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: 7
20
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 05:26 PM
link   
a reply to: macman

Ever wonder why I have never included a list of guns I want banned? Its because I don't want ANY guns banned.

I just want to keep guns out of the hands of the irresponsible, the dangerous, and the crazy.

Stop assuming, you look like an ass.




posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 10:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: HauntWok
a reply to: macman

Ever wonder why I have never included a list of guns I want banned? Its because I don't want ANY guns banned.

I just want to keep guns out of the hands of the irresponsible, the dangerous, and the crazy.

Stop assuming, you look like an ass.


Good! then we may agree on that as I also want the same...

Criminals and crazies should not have access to tools that could hurt others.

Now, How is the best way to accomplish that goal without "Infringing" on the God given rights of honest hard working Americans?

Let us work on a realistic plan of action...



posted on Jul, 12 2014 @ 07:46 AM
link   
a reply to: HauntWok

You did not answer my questions:


originally posted by: HauntWok
It's a more stringent application process for those gun purchases.


This is too vague. What does 'more stringent' mean specifically and how do you propose to implement and enforce it?


It's for closing loopholes in the current gun laws, it's for harsher penalties for those that abuse their right to bear arms.


Which loopholes? Also, I am for the maximum penalty for any commission of a crime with a firearm.



posted on Jul, 12 2014 @ 09:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: HauntWok

Ever wonder why I have never included a list of guns I want banned? Its because I don't want ANY guns banned.

You were the one that stated this Gem


They do have a solution. No, it's not a complete ban on guns. (I don't know why you all assume that I'm for a complete gun ban) It's a more stringent application process for those gun purchases.


You stated you were not for a complete gun ban



originally posted by: HauntWok
I just want to keep guns out of the hands of the irresponsible, the dangerous, and the crazy.

And I bet you get to define who those are.


originally posted by: HauntWok
Stop assuming, you look like an ass.

Rather look like one, then type something like the above, and prove to everyone that I am.


Your abilities in this thing called debate are not good.
You need to practice.

You constantly omit things to try to solidify your base.
You constantly state one thing, like "Not for a complete gun ban", only to turn around and state you are not for banning guns.

Dude, maybe take up another hobby. Possibly stamp collecting?


I double dog dare you to actually address, point by point, anything that I have stated.

Bet you won't though.



posted on Jul, 12 2014 @ 09:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: HauntWok
a reply to: thisguyrighthere

Hey, i got one, how about not giving crazy people guns? Might help.

but, hey, tell the 15 year old girl that survived her family getting wiped out that guns are great and awesome and how the man was completely within his god given right.


He was insane. Crazy.
Not within his God given rights.

There already is a law that prevents insane,
alcohol and drug addicts from owning or purchasing a weapon.

An hysterical overreaction to a tragedy like this, focusing on legal law abiding weapons owners is not a rational answer.



posted on Jul, 12 2014 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Ok, before I begin, let me start by stating I do not want to ban guns (for some reason I have to repeat this over and over again because some of our membership has no idea how to properly read, and for some reason are making assumptions thereby making themselves look like an ass.)

I'll probably have to repeat this over and over again throughout threads like these so that these people get the freaking idea.

Now, may I continue with people who want to actually talk about this issue instead of trying to get an emotional reaction?

 



This is too vague. What does 'more stringent' mean specifically and how do you propose to implement and enforce it?


Ok, that's a fair question, what does more stringent mean to me?

One argument that the pro gun crowd often uses is that people kill people with cars, but they don't ban cars. Let's go with this shall we?

Do you know what they do require of drivers? Licenses, and insurance. This doesn't prevent anyone from actually purchasing a vehicle, or driving one if those simple criteria are met. It's also well within the purview of the Militia Clause and the 2nd Amendment as Congress does have the authority to regulate the Militia. (read: gun owners)

So, how about this? Why do we, the tax paying public have to foot the cost for some gun nut going crazy and blowing the hell out of a shopping center, or school, or other public place? I say we make "law abiding gun owners"
carry insurance that would cover the costs associated with these tragedies.

You have a gun, or hell, a personal arsenal of guns, you carry an insurance policy. It in no way prevents you from having or buying any gun you so wish, but it covers the public if and when these kinds of things do occur.

You don't have insurance? You don't get to have your gun until you do. Pretty easy peazy.


Which loopholes?


Let's start with the gun show loophole and the online sales loophole:


After Columbine, Colorado closed its “gun-show loophole,” but efforts to close the loophole on the national level failed. The National Rifle Association and other anti-gun-control groups worked diligently to defend the loophole—misnamed, because while loophole suggests a small opening not easily negotiated, about 40 percent of all legal gun sales take place at gun shows, on the Internet, or through more-informal sales between private sellers and buyers, where buyers are not subject to federal background checks. Though anti-loophole legislation passed the U.S. Senate, it was defeated in the House of Representatives. On top of that, the 1994 ban on sales of certain types of semiautomatic weapons, known as the assault-weapons ban, expired in 2004 and was not reauthorized.


www.theatlantic.com...

(yes, I realize it's an article outlining the need for more guns, the amount of guns on the street aren't my concern, it's the people behind the guns that cause the violence.)

There is no need to have an assault weapons ban. There is no need to have any sort of ban at all on any firearm. It's the gun owner that has to be controlled, not the firearm itself. There are plenty of people who own firearms that don't foam at the mouth and go into full on rage hate every time someone whispers the words gun control

But, the point of all of this is that we do need regulations on who gets to own a gun in this country, the police get lots of funding through anti terrorism grants. That's where the enforcement money needs to come from.

Do you think that this guy if guilty:



Should have had access to firearms? Maybe a psychological profile could have pointed out that this guy was off his rocker before he legally purchased the gun he used to kill 4 children and 2 adults.

Make it a part of the background check, and maybe this sort of thing would happen less often in the future.

I don't agree with people who say that there is nothing we can do to prevent these kinds of mass shootings in this country. We can. We should. And to those people who say we can't and don't even try I say that you aren't thinking enough.

Crazy people shouldn't have firearms.


edit on 12-7-2014 by HauntWok because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2014 @ 11:59 AM
link   
a reply to: HauntWok
Who is crazy?
what is the line here?
How will regulating firearms more stringently fix it?



posted on Jul, 12 2014 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: HauntWok
One argument that the pro gun crowd often uses is that people kill people with cars, but they don't ban cars. Let's go with this shall we?
Do you know what they do require of drivers? Licenses, and insurance.

...So, how about this? Why do we, the tax paying public have to foot the cost for some gun nut going crazy and blowing the hell out of a shopping center, or school, or other public place? I say we make "law abiding gun owners"
carry insurance that would cover the costs associated with these tragedies.


The critical flaw in this analogy is that driving is a privilege, firearms ownership is a right. Additionally, requiring anyone to purchase a product to exercise a right is akin to when the poll tax was instituted to disenfranchise newly freed slaves from voting who could not afford to pay the tax.

If one person cannot own a weapon due to the prohibitive cost of insurance then it is wholly unacceptable.


Let's start with the gun show loophole and the online sales loophole:


I cannot speak to this piece as well as some other posters as my state is different. In New Jersey you must first submit to a background check and are then given a firearms identification card which is good for long guns and ammunition. I need to file a separate form every time I want to purchase a handgun. If I want to purchase a gun from a gun show I have already gone through numerous checks and frankly do not feel I need to go through another.


Crazy people shouldn't have firearms.


I agree. But who gets to determine who and what is 'crazy'? And who is to say that someone will not try to disenfranchise you by claiming you are 'crazy' when you are not?



edit on 12-7-2014 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer



posted on Jul, 12 2014 @ 12:08 PM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7

Wow, really?

Did you bother to read the post?

I thought it was pretty self evident.

It's not going to help anyone if you are going to be deliberately obtuse.



posted on Jul, 12 2014 @ 12:09 PM
link   
Oops double post, don't shoot me lol.
edit on 12-7-2014 by HauntWok because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2014 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I don't think the cost is that prohibitive. It's merely covering the cost of enforcing existing gun laws and to help offset the cost to the taxpayer of these horrific events.

I don't see anywhere in the constitution or the second amendment where the public has to pick up the cost of these tragedies carried out by the Militia.

Insurance would defer that cost among the Militia, thereby making it reasonable.



posted on Jul, 12 2014 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: HauntWok
One of us apparently is just so,lets break it down here.
I have PTSD from seeing death and I am pemanently pissed off as a result of perceived neglect.
what is THE DECIDING measure EXACTLY requiring me to disarm? Define the state where we can claerly say before the fact THIS IS SO.
You have anything?



posted on Jul, 12 2014 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: HauntWok

every weapon sold at a gun show must have an instant background check.
and form 4473
online internet sales are the same way. since only firearms
can be sold state to state via a dealer, the form 4473 is filled out.



posted on Jul, 12 2014 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7

That would have to be on a person by person basis. I personally am not qualified to make that decision, but a licenced psychologist would be.

Then there's history of the person, you said you're angry frequently, but do you lash out violently? Have you been arrested for violent behavior?

You just can't broad brush these things. It would have to be individual.

Like i said, I'm not qualified to make that distinction. But a professional would be.



posted on Jul, 12 2014 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: HauntWok

"Crazy people shouldnt have firearms"

You sir are the most crazed poster on this thread



posted on Jul, 12 2014 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Another_Nut
a reply to: HauntWok

"Crazy people shouldnt have firearms"

You sir are the most crazed poster on this thread



Amen!



posted on Jul, 12 2014 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: HauntWok

And how exactly do you propose to deal with people that pass your check by professionals, but later develop mental problems?



posted on Jul, 12 2014 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: HauntWok
No to all,I save it up for someone who really deserves it. Then why are you advocating like this? MENTAL illness is the root but we REALLY haven't got a system to find that out. the "CRAZY" stigmata guarantees THAT (If you want to make a living that is.)
So instead of arguing about our nasty black guns and 30 rd mags we aren't your problem.



posted on Jul, 12 2014 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

It's not like someone is going to pass the test then BAM! go nuts.

Obviously there is the possibility that someone is going to go crazy after passing.

Hopefully an intervening incident would occur prior to the killing spree, probably happens more often than is reported.



posted on Jul, 12 2014 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: HauntWok

And how exactly do you propose to deal with people that pass your check by professionals, but later develop mental problems?


That's a easy one to answer...

If they go nuts and pull a gun inappropriately on the person with a CCW...THEY DIE!

Problem is solved if more non-crazies would get the permit and carry their gun.

There are not that many crazies out there as there are non crazies... Unless you have such a negative view of humanity?

Let us also face the fact that the criminally insane will never be stopped by any gun restriction laws, only the honest victims tend to obey the laws, and they are paying the price with their lives as we speak.

Laws that disarm people only serve to make is easier for the assailant and hurt the innocent helpless people.

The criminal will not obey the law! They are CRIMINALS!



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join