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.

 

Obama: Mass shootings are 'something we should politicize'

page: 6
53
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 11:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: luthier

Imagine taking a fully automatic machine gun back in time to meet with our founding fathers. Imagine linking up a ton of watermelons and other objects and blowing them away in just a few seconds. Imagine telling them, "this is a firearm, it's just a lot more powerful and advanced than your muskets...so, should every American be able to have one of these babies?"

I'm not quite sure, but I think after they crawled out of hiding -- they'd probably tell you that they never envisioned those kinds of weapons in the hands of millions of people. Heck, they probably never really envisioned that America would become the size it is now.

I'm trying to imagine Ben Franklin's face as melons and barrels of water explode and shells go flying out of the receiver...


Semi auto rifles account for about 1 percent of our murder rate.

Mass murders are from mentally ill patients most on drugs.

I am not going to pretend to know what the founders would think.




posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 11:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: luthier

No it isn't complicated.

The Bill of RIghts is clearly spelled out.


No it isn't and its been debated in the court.


edit on 1-10-2015 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 11:09 PM
link   
a reply to: queenofswords

The earlier reports were wrong. Current info is that he was 26 and of legal age to own firearms. Whether he actually acquired them legally or was a prohibited buyer due to some past legal transgression remains to be seen.



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 11:11 PM
link   
a reply to: queenofswords

Um, you can be 20 and own a gun. I could go to my gun store and buy a rifle or shotgun at 18, this includes AR-15's.

As Per 18 U.S.C. § 922(x)(1), (5)



Unlicensed persons may not sell, deliver or otherwise transfer a handgun or handgun ammunition to any person the transferor has reasonable cause to believe is under age 18, with certain exceptions*

law.cornell.edu

So a private individual (friend, family member) can sell a hand gun to someone over 18 but not yet 21.

Also, if a kid takes his parents legally purchased weapons and uses them in a mass shooting, technically those weapons were "legally purchased".

Simply that they weren't used by the person who legally purchased them does not mean they weren't legally purchased.



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 11:13 PM
link   
I said this in the other thread, you people who b**ch and moan about gun restrictions are to blame for this.

When a mass shootings happens you should rejoice...because your crying has kept the lack of strict gun control a dream.

Thanks to you guys...the mentally ill can easily get a hold of a gun.



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 11:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Helious
a reply to: MystikMushroom

It doesn't matter. As cold and callus as it is to say, homicides by firearms by citizens who legally attained them is so minuscule that you will find bee stings kill 10 times as many per year.

Because it happens does not mean anything. How many people does alcohol, car accidents, skydiving, crab fishing, etc kill every year? The majority of gun deaths in America are by suicide or by very isolated gang violence that doesn't really affect the rest of the country.

Much like "domestic terrorism" the stats are total BS and have been skewed in order to relieve liberties from American citizens when statistically and I'm sorry to say this but they are just.... Not important.


So you don't think it's a good idea to do something about mentally ill people easily acquiring guns?



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 11:14 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

And in the original thread for this mass shooting I proved that murder rates are at their lowest in 50 years, and more people than ever are on andidepressants. 1 in 10 people actually.

So if 1 in 10 people are on these SSRI's and the murder rate per capita is decreasing as their use rises...that tells me that these drugs are NOT to blame.

If 1 in 10 people are on these drugs, its no surprise that you're going to find mass shooters having been prescribed them. Just like looking for a magic pill to end obesity, we love quick and easy solutions. We want to just point our finger at a medication and call it case closed.



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 11:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian

Northern Illinois University - 2008
Kirkwood City Council - 2008
Virginia Tech - 2007
Westroads Mall - 2007
Amish school shooting - 2006
Capitol Hill massacre - 2006
Red Lake massacre - 2005
Lockheed Martin shooting - 2003

and so on and so forth. I suppose they could all be false flags? I mean, you know, nobody is ever just homicidal and insane.


First of all, what would qualify as a mass shooting? When 2 people are killed, or 3, or 4? But no matter how many death or injured there has to be for it to be considered a mass shooting even the media have noticed that there are more mass shootings now than ever before.


...
In fact, using data from ShootingTracker.com, we can say that mass shootings -- defined as incidents in which four or more people are shot -- have happened hundreds of times over the last several years. In fact, during President Obama's second term, a Sunday-to-Saturday calendar week has not passed without a mass shooting incident.

Only once have seven days passed without a mass shooting and only once have eight days passed. Those are the longest spans -- the latter happening in April of this year. Several times, six days have passed.
...

www.washingtonpost.com...

Shooting in Oregon: So far in 2015, we’ve had 274 days and 294 mass shootings



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 11:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: luthier

And in the original thread for this mass shooting I proved that murder rates are at their lowest in 50 years, and more people than ever are on andidepressants. 1 in 10 people actually.

So if 1 in 10 people are on these SSRI's and the murder rate per capita is decreasing as their use rises...that tells me that these drugs are NOT to blame.

If 1 in 10 people are on these drugs, its no surprise that you're going to find mass shooters having been prescribed them. Just like looking for a magic pill to end obesity, we love quick and easy solutions. We want to just point our finger at a medication and call it case closed.



Thats a ridiculous assumption for causation. Ludicrous. Do you know hpw many factors go into lowering the homicide rate? Nor do you list any stats of gun owners on antidepressants. You also didnt include suicides. You can easily find I mean very easily stats on what the mass shooters were on.



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 11:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: muse7

originally posted by: Helious
a reply to: MystikMushroom

It doesn't matter. As cold and callus as it is to say, homicides by firearms by citizens who legally attained them is so minuscule that you will find bee stings kill 10 times as many per year.

Because it happens does not mean anything. How many people does alcohol, car accidents, skydiving, crab fishing, etc kill every year? The majority of gun deaths in America are by suicide or by very isolated gang violence that doesn't really affect the rest of the country.

Much like "domestic terrorism" the stats are total BS and have been skewed in order to relieve liberties from American citizens when statistically and I'm sorry to say this but they are just.... Not important.


So you don't think it's a good idea to do something about mentally ill people easily acquiring guns?


Well, that's a whole other topic isn't it? Especially since almost every mass shooter in the last decade has been on psychotropic drugs prescribed by the mental health establishment no?

I question whether the government is capable in assessing mental health in a moral and ethical way when so much of our politics are funded and lobbied by massive pharmaceutical companies.
edit on 1-10-2015 by Helious because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 11:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
Most of these mass shootings are done with legally purchased firearms. This tells me that its not "criminals" doing these mass shootings, but previously normal law-abiding American citizens.
...


How did you reach that conclusion? Because I have watched many reports from the media about mass shootings and they never mention whether the weapon was legally or illegally obtained.

As for Mother Jones, i would not always trust that website for info. The claim that "most mass murders used legally owned firearms" would play nicely with the attempts of the Obama administration to not only implement gun control but to completely ban them.


edit on 1-10-2015 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 11:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Helious

originally posted by: muse7

originally posted by: Helious
a reply to: MystikMushroom

It doesn't matter. As cold and callus as it is to say, homicides by firearms by citizens who legally attained them is so minuscule that you will find bee stings kill 10 times as many per year.

Because it happens does not mean anything. How many people does alcohol, car accidents, skydiving, crab fishing, etc kill every year? The majority of gun deaths in America are by suicide or by very isolated gang violence that doesn't really affect the rest of the country.

Much like "domestic terrorism" the stats are total BS and have been skewed in order to relieve liberties from American citizens when statistically and I'm sorry to say this but they are just.... Not important.


So you don't think it's a good idea to do something about mentally ill people easily acquiring guns?


Well, that's a whole other topic isn't it? Especially since almost every mass shooter in the last decade has been on psychotropic drugs prescribed by the mental health establishment no?

I question whether the government is capable in assessing mental health in a moral and ethical way when so much of our politics are funded and lobbied by massive pharmaceutical companies.


It was just a simple yes or no question, since you're peddling the "legally purchased guns only kill x number of people each year" talking point.

I mean something has to be done about this problem no? I just want to hear a straight answer from someone. Or do we just pretend this problem does not exist and walk away?



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 11:33 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom




Imagine taking a fully automatic machine gun back in time to meet with our founding fathers. Imagine linking up a ton of watermelons and other objects and blowing them away in just a few seconds. Imagine telling them, "this is a firearm, it's just a lot more powerful and advanced than your muskets...so, should every American be able to have one of these babies?"


Just for that!




posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 11:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: luthier

No it isn't complicated.

The Bill of RIghts is clearly spelled out.


No it isn't and its been debated in the court.



The Scotus is about the most cognitive dissonant thing there is in this country.



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 11:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: muse7

originally posted by: Helious

originally posted by: muse7

originally posted by: Helious
a reply to: MystikMushroom

It doesn't matter. As cold and callus as it is to say, homicides by firearms by citizens who legally attained them is so minuscule that you will find bee stings kill 10 times as many per year.

Because it happens does not mean anything. How many people does alcohol, car accidents, skydiving, crab fishing, etc kill every year? The majority of gun deaths in America are by suicide or by very isolated gang violence that doesn't really affect the rest of the country.

Much like "domestic terrorism" the stats are total BS and have been skewed in order to relieve liberties from American citizens when statistically and I'm sorry to say this but they are just.... Not important.


So you don't think it's a good idea to do something about mentally ill people easily acquiring guns?


Well, that's a whole other topic isn't it? Especially since almost every mass shooter in the last decade has been on psychotropic drugs prescribed by the mental health establishment no?

I question whether the government is capable in assessing mental health in a moral and ethical way when so much of our politics are funded and lobbied by massive pharmaceutical companies.


It was just a simple yes or no question, since you're peddling the "legally purchased guns only kill x number of people each year" talking point.

I mean something has to be done about this problem no? I just want to hear a straight answer from someone. Or do we just pretend this problem does not exist and walk away?


I am all for less deaths by gun violence. I am all for less deaths by any violence. I detest violence and I detest people senselessly dying. If there can be a solution that does not restrict guaranteed rights under our founding documents and if that doesn't include the state being able to declare anyone they find "dissident" as mentally unfit then I would be willing to entertain the discussion.

As it is now, as evidenced by the Patriot Act , as evidenced by monetary, property and estate seizures around around the country without any criminal charges, once you give the government the power to do something under the guise of a certain problem they will always inevitably expand that power to include as much, as many and as often as possible everything else.

Let them start to arbitrarily decide who they wan't to declare "mentally unfit" to have a firearm without the most strict, written out and spelled out regulations without any legalize and you may find yourself in a very different country a decade from now. I'm not speaking to you as somebody who is paranoid but as somebody who is a very, very close student of history.



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 11:45 PM
link   
a reply to: muse7




So you don't think it's a good idea to do something about mentally ill people easily acquiring guns?


That is ALREADY illegal in both the Gun Control Act of 1968, and the Brady LAW.

VERBATIM.



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 11:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: luthier

Imagine taking a fully automatic machine gun back in time to meet with our founding fathers. Imagine linking up a ton of watermelons and other objects and blowing them away in just a few seconds. Imagine telling them, "this is a firearm, it's just a lot more powerful and advanced than your muskets...so, should every American be able to have one of these babies?"

I'm not quite sure, but I think after they crawled out of hiding -- they'd probably tell you that they never envisioned those kinds of weapons in the hands of millions of people. Heck, they probably never really envisioned that America would become the size it is now.

I'm trying to imagine Ben Franklin's face as melons and barrels of water explode and shells go flying out of the receiver...


I Imagine
Ben would be grinning
from ear to ear.
Then he would wanna know
how it worked.
& then have a go firing it.

can I get a make & model
on the MG
To complete the image



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 11:53 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

I'll can tell you that you apparently don't support the use of paragraphs. As for the "questions" posed in that mess of shotgun argumentation and sanctimonious, libelous nonsense:

We don't live in the 18th century. The Constitution is the core of an extensible framework, not the OLD TESTAMENT. The founding fathers couldn't have even CONCEIVED of a background check in a time when false teeth looked like this:



and this was a handgun:



and labor relations looked like this:



Add this to list of reason why it seems like I support the Democrats; the puffed up posturing and delusional FF worship of Republicans. The FF never intended us to be obligated to ignore advances in technology or any changes in our circumstances at all for that matter. I support the spirit and intent of the Second Amendment, just like I do the First because as I'm sure you know — being a Constitutional scholar — that if we applied your historical literalist interpretation to the First, we'd have a fraction of the protections we have to fight to maintain now.

As for specifics: I don't believe that aesthetic features have any role whatsoever in gun laws. I don't support bans of any size box magazine. I don't support a federal ban on automatic weapons either. That said, I do support having a national database that states can utilize for background checks but only if it's implemented properly and maintained efficiently. Beyond that, I think it's up to state law and municipal ordinances.


You fully support Americans rights of not being held accountable for crimes they do not commit ?

You also fully support their constitutional rights of DUE PROCESS, and them having their day in court, and crimes proven in courts of law rather than the kangaroo courts of public opinion.


Of course I believe that everyone is entitled to due process. I don't support silencing the court of public opinion (do you?) but public opinion shouldn't have any bearing on the outcome of legal proceedings with the possible caveat of clemency and commuted sentences in the case of overt miscarriages of justice.


You support their 14th amendment RIGHT of LIFE,LIBERTY, and PROPERTY ?

Somehow I don't think you do.


I support the 14th Amendment though probably not in the ways you've likely interpreted it to justify your political positions.


edit on 2015-10-1 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 11:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: muse7




So you don't think it's a good idea to do something about mentally ill people easily acquiring guns?


That is ALREADY illegal in both the Gun Control Act of 1968, and the Brady LAW.

VERBATIM.


No, no, Neo, What they want is to make it very, very easy to slap that tag on as many people as they can to make them ineligible. Don't be conned into thinking that only people with legitimate mental health issues will be affected. Maybe at first then it will become people who have the potential to be mental health "issues".

It snowballs from there because....... It always does. The government has agendas that go one baby step at a time so you never have a reason to rebel because it's one tiny insult. Like toll booths that are put up to fund the highway and then 50 years after the highway is built you are paying 2.80 twice a day to drive on it and it doesn't even belong to the state anymore because the sold the revenue to a private company for the next 99 years. Yeah, that happens, look up Illinois.

The government is not qualified to assess mental health, it needs to be private companies because the government is largely run by pharmaceutical companies because of the amount of money they lobby.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 12:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Helious

That's like saying "all mass murderers had socks on, therefore socks must cause people to mass murder".

If 1/10 people are on these drugs, that's a huge chunk of our national population. Given that huge chunk of people taking these drugs, we should be seeing even more mass murders if they cause people to snap.

Mass shootings also make up a very small portion of gun-related violence.

These drugs have been around since the 1970's -- and yet violent crimes involving guns is lower now per capita than it was in the 70's.

If anything, we ought to be saying "all perpetrators of mass shootings showed mental disorders that necessitated them being on some kind of medication, therefore being mentally ill increases your odds at being a mass shooter".




top topics



 
53
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join