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.
originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Kapusta
I remember reading, or hearing on a video posted here not too long back, that Plano, which is apparently in Texas, has the largest gun ownership per head of any place in America. It also boasts a very low murder rate, much lower than that of locations with fewer guns owned, and more restrictive legislation on guns in place.
I have no idea how valid that is, since I have never been to Plano, or indeed anywhere in the United States, and therefore cannot check these facts empirically. However, it is something I heard, and may have bearing on the subject matter with which this thread deals. Its worth is entirely someone else's task to evaluate!
originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Kapusta
I remember reading, or hearing on a video posted here not too long back, that Plano, which is apparently in Texas, has the largest gun ownership per head of any place in America. It also boasts a very low murder rate, much lower than that of locations with fewer guns owned, and more restrictive legislation on guns in place.
I have no idea how valid that is, since I have never been to Plano, or indeed anywhere in the United States, and therefore cannot check these facts empirically. However, it is something I heard, and may have bearing on the subject matter with which this thread deals. Its worth is entirely someone else's task to evaluate!
originally posted by: TrueBrit
There should not be families who cannot send their kids to university, there should not be people in work, who have to work two jobs just to pull in enough to pay for rent, food, and utilities. Poverty should be abolished, before anyone ever tries to remove any individuals guns from their possession. Living wages for all would solve more gun crime than yet more unnecessary gun legislation.
originally posted by: JUhrman
originally posted by: Kapusta
to make it harder for people to purchase guns thus "taking the guns out of the hands of people" .
How making something harder to purchase is the same as taking it from your hand? Sorry but this is a logical fallacy.
Also aren't these laws at state level?
So why are pro-guns people ranting about the federal government trying to grab their guns? Really if someone can explain this to me?
originally posted by: JUhrman
originally posted by: TrueBrit
There should not be families who cannot send their kids to university, there should not be people in work, who have to work two jobs just to pull in enough to pay for rent, food, and utilities. Poverty should be abolished, before anyone ever tries to remove any individuals guns from their possession. Living wages for all would solve more gun crime than yet more unnecessary gun legislation.
As someone who is more "left-inclined" living in a country where university education is almost free for everyone I can only agree with you here
The problem is that usually those who are pro-guns in the US are not really in favor of having to participate in paying other people their education or reducing poverty if you know what I mean.
originally posted by: Kapusta
originally posted by: JUhrman
originally posted by: TrueBrit
There should not be families who cannot send their kids to university, there should not be people in work, who have to work two jobs just to pull in enough to pay for rent, food, and utilities. Poverty should be abolished, before anyone ever tries to remove any individuals guns from their possession. Living wages for all would solve more gun crime than yet more unnecessary gun legislation.
As someone who is more "left-inclined" living in a country where university education is almost free for everyone I can only agree with you here
The problem is that usually those who are pro-guns in the US are not really in favor of having to participate in paying other people their education or reducing poverty if you know what I mean.
That is complete Hogwash , I am "pro gun" as you put it and I have no problems with programs to reduce poverty , my problem is when people abuse the programs .
You can't assume people who are "pro gun" all have the same mind set , that just pure ignorance to believe such a thing.
originally posted by: Kapusta
That is complete Hogwash , I am "pro gun" as you put it and I have no problems with programs to reduce poverty , my problem is when people abuse the programs .
originally posted by: JUhrman
originally posted by: irishhaf
a reply to: JUhrman
They have failed repeatedly with banning through regulations, (thanks to hyper vigilance by gun owners )so the next step is pricing things out of the reach of the regular person... Be it ammo or the guns themselves.
I don't think guns are the perfect security blanket, but there is that old saying ... When seconds count cops are minutes away... A gun gives me better odds against multiple attackers or an armed attacker.
Then why pro-guns always claim the gov wants to grab their guns when in reality the only thing happening is that new guns are a bit more expensive (and isn't there also a market for used guns sold between individuals with much less administrative trouble)?
Sounds like they wildly exaggerate everything in their claims. Like they try to appeal to emotions of people rather than discussing things in a rational fashion if you ask me. Probably because they know deep down there is no real reasons to be mad.
originally posted by: network dude
Lets look at you for example. Wouldn't you be for the banning of all guns if you had that power? If not, why?
originally posted by: JUhrman
originally posted by: Kapusta
That is complete Hogwash , I am "pro gun" as you put it and I have no problems with programs to reduce poverty , my problem is when people abuse the programs .
Well of course it was a generalization and I'm glad people like you are proof it's not always like that.
Regardless, you just need a quick read at ATS to see many people who are defending gun-rights will also claim it's "leftists" who are trying to grab guns (which is probably another generalization), illustrating in that way that they aren't really in favor of social policies, especially if it means they must participate financially to them...
originally posted by: JUhrman
originally posted by: NavyDoc
First he goes on about how gun ownership causes crimes
Please quote where I say so.
I think either you assume wrongly either you are deliberately lying. I hope it's the former and you just made a mistake.
originally posted by: Kapusta
please provide me with a "quick look" and proof of this .
originally posted by: NavyDoc
I guess you can stop calling for restricting ownership then.
originally posted by: JUhrman
originally posted by: NavyDoc
I guess you can stop calling for restricting ownership then.
Again, please quote where I said so?
Really it seems some people get so emotional over their guns they start assuming a whole lot about the people they talk with. That's the main thing I denounced throughout the thread.
How can we have a good debate when you keep being accused of being a "gun grabber" or "gun banner" when it's not the case? This is all appeal to emotion.
I'm in favor of a strict regulation that is all. And I know that some people will not like this. It's normal we have different opinion.
I have hunters in my family. They have guns and I never had the impression that they had any difficulty buying them and getting authorizations to use them. And we don't even live in the US. It really puzzles me how so many people spread disinformation regarding how there is supposedly a cabal to try to disarm people to better subdue them. I think I only hear this rhetoric in the US, the country where actually this is the LEAST probable to happen. It sounds very much like a false argument deliberately spread by lobbies.
I'm in favor of a strict regulation that is all.