It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

NYT: Americans With Assault Rifles Should 'Give Them Up For The Good Of Their Fellow Citizens'

page: 12
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 02:41 PM
a reply to: vor78
Good point guys but I was hoping you would refer to my other comment in another post. Permit holders are equally as likely to suffer from depression and mental breakdowns. (Genetic dispositions aside).

They won't think rationally and the threat of everyone around them having a gun may add to the paranoia affect. We all agree it's the mentally ill that cause these mass shootings, self radicalised or not, as permit holders are "educated" and "sane", but are equally susceptible to experiences that may trigger irrational thoughts.

Imagine a mentally ill person no longer has access to "safezones". Like guns being taken away from you. This initiative has helped promote this paranoia and illusion that no place is no longer safe. You have now dramatically increased the gun count in these locations and the sense of it being unsafe. To the sane person you would say I feel safe knowing other people have guns to detract these mass shooting outbreaks, but to someone without the same mental stability you have created an environment that promotes guns and uncertainty as the norm.

Remember we all agree that it is the mentally ill that do these crimes (outside gang culture), so why create an environment that would provoke "unsafe", irrational thoughts.

This is just my opinion remember. I see the world differently as guns are not the norm where I'm from.

posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 02:47 PM

originally posted by: hangedman13
We "cling" to these quotes because we understand history. Things created by man all eventually end. That means at some point the gov't you believe will protect you will at some point be gone.

Well, we'll see how to deal with that if we ever get there. In the meantime, the UK has the lowest number of gun-related deaths per capita in Europe (and actually: one of the lowest world-wide).

The people will have to take care of themselves

Yes. So, they will organise themselves again. Which is just another way of saying they will establish a new state. And I sincerely hope it will be a peaceful state, in which it is not required nor needed to arm yourself to defend yourself (regardless against what).

Modern civilization has weakened humanity. Killing is part of nature, animals do it for food and to protect their own.

Yep. Animals do. The don't carry guns however. Also, I don't know about you, but when I need food - I simply walk to the supermarket or visit a restaurant. No guns required. If I have a dispute with somebody, I either talk it through until we find a solution - or we go to court. And if I lose - I lose. Gnashing of teeth, but no clicking of guns, thank you. I'm actually quite pleased to be part of that weakened humanity that thinks that shooting others is barbaric.

Despite some high minded thinking from people today, we humans are animals. No better no worse than any other. When things get rough who do you think the gov't will be more interested in protecting, we the people or their position?

You really need to learn to speak for yourself. I am by no means a saint, I have a temper. But I also have a brain and some control. So, I will not kill you, because my brain works. And even when my primitive selfish animalistic lower self gets the better of me - it happens - I do not have a gun. I am not allowed to have one. Thank goodness. If you don't own a gun you can't shoot somebody dead with it.

It's that simple.
edit on 7-12-2015 by ForteanOrg because: he, in the heat of the moment, forgot to un-italic

posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 02:49 PM

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: rossacus

So its not ok to buy a gun because I like to shoot it?

I also hunt to put good meat on the table, what my family cant eat goes to a local food bank for distribution to those less fortunate.

I also prefer to have the ability to defend my home and my family from any intruders... since cops are at best minutes away when seconds count.

Living in Europe I respect the decisions of Europeans to put all their faith in the govt to care for them from cradle to the grave... I have not seen anything out of the govt except a string of broken promises, so please forgive me if I prefer to not wager my life on them following through on a promise.

But I cant wait to return to the USA where I am allowed to defend myself in my own home.

Here, here.

The argument of gun control v gun rights really boils down to one of dependence vs independence.

How many of you Europeans on here are ok with police and military having firearms? Same with gun control proponents on here from the States - how many of you are ok with Obama's secret service all carrying guns every day, or police officers carrying guns every day in public?

Many will say - oh, well, cops, feds, and military are better trained. Problem is, you don't know that. On first look, you don't even know if a cop is really a cop or an impersonator. I shoot IDPA matches (competitive defensive pistol competitions) and a lot of the best shooters are civilians or former operator types. Yes, plenty of cops are great marksmen and care about their craft, but I've seen plenty of LEOs on the range flag people with their muzzle, or re-holster their pistol with their finger on the trigger.

Lawful concealed carriers have a lot of extra liability compared to LEOs, because we don't have State / City Government and lawyers backing us up. As such, we carry because we choose to accept that responsibility. It is not just another tool of our every day job. (PLEASE don't take this as a bash on LEOs, I have total respect for many of the close friends that I know who serve).

With all that being said, it boils down to a dependence on a nanny Government (liberals / anti-gunners / many Europeans) V Independence. Or as I tend to refer to it, Statism V Freedom.

posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 02:51 PM
a reply to: peskyhumans
"The most humane thing to do is arm law abiding citizens". That comment is why I try to not get involved in the threads. You genuinely belive that to be the solution. Can you name a single mass shooting killer that wasn't law abiding at one point.having a permit does not absolve you from commiting crimes in the future.we have all committed crimes so the statement of law abiding doesn't even mean anything in society.

I apologise if you didn't mean to write humane and I am picking up on a spelling mistake cos that is a terrible thing to say. Humane and guns should never be in the same sentence outside farming and hunting.

posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 02:55 PM
a reply to: SonOfThor
I think it simply boils down to paranoid or not paranoid. I go to sleep feeling completely safe. Others need to look at their gun before their head hits the pillow to feel safe. Everyone to themselves though.

I have to admit though I most probably will have the same thought processes if I knew anyone could have a gun.

posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 03:01 PM
I'm from Australia and I will tell you what has happened here after our gun laws were changed the day after The Port Arthur Massacre. The Government introduced a buy back scheme and listed the banned firearms to be handed in which were basically anything semi auto in rifle and all pump action and auto shotguns, 45 ACP and a couple of other types. They also had an amnesty were you could hand in any unwanted firearm, I know guys that made small fortunes with this..they were handing in old barrels and claiming they were actual guns and guys claimed they had guns antique in nature and they got $15k for them.

Move forward to now, there are more legally owned firearms in this country than before the buyback, there has been practically zero "legal owned" incidents but the cases of illegally owned guns being used in crimes has gone up massively mainly in places like Western Sydney were there is a huge immigrant populace.

The only statistic that can be provided by the Government is that the suicide by gun deaths are massively down after the buyback.

Don't give up your rights to own firearms like we did, this last week 20+ proposals to add to our firearms act have been made available for public comment and amongst them are proposals like every time you re-license your firearm you have to provide a genuine need again and supply property letters for you caliber of choice with the property owner having to keep a log of every time you shoot on his property ect...

Actual reloading components like Federal Small Pistol Primers cannot be bought in this country at the moment and neither can Winchester Powders like WST. We are slowly being attacked again for being legal, licensed and law abiding citizens which makes my blood boil.
edit on 7-12-2015 by mazzroth because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 03:01 PM
a reply to: ForteanOrg
Thankyou so much. Saves me giving an emotional response. If I had a gun he would look like a colander.

posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 03:04 PM
a reply to: mazzroth

Did the over all suicide rate drop to or is it about the same. Death by gun or death by another means is still death...hehe

posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 03:06 PM
a reply to: mazzroth
It makes your blood boil that your guns are being taking away. I would ask why. What possible reason could you feel that emotional about your government trying to reduce gun related death rates? I genuinely don't understand...

Is it fear of being shot and unable to shoot back?
Scared of immigrants with guns?
Won't be able to shoot as many animals as before?
You don't have the amendment BS to fall back on so I would genuinely like to know why you NEED this gun. I don't know what you have been subjected to in MSM and education but it does seem strange to me.

posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 03:12 PM
a reply to: rossacus

Purely because its my hobby nothing more, I chose target pistol shooting as a hobby when I damaged my back. In my state there is pretty much no daily threat to my life and trust me I don't want idiots to have firearms. Our laws are ok at the moment but proposals to make it more or less impossible to keep a firearm get me upset.

posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 03:14 PM
a reply to: Xtrozero

No idea mate, its funny that our anti-gun lobby ( consists of 3 people ) tried to lobby Government to restrict even further our guns here and they couldn't come up with any stats apart from the one I just gave. They did us a huge favour by making idiots of themself.

posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 03:18 PM
a reply to: mazzroth

Fair play.

posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 03:23 PM
a reply to: Indigent

When I did my last build, my daughter begged me to build her a Hello Kitty AR. I told her when she learned how to build one we could talk about it.

posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 03:24 PM
All the wealthy NYT readers, investors and owners should give up 50% of their net worth to help their fellow citizens. Would make a helluva lot bigger impact than taking my AR15.

posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 03:36 PM

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: RoadCourse

A raving lunatic who cries about their guns being taken away when in reality, ie away from LaLaLand where the raving lunatic resides, their guns will never be taken away.

I guess they should just completely ignore the President of the United States calling for gun control on a weekly basis, because since it's on TV it must not be reality... right?

When you talk about LaLaLand I assume it's in reference to you sticking your fingers in your ears whenever a politician speaks.
edit on 7-12-2015 by Konduit because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 03:50 PM
I struggle understanding the resistance to giving up "assault rifles". They are designed to inflict maximum damage and not as a defensive weapon.

People are more worried about semantics and the false definition of assault rifle instead of addressing the main point. What is the need or purpose for it. It is not even necessary for hunting. You can't even carry it with you on public streets so why such an outcry. Let is be and worry later about the agenda to rid america of all guns. A pistol is more than enough to appease the amendment fetish many possess and can fulfil all killing/defensive requirements.

Thought I would help the thread get back on track.

posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 04:02 PM
After every act of terror we are told we should not judge all Muslims based on the actions of a few...

Isn't it time the 80 million gun owners in American get the same treatment?

posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 04:08 PM

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: Domo1

Truth is, I don't personally have anything against guns. I'd never turn down the chance to fire off a few rounds and think anyone living on a rural property should be allowed to own one... Especially in the US where you have bears, large cats and dangerous canines everywhere, lol.

But I just don't personally think "assault rifles" or guns of any kind for that matter, belong in suburban homes. Its blatant over kill, it also puts the American people at more risk (imo), rather than less.

You just summed up pretty much how I feel about the situation.....

Yet no star for the comment?

Kind of like your calling me out as a wanker, who manages to hit the nail on the head, once in a blue moon... Nah, its all good mate, I'm just winding ya up and could care less what my Aussie or American brothers think of me. I ain't afraid to say what I think. Even if it does sacrifice my completely 'average' star to post ratio, lol.

No but I gave u a star for this comment

posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 04:19 PM
a reply to: rossacus

Legally, need isn't a valid issue. There's no test of need with regard to firearms ownership in US law.

As to purpose, some people do use them for home defense. I wouldn't, personally, but I'm not going to tell someone else what to use. Others actually do use them for hunting; they're relatively popular for coyote and hog control, for instance, and are well suited to it. And they're also easily customized and use low cost ammunition, both important considerations for sporting and range use.
edit on 7-12-2015 by vor78 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 04:34 PM
I have not read this whole OP but one glaring thing is the lack of knowledge when talking about assault rifles. The assault rifle has been ban since 1934! The ONLY way a non-government individual can own one is to apply for a Federal Firearms License and pay a $250 tax stamp annually. The FBI data shows that a true assault rifle has never been used in the commission of a crime.

The NYT is doing nothing but selling newspapers by making outlandish statements. They are depending on the lack of knowledge by the public to touch a sore nerve and sell their yellow journalism. The NYT has no authority or moral standing to call for gun turn-in.

How many of the readers here have seen or bought a "knock-off" handbag or watch. This is exactly what is being referred to as an assault rifle. These are guns are doctored to look like real assault weapons but they are not! In the time of the Brady Act, these were called ugly guns. People are afraid of ugly guns that are no more than a common hunting rifle with bling.

The latest terrorist act in California is said to have used assault rifles. If this indeed the case there are federal laws against them. They are already illegal and more laws would be useless. A voluntary turn-in would only involve people who own them legally not the terrorists. How stupid would that be?

top topics

<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in