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.

 

This is NOT a gun problem, and if you relax that knee, you'll understand.

page: 2
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 12:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: network dude

It should be noted that both of these Muslims were legal US citizens (they were born here too) and obtained their rifles legally.


Yes, you are correct. It should also be noted that we have a law against killing people. It's already on the books. It didn't help.

This guy had tactical gear and weapons ready for a assault. I consider myself prepared, but I could not drive home and be back anywhere killing in 20 minutes. And also convince my wife it's time to kill people you don't know.

This, along with the Paris attacks was terrorism. Or war if you like simpler terms as I do.

And no, only one of these RADICAL Muslims was born here, the other was born in Saudi Arabia and brought here.




posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: TinkerHaus

I can explain your confusion with this in one sentence: Guns are FAR more likely to kill people than knives.

Crime rates have NOTHING to do with guns. Wealth gaps and discrimination DO. BUT, a victim of violent crime has a higher chance of surviving a violent encounter with a knife-wielding assailant and living their rest of their lives afterwards. Yet a victim of a gun-wielding assailant will give the victim very low chances of living a fulfilling life afterwards. Do you know why? Because they're dead!



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 12:03 PM
link   
Radicalized nutjobs. Your observation IMO is correct. They would have found the means to terrorize even without the firearms. CA is as close to a gun free zone state as possible. I will tell you, I am licensed to CC and if I was at ANY event where there was a degree of terrorism, the perpetrators would not have had a free for all gun spree. IMO , we have to call Radical Islamic Terrorism what it is, and this has to start from the top of our government.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 12:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: queenofswords



People like Obama that stand on their high horse


This is one of the reasons it's hard to have an intelligent discussion on this issue. Crap like this alienates people and it's annoying.

Why can't we address the issue without some lame reference to Obama, Leftists and such?

I'm a Leftist. I'm pro 2nd amendment.

So where do we go from here?


Anger along with not enough information drives those kind of points.

There is still a problem, we are at war, and we have very little idea what the enemy looks like or where his is.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 12:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Passerby1996
a reply to: TinkerHaus

I can explain your confusion with this in one sentence: Guns are FAR more likely to kill people than knives.

Crime rates have NOTHING to do with guns. Wealth gaps and discrimination DO. BUT, a victim of violent crime has a higher chance of surviving a violent encounter with a knife-wielding assailant and living their rest of their lives afterwards. Yet a victim of a gun-wielding assailant will give the victim very low chances of living a fulfilling life afterwards. Do you know why? Because they're dead!



Guns can't do a damn thing without a guy with his hand on the trigger. Please try to keep that in perspective. People kill, guns are just the tool, and when that tool isn't available, something else will be used.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 12:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Klassified

I don't know where you're getting the idea that Jamaica was somehow a safe place to live in during the seventies. I keep seeing a lot of internal turmoil and a rise in gun-related crimes. Then there was a response by the government to give the police and investigative agencies sweeping new powers. But that's not armed people preventing gun violence. That's better intel preventing gun violence.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 12:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: introvert

The good people I know would only EVER consider taking a life to protect their family. Most would risk death to help save a stranger. That is what I consider a good person. Someone who can kill (anything) with no remorse is a bad person. Sorry it's dumbed down that much, but it's how I see things.

And no gun control would not have done a thing in any of these cases. Legally obtained or not, these shooters planned this well ahead of time. Obtaining the tools to do what they planned is only a minor technicality. If you think about that for a minute, you will understand.


If guns had not be available to them, a gallon of gasoline and a Bic lighter would have sufficed as an adequate if not far more terrifying weapon. The tools are not really the problem, it is the mindsets that literally triggers them.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 12:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: ClassicCon
Radicalized nutjobs. Your observation IMO is correct. They would have found the means to terrorize even without the firearms. CA is as close to a gun free zone state as possible. I will tell you, I am licensed to CC and if I was at ANY event where there was a degree of terrorism, the perpetrators would not have had a free for all gun spree. IMO , we have to call Radical Islamic Terrorism what it is, and this has to start from the top of our government.



I saw a guy on the news who was there and had his weapon. He just arrived to late, saw the shooter, but wasn't sure he was the bad guy. He said the only thing that made him stand out was how calmly he was walking.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

You completely misunderstood the point of that post.

Let me say it in a different way: GUNS ARE FAR MORE LIKELY TO KILL PEOPLE THAN KNIVES. The people behind the gun DO pull the trigger, but that's due to mental abuse of discrimination during their lifetimes resulting from a society of different backgrounds and histories. Which do you think will make a more significant change the fastest: Changing the criminals minds through decades of societal reconfiguration, or taking the guns away from criminals?

I would do both these methods, but all I'm saying is you have to start somewhere.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

If only people could take out those quick political-jabs from their arguments then maybe I could actually stand arguing with a different political view every now and then.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Passerby1996
Poverty is not a reasonable measure for crimes committed with guns, since some of the more heinous gun crimes in history and modern day have been committed by middle and upper class people. Switzerland has approx. half the poverty rate of the U.S. Which means they should have about half the gun crimes. They don't. They have next to nil in the impoverished areas. I live in an area that can't remember the last time there was a crime committed with a gun. Yet everyone here owns guns. You never know who's carrying around here. Even the poor folks.

But this hasn't been the case. These cowards never challenge a location where people will be armed. They never buy more powerful weapons to outgun anyone. They just prey on those who are defenseless.

Jamaica: Banned ALL guns in the 70's. Crime went through the roof. Especially crimes committed with illegal guns.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 12:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Passerby1996
a reply to: Klassified

I don't know where you're getting the idea that Jamaica was somehow a safe place to live in during the seventies. I keep seeing a lot of internal turmoil and a rise in gun-related crimes. Then there was a response by the government to give the police and investigative agencies sweeping new powers. But that's not armed people preventing gun violence. That's better intel preventing gun violence.


See my response to your first post.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 12:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: queenofswords



People like Obama that stand on their high horse


This is one of the reasons it's hard to have an intelligent discussion on this issue. Crap like this alienates people and it's annoying.

Why can't we address the issue without some lame reference to Obama, Leftists and such?

I'm a Leftist. I'm pro 2nd amendment.

So where do we go from here?


Obama's name was used because he is the Biggest culprit and has the Biggest bully pulpit. Do you even listen to your president? He constantly, at every chance he gets, compares us to other countries. Not trying to alienate anyone. Sorry if I stepped on your delicate toes by calling this man out on using his position to speak nonsense.

It IS part of the intelligent discussion to call this kind of rhetoric out for what it is. You cannot use other countries as a comparison. I could write an entire essay on why this is ridiculous and futile.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Passerby1996

If you outlaw guns, do you know who will turn in their weapons? Only those law abiding citizens will. The criminals won't, and they can get them from all sorts of places. Utopia isn't a real place. I wish it was.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Passerby1996

I call BS, I have several weapons of the projectile nature and not a one save for maybe some of the war era weapons have ever killed anyone. A bit of injury maybe but that's what he got for trying to car jack me... The gun is not the issue. Guns save more lives than they take. Ask any soldier who needed his, or an LEO who needed his, take that power away from good people and the bad people are the only ones left with the power. Smart people, people who have a drive to survive in a world gone wrong, they know, get a gun, master your weapon, make it a part of you. It is no different than the roman with a sword or spear, same game better tech.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Klassified

It's not only poverty I was talking about, though. There's also the huge variable of discrimination (against race, culture, religion, political allegiance, etc ...). Switzerland is probably the most "uniform" in terms of potential levels of discrimination. This means that there's not much to really discriminate against at all, hence the lack of any violent reprisals. They are also not a prime target for terrorists, as they don't contain many major cities whatsoever and don't make up a large amount of the global GDP.

Jamaica is completely different. While guns were banned, nothing else was done to quell the variables of poverty and discrimination. Thus, violence went through the roof. Political organizations were formed to combat anyone who disagreed with them, and they brought guns internationally to fight these opponents. It's an example of taking the starting leap into a race when the gun goes off (pun not intended), but not running the rest of the race.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 12:49 PM
link   
People who say they are for gun control are not against gun violence.

They are for citizens not having guns and the government and the ruling class having guns.

They are for the ruling class using gun violence, both implied and applied, to enforce this gun ban on citizens.

The ruling class is NEVER giving up thier guns so neither should we..
edit on 3-12-2015 by Deny Arrogance because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

If you think about that for a minute, you will understand.


Thinking about a complex issue like this for a minute will not bring understanding. Is a minute all you gave it when you made your considerations? I think not. I hope not.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 12:59 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Interestingly enough France has had more mass shooting casualties in 2015 than the USA in just under 7 years...Obama is selling a bill of goods on gun control. Everyone can see for themselves on crime statistics.com

Good tbread



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 01:00 PM
link   
RADICAL Muslims? Are you jumping to conclusions here? I've been following the story and the only thing that points to a possible RADICAL nature is his name??




Now please read that important word before you accuse me of being an islamaphobe or some hater of Muslims. If Radical Christians were doing this, I'd call them that. But this time it's radical Muslims. And make no mistake they are at war.


RADICAL Christians are doing this. His name is Robert Dear. It just happened or did you forget already?



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join