive way to keep someone from purchasing a firearm and then developing a mental illness unless you think the Pre-Crime Unit in Minority Report is an acceptable scenario.



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 10:49 AM
link   
a reply to: HauntWok

Show me where a law has stopped crime, then maybe we can start there.



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 10:54 AM
link   
a reply to: HauntWok

why do you feel it necessary to insult the intelligence of EVERYONE in the room, by using simpleton logic?

you prance around like you're the smartest one in the room saying "ooh, i don't see them coming up with anything...they must be completely ok with [insert wtfever here]"

you poo-poo anything anyone comes up with, invalidate all existing options, demand new options, beat people over the head with the fact that there are no new options, and then accuse people of things because they either disagree with you, or refuse to play your rigged game..

this, sir, is NOT how you debate...this is how you troll and bait.

nobody but psychopaths are ok with murder...murder is illegal...what would you suggest that would preserve every ounce of the people's freedom, while at the same time, dealing with this perceived problem of yours?

there is no "epidemic"...even FBI crime stats show that violence is on the decline, and has been for a while now...this "epidemic" of yours is nothing more than the media desperate for ratings, and the anti-gun crowd trying to manipulate public opinion, in order to scare them into supporting policies that are against their interests...



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 10:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Daedalus

You are trolling, i have repeatedly stated that i don't want to ban any guns. Once again, you look like an ass.

I've carefully explained my ideas that wouldn't involve banning a single gun or bullet.

I would like for you to look up this:

Saint Valentine's Day Massacre

And know you are wrong once again. These simply aren't just murders, they are a unique type of crime.



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 11:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: HauntWok
I would like for you to look up this:
Saint Valentine's Day Massacre
And know you are wrong once again. These simply aren't just murders, they are a unique type of crime.


What does that have to do with anything? That happened almost a hundred years ago and was perpetrated by criminals. Your 'preventative' solutions would not have prevented the Chicago mob from rubbing out rival gangsters.



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 11:02 AM
link   
a reply to: HauntWok

no, it's not a deflection, it's facts of life....you discount it, because it takes the focus off your obvious agenda...

more people are killed with knives, hammers, and pointed objects than guns...yet you still choose to focus on the lesser offender, because of your personal bias...

you don't like guns, you have no use for a gun, you see no need for a gun...you believe you are always correct....therefore, since you are always correct, and you see no use for guns, and don't like them, you believe everyone should see things as you do....since you're always correct..

it's not very good logic. and not a very good argument either..



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 11:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Another_Nut

no, you're not....there was also a large scale stabbing in an elementary school in japan....guy got a couple of teachers, and whole bunch of kids, before they stopped him...he did it pretty quick-like too....



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

not to mention that if someone is unable to get a gun because they're classed as ill in the head, they can ALWAYS acquire one from the black market...and this simple fact renders ANY law wok could come up with, completely worthless....



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 11:08 AM
link   
a reply to: HauntWok

Your ideas are fake in nature.
You want further infringement of a Right already defined, and already restricted and heavy in policy and red tape.

You want to infringe and burden a free US citizen that wishes to exercise a Right, with a "mental evaluation" before they can purchase a firearm. Maybe this would be the same "mental evaluation" that is performed for Law Enforcement??
The same that has brought us such wonderful police over the last 10 years.
So, a "mental eval" performed by a Govt sanctioned Doctor, or maybe we can get some more Govt paid contractors, like the ones working on the 0bamacare nightmare to ask questions and perform the eval.
And this sanctioned person will be asking Govt provided questions.
The same Govt that the 2nd was created to defend against.


Yeah, I see no conflict of interest at all.

Oh yeah. Plus that whole thing of gun violence on the decline. Not really seeing were the need for more infringement is needed.

edit on 14-7-2014 by macman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 11:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Daedalus
not to mention that if someone is unable to get a gun because they're classed as ill in the head, they can ALWAYS acquire one from the black market...and this simple fact renders ANY law wok could come up with, completely worthless....


Why would they do that? Illegal guns are illegal.



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 11:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Daedalus

O I know

I was hoping wok would get the "point"

But as yiu can see he has replied to none of my remarks

Because to abmit that I am right invalidates his claims

So he ignores

Im not surprised



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 11:13 AM
link   
a reply to: HauntWok

nope, not wrong, it's just straight up murder.....even your article refers to the valentine's day massacre as a murder...

and nope, not trolling....i don't play that game. your usual position is that we should do away with guns...maybe you haven't said it in THIS thread, but that doesn't mean i haven't seen you say it elsewhere..

it's NOT a unique kind of crime..it's just murder..



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 11:15 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

A poster said that 20 years ago this would just be labeled a murder, i corrected him with an example.

Further definition:

Our focus is on public mass shootings in which the motive appeared to be indiscriminate killing. We used the following criteria to identify cases:

The shooter took the lives of at least four people. An FBI crime classification report identifies an individual as a mass murderer—versus a spree killer or a serial killer—if he kills four or more people in a single incident (not including himself), typically in a single location.

The killings were carried out by a lone shooter. (Except in the case of the Columbine massacre and the Westside Middle School killings, which involved two shooters.)

The shootings occurred in a public place. (Except in the case of a party on private property in Crandon, Wisconsin, and another in Seattle, where crowds of strangers had gathered.) Crimes primarily related to gang activity, armed robbery, or domestic violence in homes are not included.

If the shooter died or was hurt from injuries sustained during the incident, he is included in the total victim count. (But we have excluded many cases in which there were three fatalities and the shooter also died, per the above FBI criterion.)

We included a handful of so-called "spree killings"—cases in which the killings occurred in more than one location over a short period of time, that fit the above criteria.


m.motherjones.com...



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

because criminals, by their very nature, don't give a fig about the law....lol i guess that's why new laws never help...



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: HauntWok

you corrected nothing...if anything, you made yourself look foolish.....

and mother jones is a worthless rag for idiots....it's not even a legit source for material for wiping my rear end....

do better.

so idiots come up with a new classification to make it sound like there's a new thing we hafta fight...kinda like after commies weren't scary enough, we needed a new enemy, so here comes the terrorists....

20 years ago, fat people were fat people....they were fat because they ate too much, and didn't get off their asses...

now they're "obese", and it's certain foods that are doing it, and it's an epidemic....so now we can't have big sodas, or big fries, and everyone's up our asses with "OMFG, CARBS!!!!"

no thanks....redefining something, to scare stupid people into thinking your way doesn't make it a real thing...
edit on 7-14-2014 by Daedalus because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join