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.

 

Here’s What The World Thinks About The American Response To The Oregon Massacre

page: 6
53
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 07:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: johnwick

Just most of the guns from most people right?

Come and take them!!

Seriously, come right now and take them or quit your bleeting, we are all tiredof hearing it.

Nothing but air and opportunity between you and our guns, here they are, ccome on, come and take them.

I mean it isnt like you would be afraid to help take the guns when you are pushing this right?


Please stop the deflection and outright lies. Nobody wants to take all your guns, just the powerful assault-style weapons that the general populace have no legitimate use for other than to kill large numbers of other humans. In addition, laws to help prevent nutters from getting their hands on weapons - both of these combined have been proven to work in many other countries worldwide.

This has been pointed out MANY times in this thread alone and yet you willfully choose to ignore it in favour of the "come and take them" tough guy nonsense.

If the US government really wanted to "come and take them", what exactly do you think your pea-shooters would do against tanks, APC's, rocket launchers, grenade launchers, airstrikes, drone strikes, etc etc?


I just love this argument. We have these weapons because they are dangerous. When was the last time a government won an insurgency? Also do you realize that it is our sons and daughters who make up our military forces? Most of them also realize that they swore to protect the Constitution above all else. Unlike the UK we do not swear allegiance to the Queen. So all those weapons you are talking about will not all be in the government hands if they ever turn tyrannical.




posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 07:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krusty the Klown
a reply to: Vasa Croe

And how many of those were "mass stabbings"? More than 4 victims of the same weapon.

How worse could it have been if the perpetrator had a full magazine in their moment of rage?


How many murder victims feel better about it if they are or are not part of a mass killing?



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 07:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krusty the Klown
a reply to: Vasa Croe

And how many of those were "mass stabbings"? More than 4 victims of the same weapon.

How worse could it have been if the perpetrator had a full magazine in their moment of rage?



We are not on the topic of guessing here. The purpose of the OP is to show that there is some imagined gun problem. My intent was to show that regardless, the homicide rate either stayed the same or went up....the only thing that changed is that MORE incidents of homicide occurred and different TOOLS were used.

Again, knives were on the increase already and have doubled at this point.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 07:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: brace22
Also, can I just say, I know I have said I would never preach to America and this isn't me preaching at all!

But, would a plausible and happy ending situation be:

Keep your guns, but make it more rigorous to obtain then.

I.E stricter medical examining, mental health examining and so forth?


I guess I could back that up by saying if you are a good citizen, and you wouldn't need to worry about passing them, you wouldn't mind doing the harder checks and tests.


Can you come up with a law that would have prevented the massacre? Or other mass shootings? Short of making all guns illegal. The mother was the legal registered owner of the guns. I haven't read where she was diagnosed with any mental disabilities. So what? Now no households with any members of mental health issues can have a gun?

Everyone says more laws, more laws, but Oregon has good gun laws. And the college was a gun free zone. I don't get why some people continue to rally in support of more gun laws when the laws in place didn't prevent this tragedy. I don't think any state could afford the amount of personnel it would take to monitor gun owners 24/7.

I don't know, maybe have gun owners have a shooting day once a year, in a gun range. Because that's how ridiculous it's getting.
edit on 6-10-2015 by StoutBroux because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 07:05 AM
link   
A NOTE TO EVERYONE:

I am attempting to answer everyone posts who directs a reply to me but as the thread grows and more people become involved it's becoming hard to answer EVERY post. If I do not respond to a certain post it's not because I am being rude, or do not have an answer, it is because either I believe the post has already been answered in this thread or fear my fingers would fall off from all the typing.

Anyway, please carry on



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 07:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

But it was totally legal for the Oregon mass shooter to own 13 guns. That's where your argument falls apart, in a country like Australia its completely legal for mentally stable law abiding citizens to obtain a gun.

But that Oregon shooter would have never been able to legally obtain a firearm under our current regulations. Hence, why we don't have these kind of mass shootings.

But anyway...



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 07:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Kryties

And he is not obligated to. He probably did not want to get kicked out of school, because it is in the Student Conduct Code that firearms are prohibited.

Number 19 ... check it out yourself.

Student Conduct Code
edit on 6-10-2015 by joemoe because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 07:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties
No, it was supposed to prevent mass shootings, which is exactly what happened. The laws worked perfectly. Why do you willfully ignore this?


What a dopey premise.

'We are okay with the same amount of people dying (or more) just as long as it is not in large clusters.'



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 07:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

We are not on the topic of guessing here. The purpose of the OP is to show that there is some imagined gun problem.


There is no "imagined" involved here. You have a gun problem. Nobody else in the world is having the issue of mass shootings on a regular basis (with the exception of the Middle Eastern war zones of course). We are not making this up, anyone with two eyes in their head can see America has a serious issue in this regard.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 07:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

NO matter what you post or statistics on deaths, here in the US by any other means including medications that are now one of the highest, as we are one of the most over medicated nations in the world including killing children with prescribed drugs, people are already been propagandized and geared that guns is the cause of all evil in the US and the world, they don't want to listen to any else even if you show the truth or numbers, they are not interested gun ban is an agenda and the manufactured support is becoming very loud.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 07:11 AM
link   
God damn!!

"Young fella, if you’re looking; for trouble I’ll accommodate ya”

“Don’t say it’s a fine morning or I’ll shoot ya”

“Now you understand. Anything goes wrong, anything at all… your fault, my fault, nobody’s fault… it don’t matter… I’m gonna blow your head off. It’s as simple as that.”


Just a few John wayne quotes


edit on 6-10-2015 by zerozero00 because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-10-2015 by zerozero00 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 07:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: Shamrock6

That's where your argument falls apart, in a country like Australia its completely illegal for mentally stable law abiding citizens to obtain a gun.


Sorry, don't want to be the thread spelling nazi or grammar police - but I thought I should correct this before some others jump on it and make a big deal out of a simple typing mistake on your part!


edit on 6/10/2015 by Kryties because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 07:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

Adam Lanza's mother bought the guns in the Sandy Hook shootings. The Oregon shooters mother bought the guns that were used. Yep, single mothers of mental health sons should quit buying guns.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 07:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: joemoe
a reply to: Kryties

And he is not obligated to. He probably did not want to get kicked out of school, because it is in the Student Conduct Code that firearms are prohibited.

Number 19 ... check it out yourself.

Student Conduct Code


So you are saying that his using his gun would have gotten him kicked out of school? They wouldn't take into account that he was saving others lives?

Thanks for proving my point entirely
There WAS armed people at the school and they prevented nothing! So much for the theory that arming everyone at school would prevent such tragedies eh!



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 07:17 AM
link   
It boggles my mind people that aren't American bitching about guns and OUR right to own them. You don't hear me on hear bitchin about the bland arse food the Brits eat( Germans should have bombed you all with cookbooks) or the we'll kick your arse with a big stick Aussie's. We have the 2nd amendment and so be it. All the threads all the large amount of bitching aint gonna do a damn thing here in America. All of your countries have their own problems....so take some time & bitch about your own countries problems. Me I'm going out and purchase yet another firearm...Yea for me!!


edit on 6-10-2015 by openyourmind1262 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 07:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: joemoe
a reply to: Kryties

What I think is an enabler in many of these mass shootings are the fact that the locations of these mass shootings are in either a "Gun Free" or "Gun Restricted" Zones.


Nonsense. As an example, there was at least one student at the Oregon school who had a carry-conceal license and had his gun on him but didn't want to act because he thought that when the police got there they would mistake him for the shooter and kill him.


Nonsense.

John Parker said that he was in an entirely different building and was locked down inside that building, several hundred yards away from the shooting. Parker also said the debate should be on mental health "and not the perverted fear of an inanimate object."

If you're going to try and quote people and use them to support your argument you should probably stick to what they actually said and not what you wish they had. And should probably not selectively quote them when something else they've said directly and specifically disagrees with the entire premise of YOUR comments.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 07:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Kryties

He wasn't obligated to. Perhaps if there were no restriction at that school there would be someone in the right place. There are many example where people did prevent mass shootings the MSM just don't cover it. And as I said on this thread before according to the National Crime and Victimization Survey there are at least 200k defensive gun use every year here in the US.
edit on 6-10-2015 by joemoe because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 07:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

So on the VERY year that laws were changed, knives accounted for nearly half of all homicide victims and the trend has continued upward....but yeah, guns HAVE to be the issue right?


Please stop willfully ignoring the fact that the restrictions here stopped mass shootings altogether.

The point was made in my OP that we never claimed it would stop all violence, just greatly reduce the risk of mass shootings and crime-by-gun. I am sure you would agree that something is better than nothing at all when it comes to potentially saving innocent lives.


As i have previously pointed out, this is just further proof that you are fixated on guns, and not concerned about the murders.

You stopped mass shootings, but the same amount of people die........what does this mean?

Guns arent the problem, the same amount of folks were murdered!!!

Murder is the problem, not guns!!!

How do you not see the obvious here?

Because guns, you are fixated on them.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 07:23 AM
link   
Mod note:

When Americans opine about other countries, like France, Russia, Afghanistan, Viet Nam, Syria or Iraq, then it is fair play for people from other countries (like my own) to opine about America.

This is a global website for speakers of English, even as a second language, so stop the personal attacks on those who are not Americans.

Do not reply to this post.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 07:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: Shamrock6

But it was totally legal for the Oregon mass shooter to own 13 guns. That's where your argument falls apart, in a country like Australia its completely legal for mentally stable law abiding citizens to obtain a gun.

But that Oregon shooter would have never been able to legally obtain a firearm under our current regulations. Hence, why we don't have these kind of mass shootings.

But anyway...


And that's where your ignorance of American gun laws rears its ugly head.

It's against federal law to sell a gun to somebody who has been, or is reasonably suspected of having been, adjudicated as mentally defective or has been committed to a mental institution.

Neither of which, as far as I know, would apply to the Oregon shooter. His mommy coming out after the fact and saying he had mental issues isn't the same as being legally adjudicated as such or being committed.

ETA - it's against federal law and as near as I know, state law in every state. But I don't know every state's laws forward and backward.
edit on 6-10-2015 by Shamrock6 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
53
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join