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.

 

Shooting with multiple fatalities at theater in Lafayette, Louisiana.

page: 20
35
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 11:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: Answer

Meh. I've seen it go both ways.


I don't believe you.


And not everyone wants or needs or should be forced to "be properly exposed" either.


Good idea, let's leave people in the dark to be fearful of inanimate objects.


And all I'm saying is no progress will ever be made on this issue and people will just keep dying this way unless we do something radically different.


Violent crime is on the decline. I'd say there is plenty of progress being made and there's no need to do anything "radically different" with guns.

Should we do something radically different with the way criminals are processed? Absolutely. Go after the people committing crimes, not the tool they choose to employ.




posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 12:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: notmyrealname

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: notmyrealname

Brilliant idea in a dark theater with people running and screaming.

Nobody was screaming according to posts on this thread and theaters are usually only dark prior to when the movies starts. Anyway point taken; you are correct. Protecting yourself or attempting to stop the perpetration of a crime is a bad thing to do. Maybe you would call 911?


Every movie go to...the theater is pretty light before the movie and dark as soon as the ads start and then, throughout. Not sure where you watch movies.

Yes, did you ever step out of the theater mid-movie and find your seat again? Were you counting steps to make that happen or could you see where you were going from the HUGE amount of light emanating from the projector?

I do not go to the movies as they are gun free zones.



posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: raedar
Excellent find sir!



posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
And not everyone wants or needs or should be forced to "be properly exposed" either.


They certainly shouldn't be.

Speaking for myself, however, its incredibly difficult to take someone seriously when they're clearly misinformed on the issue and have an opinion based in irrational fear and misinformation. Its hard to have that open, honest discussion on 'gun violence' when one side tends to have little interest in learning the practical and legal realities of what they want to restrict, but would rather demean, insult and cast aspersions at all gun owners rather than address the real problems that DO exist. Unfortunately, that discussion on the solutions to 'gun violence' is one we need to have, too.



posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Answer

The problem with most of the solutions offered up by those that feel "we must do something!" is that they in effect, don't target root cause and rarely have the intended impact desired. Magazine capacity limits, bans, restrictions based on cosmetic features, etc. That same group, that usually has very little experience in the owning and operating of a tool, does not care a whit if the measures they seek impact law-biding gun owners in a negative way.

It has happened in California, NY, Conn., and Washington State to name a few. I agree with many posters these incidents seem in some part tied to mental health issues, and some under a pharmacological regime. A study as to the root cause, not only focused on the tool used may pave the way to decrease these situations.



posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Boscowashisnamo

Absolutely right.

It's amazing that the folks who have no understanding of a particular lifestyle feel that they are best-suited to determine how that lifestyle should be regulated.

It's like putting the KKK in charge of civil rights laws.



posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 12:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Boscowashisnamo

You're absolutely right about that. I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'm NOT against gun control. I don't want criminals and nutjobs owning firearms. But we need to make sure that those proposals address the real issues, and as you say, unfortunately, the vast majority of the proposals we see coming from the antis are directed against the wrong people and will not be effective. Worse, the people writing those proposals simply don't care, because ideology blinds them to the fact that they're restricting the rights of people who have done nothing to deserve it.
edit on 24-7-2015 by vor78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: ladyvalkyrie

I'm a ma'am but thank you kindly!



I should pick a feminine avatar lol

edit on 24-7-2015 by raedar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 12:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Answer
a reply to: Boscowashisnamo


It's like putting the KKK in charge of civil rights laws.


Yes, it's exactly like that. Because of the extensive history between pro and anti gunners of lynchings and hate crimes. Truly an apt comparison.



posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 12:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Answer

I don't believe you.



Your prerogative.



Good idea, let's leave people in the dark to be fearful of inanimate objects.


Who introduced fear into this discussion? Not I.


Violent crime is on the decline. I'd say there is plenty of progress being made and there's no need to do anything "radically different" with guns.


That's debatable and quite possibly unsustainable.


Should we do something radically different with the way criminals are processed? Absolutely. Go after the people committing crimes, not the tool they choose to employ.


And there's a start. I never said anything to the contrary.



posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 12:48 PM
link   
Seems people are arguing against changing gun laws when no one in the thread is arguing for it.



posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

That's a valid point I have also noticed as I've read through the thread.



posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: vor78

Exactly. And that would be the fringers I am referring to. Both sides have them, and, in my opinion, they are the ones standing in the way of sane discussion.



posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Never mind. I'm self-deleting this post, as it came across as picking a fight.

edit on 24-7-2015 by vor78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity

While I come from this from a very strong pro-gun sentiment, and my biases and perceptions of the anti-gun side are based in that, I do agree, the pro-gun side isn't without its loud-mouthed know-nothings as well.



posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 12:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74
It is an auto response as each and every time there is a shooting that is publicized by the media (many inner city shootings are of course not reported), the anti-gun crowd starts yelling about the evil tools being at fault.

So yes, many here (myself included) are bracing ourselves for the inevitable onslaught of anti gun rhetoric.



posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 01:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: vor78
a reply to: ~Lucidity

While I come from this from a very strong pro-gun sentiment, and my biases and perceptions of the anti-gun side are based in that, I do agree, the pro-gun side isn't without its loud-mouthed know-nothings as well.


I rarely ever say which "side" I'm on either because I'm not on a side, I'm not a side, I'm just me and the thing I feel strongest about, about all else, is being piegeonholed and assigned names/labels/characteristics based on something that is but a fraction of who I am and what i believe. And I most assuredly fall in that huge middle.
edit on 7/24/2015 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: notmyrealname

That seems illogical. How can you determine the progress, stagnation or regression on an issue if you're having imaginary arguments?



posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 01:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: notmyrealname
So yes, many here (myself included) are bracing ourselves for the inevitable onslaught of anti gun rhetoric.

Why? How can discussion hurt anything?



posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 01:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Monger

originally posted by: Answer
a reply to: Boscowashisnamo


It's like putting the KKK in charge of civil rights laws.


Yes, it's exactly like that. Because of the extensive history between pro and anti gunners of lynchings and hate crimes. Truly an apt comparison.


Don't be so trite.

The anti gun side believes that everything would be better if guns were eradicated and they care nothing about how it would affect the people who happen to be gun owners.

The KKK believes that everything would be better if all non-whites were eradicated and they care nothing about how it would affect the people who are non-white.




top topics



 
35
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join