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.

 

The Myth of the Good Guy With a Gun

page: 4
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 08:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: budski

Your links?

Citing sources?

Ah, no, it's just your opinion.

Smooth bore can be used to hunt quite well as a bow depending upon the range of the intended game you are hunting.

Next, you'll be claiming that bows were invented only to kill humans also.

Shaking my head here.

There has only been really one type of weapon invented by humans who's sole purpose was for killing other humans:

Long edged weapons (swords).

Ranged weapons have always been used for hunting: Spears, bows, and yes, guns.

You don't go out hunting elk using a sword.

In ancient times, many governments proclaimed that the commoner was not allowed to have a sword. A bow on the other hand was just fine.

A gun is a tool. And like any tool it can be abused or used in the wrong way.

I could kill someone with a plastic butter knife. I could easily do it with a toothbrush.

What really makes me shake my head is how concerned people are that Americans own guns.

There are MUCH bigger concerns in the world.



The links are plentiful. Even abundant.
But tell me why I should waste my time posting them in response to you when you haven't read the article, and instead just knee jerked with anecdotal evidence that means nothing?

If someone can't be bothered to read and digest the source material, then properly rebut it, I decline to waste my time providing any other links or evidence.

So, before you demand links and evidence, post your rebuttals to all the sources in the article which support my assertions, citing sources, data, stats etc




posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 08:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
a reply to: eriktheawful

I would say bombs fit in the category of just there to kill humans as well......ban bombs now!


Mmmmmm......yes and no.

Bombs made and used by the military: Yes.

Explosives used for excavating: No.

Again: A tool that can be abused or used as a weapon.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 08:58 AM
link   
In every "Guns Vs. No Guns" debate, I see a pattern of people. There is the group who vehemently defends their gun right, there are the people who are against Gun Ownership, and there are those who wish for some common sense measures to be put in place to make sure people own guns responsibly.

In order to understand the Gun issue in the United States, one must first understand the pervasive culture of guns and firearms in general in the U.S., as well as it's history. Without going into too much detail, the problem with strict gun control in the U.S. is that there are already hundreds of millions of firearms within the borders of the U.S. Some legal, some not. The problem of putting the U.S. in a UK like situation where gun ownership is severely restricted would cause two immediate problems. One: The legal gun owners would like pull a Charlton Heston and say "Git off mah lawn". Two: The illegal gun owners and weapons dealers would see this as a golden opportunity for either profit or robbery.

In order to impose UK-like restrictions on firearms in the US two things would need to happen. The first is removed all firearms from citizens, and the second is a strict isolationist policy the heavily restricts and inspects any and all imports to the US to ensure no gun smuggling is occuring. Even then, guns will find their way into the system, which will quickly be bought up by less than desirable types. The US is too large a landmass with too open borders to feasibly restrict gun imports, legal or not.

In order to restrict gun ownership in the U.S., it would take a ruthless dictator that is willing to kill countless millions of his own citizens in the process of disarming them, and then basically shut down the border.

So deeply is gun culture imbedded in the American people they will die to defend their way of life. And I don't blame them. Being a former American myself I fully support the United States' current firearm policy, though I do think some additional checks wouldn't hurt to keep guns out of crazy hands, or the untrained.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 08:59 AM
link   
a reply to: budski

I've always thought of the issue from the simplest perspective. The notion that guns, more guns or the availability of guns CREATES violence. I just don't think that is possible. If one is not violent then they won't perform a violent act, it really wouldn't matter what is accessible to them. A person who has the capacity to be violent, act violently or resort to violence does not need a gun or anything else to perform the act of violence.

The ability or willingness has to be present BEFORE a weapon is chosen, not the other way around.

Hence the reason I think that logically this is a dead argument, specifically the "guns CAUSE violence" angle.

Now, the propensity for a specific population or group of people to be prone to act violently would be a valid and probably more fruitful discussion. It just wouldn't be worth a squat at triggering peoples rash emotions or help anyone win an election.
edit on 12-2-2015 by MisterSpock because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 08:59 AM
link   
a reply to: stosh64

It is not up to me to fix, it's up to the gun owners, but they won't give...

I am not anti gun, just giving my thought on the pointless comparisons, that is used 100% of the time to derail the topic into other discussion ....
edit on 12-2-2015 by Mianeye because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 08:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Punisher75

originally posted by: budski

Of course the usual bullplop is about defending themself from a "Tyrannical" government, but the US has had various forms of tyranny for many years, and no one said jack.



Yea they call that responsible gun ownership.
You know, not shooting someone for every slight or wrong done to you?
You should be happy about that I would think.


Is it responsible ownership or simple hypocrisy?
More guns = more gun deaths.
It's really rather simple.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 08:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: budski

My own position is pretty clear.
More guns = more gun deaths, and the evidence to support that is also very clear.
However, you are right that (in the US) the debate needs perspective, instead the NRA and gun lobby rely on scare tactics, spurious evidence (hence the name of the thread) and talks about rights and freedoms.
Now I could accept the argument about rights and freedoms if so many hadn't already been taken away with nary a whisper from gun advocates.
Of course the usual bullplop is about defending themself from a "Tyrannical" government, but the US has had various forms of tyranny for many years, and no one said jack.
I'd hazard a guess that many of the "cold dead hands" advocates would surrender their weapons pretty quickly when faced with armed troops on their doorstep.
Gun ownership is a false dichotomy: it doesn't keep anyone safe, there is no "good guy with a gun", it is far more likely to be used in a domestic dispute, and it has little to no defensive value that is statistically significant.

The US governments over the years have done a very good job of keeping people frightened, because they are easier to control when in that state.



But the USA has and wants guns.... it's that simple.
All the facts and stats in the world wont change that.
They feel safe with their guns even though they're less safe with them.

It's like a religion... you wont argue against it with reasoned debate and logic, no amount of facts will change the opinions of those who your thread is targeting.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 09:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: budski

originally posted by: MisterSpock

originally posted by: Mianeye
And as soon as someone post "negative" things about guns, people starts comparing to other deadly things as a response.

Worst argument ever....


Move along, other deadly things exist... So end of discussion...

Even though those things are constantly updated to be more safe, like car crashes, where people survive for simple things as seatbelts, airbags, road safety like guardrails or speed limits, and traffic lights.

When it comes to guns...."Don't touch it, we are responsible gun owners"..."We don't need safety"..."Nothing ever happened where i live"...."Everyone should be allowed to own guns, because it's our right, according to 2'nd amendment"..

The problem as it stands now in the US, is unfixable, cause of stubbornness...

Oh, well...


I don't think those stats are meant to shut down the gun debate, just to put it in perspective. Which I think is something this debate sorely needs. It seems that most of the time those that are "anti-gun" seem to drastically overstate(or use sources that overstate) the severity of the situation.



Gun ownership is a false dichotomy: it doesn't keep anyone safe, there is no "good guy with a gun", it is far more likely to be used in a domestic dispute, and it has little to no defensive value that is statistically significant.




In a domestic dispute, ANY weapon is more likely to be used than none. If the intent to kill is there, it has been proven that murder will happen regardless of weapon available. It is the mindset of the individual...they will grab whatever available to get the deed done.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 09:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: budski

I am, however, well trained in the use of firearms.


In that training, did you ever handle a crazy gun, or were all the guns you trained with "good guns"? i ask because I have yet to witness any of these "crazy" guns I keep hearing about. You know, the ones you are worried about. The ones that kill indiscriminately.

I do admit that if there were no guns available, gun crime would be low. And perhaps murder rates would be lower too, as folks might not take the time to stab their neighbor the full 28 times required to finish him off. But we don't live in a world where guns are not available.

In your town, it may be hard to acquire one, but I assure you, if you wanted a handgun, you could get one from somewhere. And if you were a lunatic who really wanted to kill folks, we would possible be reading about you in tomorrows news. Luckily, you and lots of others in your town are not lunatics hell bent on killing people for the LOLS.

Some of us have guns because we like them. We like to shoot them. We like what they represent. But we have no desire to kill a person. If I could smash your head in with my LCD monitor, should all LCD monitor be banned? Or should I be jailed for killing you with a blunt object?

Enjoy where you live, you must like it there. I enjoy where I live, and I DO like it here.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 09:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: budski

originally posted by: Punisher75

originally posted by: budski

Of course the usual bullplop is about defending themself from a "Tyrannical" government, but the US has had various forms of tyranny for many years, and no one said jack.



Yea they call that responsible gun ownership.
You know, not shooting someone for every slight or wrong done to you?
You should be happy about that I would think.


Is it responsible ownership or simple hypocrisy?
More guns = more gun deaths.
It's really rather simple.



No its responsible ownership, just like I said.
Of course if you think that you should go around shooting people for altering the speed limit or some such I am glad you don't own a Gun.

Less Guns = More Stabbings its just that simple.
edit on 12-2-2015 by Punisher75 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 09:02 AM
link   
I am sure that the OP is sincere in his desire to disarm all law abiding citizens.

This raises the question as to what the underlying intent here is: preparing for the jack-booted thugs to take us all down? Very unlikely.

So, that pretty much leaves simple ignorance and misplaced idealism. They will will only learn by expressing themselves. These conversations will always be necessary and, frankly, we shouldn't jump on them just for not understanding.

How else can the truth be made known?

Just as our military defends all of us regardless of our personal opinion about it, so too does the armed public protect even the most vociferous opponent of individual rights.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 09:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: MisterSpock
a reply to: budski

I've always thought of the issue from the simplest perspective. The notion that guns, more guns or the availability of guns CREATES violence. I just don't think that is possible. If one is not violent then they won't perform a violent act, it really wouldn't matter what is accessible to them. A person who has the capacity to be violent, act violently or resort to violence does not need a gun or anything else to perform the act of violence.

The ability or willingness has to be present BEFORE a weapon is chosen, not the other way around.

Hence the reason I think that logically this is a dead argument, specifically the "guns CAUSE violence" angle.

Now, the propensity for a specific population or group of people to be prone to act violently would be a valid and probably more fruitful discussion. It just wouldn't be worth a squat at triggering peoples rash emotions or help anyone win an election.


I understand your point, but a person doesn't have to be inherently violent in order to be violent at a given moment in time.
People react to situations, and sometimes they lose control.
When that happens, anything is possible, but I would suggest that it is much easier to harm someone with a gun than with something else being used as a makeshift weapon.

The "responsible" gun ownership argument neglects a LOT of issues, indeed Veronica Dunnachie was something of a poster girl for gun advocates.
Until she murdered her family in a fit of rage...



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 09:06 AM
link   
a reply to: budski

Because you've already wasted your time.

As pointed out: this very tired, beaten dead horse argument about gun ownership has been presented here on ATS over and over and over and over and freaking OVER again here.

The results is always the same: We see a group who desire to control people on what they can or can not own, and another group who do not desire to have others tell them that.

We see people posting here trying so very hard to convince others that guns are BAD. BAD gun! BAD!

When it truth it has been shown here on ATS over and over and OVER again that: it's PEOPLE that are bad. Not the guns.

It's been shown over and over again that people in other countries outside of the US have a very strong opinion that US citizens should not have guns and that people in the US think that it's okay to have guns (legally).

It's a dead horse discussion on these boards. Everyone in this thread will go round and round. EVeryone has already made up their minds.

Personally I'm offended that people in the UK drink their beer warm. I think it should be cold! I think we should poke our noses in that and start making threads to pester the citizens of the UK that they need to stop drinking their beer warm darn it!

I'm sure I can find some statistics somewhere that will show why it's bad to drink warm beer......never mind that I don't live there. I'm going to really raise some cain about this!

You see? It's a very tired argument here on ATS.

Americans own guns, like guns, use guns, and unless someone tears up the US constitution, will continue to have guns.

I see WAY too many threads on here about how Americans keep sticking our noses where it does not belong.....

And yet here we go again: people from other countries insisting how we should do things here in the US.

The irony is killing me!



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 09:07 AM
link   
Total murders per year per 100,000 population.

US = 4.7
UK = 1.0

Total gun related deaths per year per 100,000 population.

US = 10.30
UK = 0.25

Total gun related murders per year per 100,000 population.

US = 2.83
UK = 0.04

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

The vast majority of people in the UK are quite happy with our gun control laws.
The vast majority of people in the US are quite happy with their gun control laws.
I really don't get this constant regurgitating the same old same old....but the FACTS do seem pretty conclusive on the face of things.

But I doubt very much if UK style gun control would work in the US - gun ownership is pretty much engrained in the American psyche and prohibition of something so established simply will not work.

But surely even the most staunch gun ownership advocate must recognise that something needs to be done - exactly what I don't know......and that's something for Americans, and Americans only, to work out.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 09:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
Why is it that there are so many anti-gun followers anyways? ?


I believe it is because for starts they follow the propaganda from their form of media.

Once they jump on the 'intellectual' band wagon, like the people who want to legislate what we can and cant eat or limit the size of our drinks, they enjoy the illusion of 'superiority' by condemning the knuckle dragging, gun clinging, uneducated troglodytes.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 09:09 AM
link   
Can someone tell me why they feel the need to be armed?

This isn't about a NEED for guns, it's about WANTING guns, and that opens up a whole new aspect, especially psychologically.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 09:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: budski

originally posted by: MisterSpock
a reply to: budski

I've always thought of the issue from the simplest perspective. The notion that guns, more guns or the availability of guns CREATES violence. I just don't think that is possible. If one is not violent then they won't perform a violent act, it really wouldn't matter what is accessible to them. A person who has the capacity to be violent, act violently or resort to violence does not need a gun or anything else to perform the act of violence.

The ability or willingness has to be present BEFORE a weapon is chosen, not the other way around.

Hence the reason I think that logically this is a dead argument, specifically the "guns CAUSE violence" angle.

Now, the propensity for a specific population or group of people to be prone to act violently would be a valid and probably more fruitful discussion. It just wouldn't be worth a squat at triggering peoples rash emotions or help anyone win an election.


I understand your point, but a person doesn't have to be inherently violent in order to be violent at a given moment in time.
People react to situations, and sometimes they lose control.
When that happens, anything is possible, but I would suggest that it is much easier to harm someone with a gun than with something else being used as a makeshift weapon.

The "responsible" gun ownership argument neglects a LOT of issues, indeed Veronica Dunnachie was something of a poster girl for gun advocates.
Until she murdered her family in a fit of rage...


The situation you describe above still requires the initial action or decision to become violent, it's the source. I really think that should be the issue that's focused on the. The creation of the violence, not the item that happened to be used.

I don't really have a dog in this fight, I just think that the solution to any problem is going as far back as possible to the source. The action that creates the chain that ends in the situation that is trying to be fixed.

I think the sole focus on guns is both pointless, as far as solving the issue, and agenda driven. I don't think the ultimate answer that would actually change the issue would be achieved by focusing on that single piece, a piece which isn't really a huge factor in the cycle of violence.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 09:10 AM
link   
a reply to: eriktheawful

Nobody drinks their beer warm here.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 09:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Freeborn

But surely even the most staunch gun ownership advocate must recognise that something needs to be done - exactly what I don't know......and that's something for Americans, and Americans only, to work out.


They need to enforce the laws ALREADY on the books, not add more that they will selectively enforce according to their agenda.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 09:14 AM
link   
a reply to: blupblup



Nobody drinks their beer warm here.


If someone served me warm beer I would shoot them.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join