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.

 

Let's discuss gun restriction using logic and reason

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: ReadLeader

Too bad those folks won't bother to read it...




posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22

You forgot duck filled ponds.



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: ReadLeader

I know that mass shootings have been stopped by armed civilians in the past ... far more than people know because it doesn't get reported.

Just like people aren't getting told much about the guy in Oregon who took 7 bullets and lived keeping the shooter out of another classroom. It doesn't fit the deadly gun idea that you can take 7 and live. He's one of the heroes no one knows about.



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 02:37 PM
link   
never got how they planned to get around the Hippa laws ,or ya know who is mentally ill or not? not to mention a good deal of people would just say Nope to treatment if it ment possibly lossing the right to bear arms.

then there is the fact being mentally ill is a protected class,how do you pass a law against an entire protected class? this would seem to cover vetrans as well as they too are a protected class

legalinsurrection.com... case law even supports that even being ruled adjudicated mentally defective isnt even enough to take your gun rights away if you can later be certified of sound mind

dmhl.typepad.com...

Most people would agree that the most effective way to prevent violence by people with mental illness is to provide better screening and access to effective treatment for mental illness, especially for children and adolescents. Most people also agree that guns should be removed from people with mental illness who are dangerous, but disagree on how that can be done without infringing on the rights of the vast majority of people with mental illness who have never been and never will be violent. The evidence reveals that the vast majority of individuals with psychiatric disorders do not commit violent acts. Ninety-six percent of firearm violence is committed by persons with no history of mental illness. And only certain serious psychiatric illnesses, such as bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, are associated with a risk of violence to others, and major depressive disorder with a risk of violence to self, or suicide. Broad brush prohibitions focusing on the status of the individual instead of their risk adds to the already stigmatizing effects of a mental illness diagnosis. In addition, such actions may discourage those most at risk of committing violent acts from seeking the treatment they need. This article reviews current federal and state law on gun prohibitions for people with mental illness, the background check process and proposals for change in order to inform the public policy debate on the best methods to reduce violence.


a few states have passed laws that attempt to ban ownership if you have a mental illness but i dont see those standing a supreme court challenge

blog.nami.org...
namis perspective on the matter with a small quote


In 2007, NAMI testified before Congress, explaining how current definitions in the law are vague, leading to holes in compliance and enforcement. To date, there has been no effort in Congress to change the law—thoughtfully and carefully—in a way that is not only overly broad, but also avoids unfair, damaging discrimination. One paramount concern is to avoid creating a situation where people are in fact discouraged from getting help when they need it because of speculative fear over stigma. It’s worth having public dialogue about making gun laws more effective. But extreme, broad-brushed rhetoric that ignores medical science, modern definitions and actual risk factors will only detract from the discussion.



en.wikipedia.org... list of the protected classes


Race – Civil Rights Act of 1964 Color – Civil Rights Act of 1964 Religion – Civil Rights Act of 1964 National origin – Civil Rights Act of 1964 Age (40 and over) – Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 Sex – Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Civil Rights Act of 1964 Pregnancy – Pregnancy Discrimination Act Citizenship – Immigration Reform and Control Act Familial status – Civil Rights Act of 1968 Title VIII: Housing cannot discriminate for having children, with an exception for senior housing Disability status – Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 Veteran status – Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 and Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act Genetic information – Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act
i think sexual orentation has been added to the list ,so just as a law saying no blacks/african americans could own fire arms would be unconstitutional same for saying LGBTQ people couldn't own them would also be illegal so how would it be legal to say that the mentally ill(disabled under current terminology) cant own guns as again they are a protected class as well?



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: seaswine

There was a shooting here where I live. The perpetrator partially beheaded a coworker... He was neutralized by the. CEO.... who cc.

Story here. -> m.newson6.com...

The bad guys don't have or apply for permits. This case he was using a knife....



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: ReadLeader

It could be an idea couldn't it? I mean instead of arguing lets all come up with ideas to help keep the kids safe in school.


Many senators and congress people's kids attended schools with armed guards, and so did many other very high profile gun grabbing politicians.

They certainly think armed guards in schools are good, in fact, they have insisted on it. (Just not for the rest of society).

I find it interesting and quite telling about the lack of responsibility our leaders have for everyone else besides themselves and heir own families.



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Amen!



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

So just to be clear, you honestly in your heart of hearts believe that arming children as young as five would be a good idea?

Just a yes or no would do, I don't need to know how many people you haven't shot.



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

AGREED!!! We can have off duty or armed security at the mall, jewelry store, parks, banks....... who is going to protect our precious children? I AM!!!!! By gosh...



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Ket... I felt compelled to share the link. Thanks for the reminder. Heros are still amongst us....as are Angels.... if one believes...


www.nbcnews.com... .



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: ReadLeader

Yup he is one bonafied hero he is.




posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22

What are you basing that on?

You are taking one connection and making it the end all be all while ignoring others.
Makes sense...



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko




He has never said that was why or at least, if he has, it has never been reported.


So lets turn it into a fact that he chose it because of it's gun policies.
Do they happen in gun free zones, yes, but we are all acting like that is the lone deciding factor and ignoring everything else.
A good many of the shootings the shooter has ties with the target, which I would speculate that even if they were not designated gun free they would still be targeted.



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 03:01 PM
link   
There are two solutions.

People get it and stop shooting each other : Very unlikely.

People give up their guns : Very unlikely, long term solution.

Soo....



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 03:10 PM
link   
You would end like 95% of violent crime by ending prohibition and the war on drugs.

Banning yet another *thing* will not solve problems.

You will never stop crazy people from doing crazy things. But you can take incentive away from criminals and gangs who are responsible for nearly all of the violence we discuss in conjunction with firearms.



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

OK, so you want to take a bunch of people with you. You want it to be a place you know and people you can hit back at. You also want it to be a place where you can do the maximum damage. What kind of place would you pick to target?

Would you pick one where someone might shoot back at you or one where you can minimize that chance? Remember, these are usually planned out incidents.


edit on 4-10-2015 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

That doesn't negate the connection that many of these shooters had personal connections to the places.
Not all of them of course, and maybe the ones that didn't did choose the places for that reason, but far from all of them.

I get that line of thought, but to act like it is the ONLY factor in these shootings is disingenuous, there is more to it.

For what it is worth I am I wouldn't be against getting rid of the zones, just think all this rhetoric that they are the sole cause of these shootings is wrong.
If we say it is wrong to push agendas with these events then that is an agenda getting pushed IMO.



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

This is true, we can see a HUGE spike in crime when we started that war on drugs.



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 03:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Bluntone22

What are you basing that on?

You are taking one connection and making it the end all be all while ignoring others.
Makes sense...


I said that's a place to start, not the only reason for their choice



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 03:52 PM
link   
let me ask a very relevant question: what was the ORIGINAL intent of the Founding Fathers regarding the purpose of keeping and bearing ARMS? Was it not to protect against a potential government tyranny? Also of critical importance is the idea of what constitutes "ARMS". I dont see guns mentioned in the original text of the 2nd amendment. Therefore, taking a contextual view of the time period would it not be safe to assume the Framers understood "arms" to refer to any and all martial instruments in existence at that time which would be effectually used against a rogue or unrepresentative government power? If so doesnt the current debate about guns miss pretty much the entire true scope of the issue at heart which is a citizenry capable of protecting itself with weaponry at least as capable as what the government has access to? How many people do you know with tanks, aircraft, smart bombs, drones, missiles, etc?


Folks, sorry to bring you all down but weve lost this one a long long time ago. All we have now is the faint shadow of a symbol of what we used to be.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join