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.

 

After TV Slaying, Reporter's Dad Finds Voice on Gun Control

page: 7
22
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 12:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
It seems the gun rights groups are afraid of even having a conversation about better regulations.



I keep seeing this over and over and over on ATS but I've yet to see anyone propose "better regulations" to be discussed. When I've asked people to propose better regulations in other threads, they come up with laws that already exist.

The biggest problem is that both sides of the issue have very different definitions of "sensible restrictions" and "better regulations."
edit on 8/31/2015 by Answer because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Answer

As seen with gay marriage....when one person decides what is reasonable, moral, or allowable for another person there is bound to be some rights that pay the price.

It is why the notion of "individual rights" should be reinforced and refocused on a national level. It is the basis of our government.



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi

I will admit that I have met some people that really shouldn't be allowed to own a gun. I have always distanced myself from those people.


Me too, but it's kind of hard to distance myself at the mall, the grocery store, the library, the gas station, the movie theater, a school, etc., etc. - unless I just refuse to leave my house.



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Answer

What I have seen is whenever the issue comes up the gun rights groups try to shut them up ASAP. The mantra used to be "it is too soon to talk about it" after any shooting tragedy.

As far as the father goes with what he is doing, it doesn't bother me. At some point maybe a sensible conversation can be had on the issue, but I don't think it will happen on ATS.



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 12:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: Grimpachi

I will admit that I have met some people that really shouldn't be allowed to own a gun. I have always distanced myself from those people.


Me too, but it's kind of hard to distance myself at the mall, the grocery store, the library, the gas station, the movie theater, a school, etc., etc. - unless I just refuse to leave my house.

Not trying to scare you or anything, but you do realize they can come to your house if they want?



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 12:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: Grimpachi

I will admit that I have met some people that really shouldn't be allowed to own a gun. I have always distanced myself from those people.


Me too, but it's kind of hard to distance myself at the mall, the grocery store, the library, the gas station, the movie theater, a school, etc., etc. - unless I just refuse to leave my house.


Depending on where you live, you're surrounded by people who are legally carrying guns every day.

I suspect you have never had a problem with those people.

What law would stop the people who "really shouldn't be allowed to own a gun" from carrying one at the mall, the grocery store, the library, the gas station, the movie theater, a school, etc? There are already laws to prevent such a thing...



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 12:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Answer

What I have seen is whenever the issue comes up the gun rights groups try to shut them up ASAP. The mantra used to be "it is too soon to talk about it" after any shooting tragedy.

As far as the father goes with what he is doing, it doesn't bother me. At some point maybe a sensible conversation can be had on the issue, but I don't think it will happen on ATS.


I think your perception of the debate is skewed. When I tried to shut some UK members up in a thread about gun control by suggesting that they should stay out of a discussion when they're victims of propaganda, I had multiple posts removed by a moderator for "gatekeeping" so clearly that behavior isn't allowed on ATS.

I think that most of us are open to a sensible conversation but nobody is willing or able to make a sensible proposition and justify it with a factual argument. The conversation always devolves into emotion-based nonsensical statements, easily-debunked propaganda pieces, and/or suggestions for laws that already exist.

There are some folks on the pro-gun side whose mantra is "the 2nd Amendment says 'shall not be infringed' so F* you!" but they are in the minority.



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Answer

I know those people are not your typical poster in these threads, but they still pop in and disrupt meaningful debate on the issue.

That is one reason why I said I don't think ATS will be a place that such a conversation will be had.



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Answer

Oh I agree that no law is going to stop it. No law would have prevented Adam Lanza from taking his mother's guns. No law stopped James Holmes from getting a gun. No law stopped Jared Loughner from getting a gun. No law stopped this Bryce/Vester guy from getting a gun. There's no law that would stop any of it, because as long as there are guns in existence, people will get a hold of them, somehow, some way. And you are never going to get rid of all the guns - that's just never going to happen.

I don't know what the answer is, other than to have metal detectors at every single public place, and armed guards roaming around at every single public place. That's going to cost the country a pretty penny though, and there's no guarantee that any of the armed guards aren't going to lose it and shoot indiscriminately.

Basically, we're just SKROOD.



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 12:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Answer

I know those people are not your typical poster in these threads, but they still pop in and disrupt meaningful debate on the issue.

That is one reason why I said I don't think ATS will be a place that such a conversation will be had.


Those people must be ignored because, no matter where the debate is had, they will always find a way to shout their opinion.

Those people exist on both sides and they obviously aren't helping.



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 12:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Answer

Oh I agree that no law is going to stop it. No law would have prevented Adam Lanza from taking his mother's guns. No law stopped James Holmes from getting a gun. No law stopped Jared Loughner from getting a gun. No law stopped this Bryce/Vester guy from getting a gun. There's no law that would stop any of it, because as long as there are guns in existence, people will get a hold of them, somehow, some way. And you are never going to get rid of all the guns - that's just never going to happen.

I don't know what the answer is, other than to have metal detectors at every single public place, and armed guards roaming around at every single public place. That's going to cost the country a pretty penny though, and there's no guarantee that any of the armed guards aren't going to lose it and shoot indiscriminately.

Basically, we're just SKROOD.


Not to mention, the metal detectors wouldn't stop someone from shooting people in the parking lot as they wait in line to go through the metal detector...

That's why the focus needs to be on the root causes and not the tools used.



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 12:46 PM
link   
So, since 20 children couldn't do it they rely on the poor race relations to spur on gun control. An angry gay black man shoots two smiling, lovely, upstanding blonde citizens. The country is supposed to explode in a fever of gun control, yeah?

Question, because I'm pretending not to know...
What is a crisis actor?


Not saying that he is one but I'm saying that he is...an actor and a lot of this is so convenient.

Anyway, another slant:
What if even the conspiracy doofs are being bamboozled here as well.
These mass shootings always spurs on /talk/ and rhetoric regarding gun control. However, of course, we never see any actual, solid legislation.
That seems strange, doesn't it?

Who benefits...
Well, the NRA and the gun lobby always does. Whenever there is /talk/ or rhetoric, "big gun" comes out and defends the industry while spreading paranoia. This act causes individuals to buy guns and ammunition in either defiance or fear of possible legislation or retaliation against their "second amendment right"

Unfortunately, I'm starting to believe that we are being controlled by money.
"But, isn't that obvious to a conspiracy theorists?"
No, because we always assume it's about rights or freedoms or other illusory things of philosophical imaginings. The elite don't make money off of your freedoms, they make money off of your paranoia, gluttony, and greed.

Ammunition and gun sales...
Crisis actors...
False flags...

All for the green. Guess what? It works every time.

We should all invest in the ammunition and gun market. Maybe then they'll end the nonsense and find new profit avenues once the average joes have caught on.



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 12:48 PM
link   
In discussions on this incident by talking heads, they coined a term I have not heard before in reference to the shooter: an injustice collector. The definition is that of a person who documents real or perceived slights or wrongs done to them, and blames everyone but self for these wrongs. When the wrongs culminate to a tipping point, a plan of action seeking revenge is created, enacted and justified in their mind.

The shooter exhibited multiple outbursts and vocalized threats to those around him, but apparently seldom crossed legal lines. NICS can only be notified of adjudicated mental situations, and although the shooter exhibited prior signs of violence, never fell into the prior category. Until the scope of a prospective firearm's buyer mental status is narrowed, or the disqualification process includes some examples of the shooter's behavior, incidents like these will happen again. This would necessitate changes in HIPPA and the ACLU's position on revealing information on a person's medical/mental status, both IMO unlikely to occur. No one wants weapons in the hands of mentally unbalanced people, but throwing the baby with the bathwater isn't a solution.



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 12:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Answer



That's why the focus needs to be on the root causes and not the tools used.


I see no way to fix the root causes either. Mental health issues? How would we do that? Who decides which ones of us have the dangerous kind of mental health issue, and how do we proactively fix those that do have the mental health issues?

Adam Lanza, for example. He was supposedly autistic, which is not typically a violent mental health issue. The crazies that have killed lots of people with guns typically have never killed anyone before, or even attempted it, so how do we be proactive with that? Do we give every single person anti-psychotic meds just to cover those who might have dangerous issues?

I see no real answers. Just live your life as fully as you can, tell your loved ones you love them every day, and know that each day could be your (and their) last in this violent world. Give up and accept it.



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

I'm referring to the root cause of the majority of violent crime and murder: poverty.

I don't get emotionally involved in the "mass shooting" hysteria because those events account for a very tiny fraction of the overall murder rate while garnering all of the media attention. As you said, those shootings are nearly impossible to control.

The US murder rate is insane because of poor blacks shooting each other. Period.
edit on 8/31/2015 by Answer because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheOneElectric


Ammunition and gun sales...
Crisis actors...
False flags...

All for the green. Guess what? It works every time.

We should all invest in the ammunition and gun market. Maybe then they'll end the nonsense and find new profit avenues once the average joes have caught on.


The average Joe has caught on. People are not panicking and buying guns anymore... not since 2008.

People have realized that if nothing was done after Sandy Hook and the Aurora, CO shootings, nothing is going to be done by Obama and the current Congress and it's all talk.
edit on 8/31/2015 by Answer because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 01:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Answer

Oh I agree that no law is going to stop it. No law would have prevented Adam Lanza from taking his mother's guns. No law stopped James Holmes from getting a gun. No law stopped Jared Loughner from getting a gun. No law stopped this Bryce/Vester guy from getting a gun. There's no law that would stop any of it, because as long as there are guns in existence, people will get a hold of them, somehow, some way. And you are never going to get rid of all the guns - that's just never going to happen.


In Australia we had 13 mass shootings in 18 years, then when Martin Byrant killed 33 people (with a AR-15) we overhauled our gun laws and haven't had a mass shooting since. So there are regulations that can be put in place to prevent these tragedies from occurring, without actually making guns illegal.

imo, the most effective regulation was that to be able to obtain a gun license you have to get a reference from 2 respected members of society who will vouch that they have known you for at least 2 years, are (in there opinion) of good character and should be allowed to own a gun. Also, all guns have to be securely locked up in a purpose built gun safe when not in use. Those regulations would have stopped the mass shootings you mentioned.

When it comes to criminals obtaining guns (rather than psychopaths, who just want to kill, for the sake of killing), it's obviously impossible to stop it completely. But requiring all guns to be registered to the buyer when purchased would at least stop criminals doing straw purchases. Then by closing down the other loopholes, like unrecorded private purchases etc. you would at least make illegal guns much more expensive and a lot harder to obtain.



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Answer

Oh I thought this thread was about crazies with guns.

Yeah, I totally agree about working on the poverty issue. Solving that would solve a whole lot of problems, not just the murder rate.



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

I find that those laws are too repressive. No thanks, but if it works for you guys then good for you.

Just try to remember the US is far different from Austrailia.



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 01:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

I find that those laws are too repressive. No thanks, but if it works for you guys then good for you.


Yeah well, they are kind of restrictive. I mean, being how I love my conspiracy theories, am passionate about alternative politics and very opposed to our current form of government, I know nobody would vouch for me to get a gun, which kind of sucks, since I wouldn't mind hunting for my own source protein, every once in a while.

But if it gives me the safety of knowing any petty criminal looking to rob me couldn't even afford a gun and all I have to do is be able to run faster than them.... well its all good, lol.



Just try to remember the US is far different from Austrailia.


Well maybe, but until either of us have lived in each others country as citizens (rather than tourist), we both couldn't say either way for sure just how "far different" it is.

But both countries have about the same rate of people living under the poverty line, about the same rate of drug use, about the same rate of mental illness and we both have major issues with crime and gangs in our major cities (minus the gun related homicides in Australia). We also eat all the same foods and were both raised on American tv & movies.

So yeah, different countries & population and certain cultural differences, no doubt. But are we really as fundamentally different as you assume? Personally, i doubt it...... Anyway.




top topics



 
22
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join