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.

 

Guncontrolism: A pathology of the weak and fearful.

page: 6
34
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 12 2015 @ 02:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: KesleyJ
I definitely think this has to do with the Wussification of America.


Well, yeah - who wants to be a wussy ..


As a disease, it would be called Guncontrolitis, with the symptoms just as you described. The cure is a trip to the country where they realize there are no police within 20 miles, where if your house catches on fire, there are no firemen within 30 miles.


And not being a wussy, you simply piss it out, of course. Or take out your gun and shoot it out. Right?


Where if someone decides to kill you and your family, they wouldn't find your body for months.


Highly surreal: unless you really pissed off some gang nobody will come to kill you. If you have pissed of some criminal gang and are on a hitlist, you do not really stand a better chance having a gun. They are professionals and they will monitor you for weeks, sometimes months and hit you when you least expect it. Probably in the back, for they are not heroes, nor do they want to take the risk of you shooting back at them. Murderers are wussies, ya know. That's how they survive.

But hey, perhaps somebody wants to steal your John Deere harvester, your old dog or your TV set, I dunno. Now, let's assume somebody wanted to rob you - why not wait until you're not at home? That would make it a far less risky business. In Europe even criminals are smart enough to prefer the safety and opportunities of cities. They typically monitor their targets first and only if they are fairly sure nobody is at home, will enter and rob you. They will also typically not bring a gun, so they can't shoot anybody unintentionally - murder is a far more severe crime than burglary.


I think at that point, they will prolly want to hold onto them guns and would be cured for a time. Post-treatment would be to limit tv consumption or they could relapse.


Oh, come on, at that point they would be dead, and so would you be. The best chance you have to prevent that to happen is make it far less probable that they HAVE a gun. That's called 'gun control'. And again: in a country without the shoot-first-than-ask mentality that seems to reign in some parts of the US most criminals will avoid carrying guns - too risky.

I say: where you live you are about just as safe without a gun as with it. And you know it. You simply like to play with guns, but be honest: you don't NEED one. How often have you really chased away a villain with that gun of yours? Do you really think they even know you HAVE a gun? Or that they care? And if they knew you had a gun, wouldn't it be much more logical for them to bring one too - and to shoot first, then ask questions?

But I can give you one guarantee: there IS a significant chance that you eventually WILL kill somebody with that gun of yours. Probably a lost salesman or - God forbid - one of your own while cleaning it or practice shooting with it.

Wussies. Indeed.




posted on Dec, 12 2015 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Well instead of actually helping their cause, a lot of gun advocates in this thread, have shown that are some unstable people who own guns. I am for reasonable gun laws, ones that might stop these horrible tragedies from occurring.

I know there are responsible and rational gun owners out there and they are the ones who should be the voice of gun advocacy.

I am not a conspiracy nut but these voices for guns in this thread sound suspicious, like they are actually for a ban on gun but are making ridiculous comments in order to make gun advocates look loony. I mean it is ridiculous what they are saying.

Who really thinks that people who do not own a gun are cowards, enjoy women being raped, would cower when family in trouble or actually think that if they were in the midst of a mass shooting they would save the day like a movie hero where everything works out and the bad guys miss all the time..sound exactly like an action movie.

I do not speak for my fellow members who believe something needs to be done about the mass shootings but I speak for myself. I do not want your guns if you are a rational and reasonable gun owner, I do not want an outright ban on guns because it is unreasonable, I do not want those people who need guns for protection due to where they live or unable to protect themselves without one nor should people be without them, if that is the only way to feel safe, in fact I do not want anyone's gun. I just would like there to be some kind of change that would help make it harder, for people who are out to do harm, to get them.

Owning a gun does not make you safer (it is just a false sense of security) but if it somehow helps those that live in fear of "what if's" go for it. I am not saying you need or want my approval because someone is bound to make some kind of sarcastic comment like "thanks so much for your approval". Not owning a gun does not make someone a coward nor does owning one make you one either.

Despite what both sides disagree on; we both can agree that these mass shooting are a serious issue that must be addressed. Both sides need to stop the bickering and name calling about guns and come to some sort of agreement on what it might take to stop these tragedies from happening because it is obvious that the laws set in place are not working.

I live in Canada, where it is a privilege to own one and so these types of occurrences are rare, so to a lot of gun owners, what I think does not matter and that is OK but I just want my brothers and sisters from the south to be safe and to not have to go through this anymore.

We both live in countries where this type of violence should not occur. Gun control works in Canada because we did not let gun ownership get out of hand and so did other countries where it works. I understand that the amount of guns in America us huge and that it may actually be too late to do anything but would it hurt to try?



posted on Dec, 12 2015 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: machineintelligence

I like it, let it archived you first coined the phrase. Gunisms, there all the rage.

Loved your OP.



posted on Dec, 12 2015 @ 03:59 PM
link   
Most people do not understand how most criminals support strict gun control and gun bans.

They also support bans on easy to get CCWs.

The biggest fear of a weapons toting criminals is a armed victim that is a better shot then they are.

This is why crime falls in states with higher numbers of CCWs.



posted on Dec, 12 2015 @ 04:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: ANNED
Most people do not understand how most criminals support strict gun control and gun bans.

They also support bans on easy to get CCWs.

The biggest fear of a weapons toting criminals is a armed victim that is a better shot then they are.

This is why crime falls in states with higher numbers of CCWs.


You only HAVE so many weapons toting criminals BECAUSE you allow "everybody" to just buy a gun. Also, you create a culture - this thread and various others are proof of it - in which fear, uncertainty and doubt take the place of reason, and so-called "manlihood" is similar to owning a gun. But facts are facts: with strict gun control in place people are safer.



posted on Dec, 12 2015 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Guncontrolism isn't a patholgy. It is naivety born from the
ignorance of history.

Within the last century and certainly within the last 150 years
we have seen genocidal governments and tyranical maniacs
turn their own streets into flowing rivers of blood. Millions
upon millions of innocent men, women, and children have
been enslaved, starved, experimented on, and slaughtered
at the hands of these maniacs.

And yet a gun controlist turns a blind eye to this.

You can argue with trusims that "History repeats" or
quote the wisdom of famous and relevent men "...a society
willing to give up even a little of its liberty for the sake of
safety...", all to no avail.

You can count off the number of dead in Russia, China,
Europe, Africa etc...and they will refuse to even acknowledge
that this is relevent...living only in the "here and now"
blissfully convinced that atrocities like this can never happen
again--and add that the only relevent information needed
is the few dozen recent innocents that have died at the hands of
solo gun-weilding psychopaths--and that somehow (erroneously)
deduce that guncontolism is the ulitmate answer to this type of
attack.

Gun controlism is not a pathology...

It is the the epitome of blissful ignorance.



posted on Dec, 12 2015 @ 06:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: ANNED
Most people do not understand how most criminals support strict gun control and gun bans.

They also support bans on easy to get CCWs.

The biggest fear of a weapons toting criminals is a armed victim that is a better shot then they are.

This is why crime falls in states with higher numbers of CCWs.


You only HAVE so many weapons toting criminals BECAUSE you allow "everybody" to just buy a gun. Also, you create a culture - this thread and various others are proof of it - in which fear, uncertainty and doubt take the place of reason, and so-called "manlihood" is similar to owning a gun. But facts are facts: with strict gun control in place people are safer.


This is the most repeated red herring when it comes to gun control in the UK. Anyone who has researched the topic knows that overall VIOLENT crime has increased in the UK since the gun ban in 1997, yet some only cherry pick the facts and cite how specific gun crimes have decreased.

Crime Prevention Research Center: Murder and homicide rates before and after gun bans

Another red herring is stating that lower gun control laws lead to higher crime rates, which is doesn't add up when you look at the statistics and the correlation between the most violent cities in the US and strict gun control laws.

2014: Crime Rates in Chicago Plummet After IL Implements Concealed Carry

Detroit Police Chief: Crime Going Down Amid Spike in Legal Gun Ownership
edit on 12-12-2015 by Konduit because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2015 @ 06:39 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut



The truth, however, is that any American can make an application, toddle down to Wal Mart and pick-up a gun. The majority of those new gun owners have a false sense of security and are far more likely to injure themselves or their loved ones than to ever be in a situation to defend themselves with it.


You simply don't understand what you are talking about. We have gun ranges all over the place where I live. I know the community of gun owners because we see each other at the range, at Church, and yes at the Walmart. We have Gun Shows with hundreds or thousands of vendors where you know many of the people who pay to attend as well as the regular vendors. I know for a fact that even little 10 year old girls here with pink AR-15 variants are dead shots who love to go out with Mom and Dad to the range every time they get a chance. Many of us buy our ammunition in bulk and split it. We fire 120-300 rounds through each weapon every week. I understand you are not aware of this because you clearly post in ignorance.



posted on Dec, 12 2015 @ 06:52 PM
link   
I live in Canada and do not own a firearm, but I can see the writing on the wall and the facts through the BS. Strict gun control laws only affect law abiding citizens, not criminals who break the laws and buy their weapons illegally on the black market.

Gun Control is like Communism; it only works on paper.
edit on 12-12-2015 by Konduit because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2015 @ 06:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: machineintelligence
a reply to: chr0naut



The truth, however, is that any American can make an application, toddle down to Wal Mart and pick-up a gun. The majority of those new gun owners have a false sense of security and are far more likely to injure themselves or their loved ones than to ever be in a situation to defend themselves with it.


You simply don't understand what you are talking about. We have gun ranges all over the place where I live. I know the community of gun owners because we see each other at the range, at Church, and yes at the Walmart. We have Gun Shows with hundreds or thousands of vendors where you know many of the people who pay to attend as well as the regular vendors. I know for a fact that even little 10 year old girls here with pink AR-15 variants are dead shots who love to go out with Mom and Dad to the range every time they get a chance. Many of us buy our ammunition in bulk and split it. We fire 120-300 rounds through each weapon every week. I understand you are not aware of this because you clearly post in ignorance.


Perhaps consider nuclear proliferation as an extreme application of the 'reasoning' that would arm the general public.

Everyone obviously must have an atomic weapon.

How else could you defend yourself against someone else armed with an atomic weapon?

If they blocked free access to atomic weapons from the general public, only criminals would have atomic weapons.

... and the only way to overcome an atomically armed 'government' is to be able to meet its forces with similar strength.


edit on 12/12/2015 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2015 @ 09:55 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut



Everyone obviously must have an atomic weapon. How else could you defend yourself against someone else armed with an atomic weapon?


So you are going to go nuclear in a firearms discussion. Please recuse yourself from representing your argument as you are not very good at it. Hire someone more competent at debate.



posted on Dec, 12 2015 @ 09:56 PM
link   
Gun control debate is always a moot point, anyway. It simply won't work in the US as it stands. The culture, the current proliferation of weapons, simply will not allow it.
First they stop the war on drugs, maybe that will help lower the violent crime rate.

I'll say this plain and simple, and loudly: POLITICIANS ONLY TALK ABOUT GUN CONTROL WHEN THEY WANT A SMOKE SCREEN FOR SOMETHING ELSE.

In this case, the TPP. Which is slipping by. Right now.



posted on Dec, 12 2015 @ 09:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: forkedtongue

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: machineintelligence
Guncontrolism: A pathology of the weak and fearful.

I have one for you, from the same cookie company;

"Guns; pathological overcompensation by the fearful, the psychotic, the Faithless, substitute penises for the hung like a light-switch!"

Cookies for all occasions!
Enjoy! *__-


Well that can't be true, because my gun is smaller than my...cough cough....I'm not lacking in that department.

Maybe I'm just the exception to the rule?

That doesn't negate the reality of the 'ego' problem. The overcompensation. The fear. And the reference to one's privates was merely a metaphor, and the blank can be filled in by many things, remaining as true.
There is still that vague niggling fear, that insecurity, that the gun is supposed to 'assuage', but never quite does.
That brings it into the sphere of pathology, psychology, rather than logic and rationality.
Realistically, what are the odds of someone murdering you?
Are you a drug dealer? A thief? A politician? *__-
Why so frightened (metaphor of 'teeny peenie')?
(And just between us psychologists, I'd think that anyone feeling the need to come online to 'defend/brag' of his... 'penis power'... tends to validate my point... uh... the point of the fortune cookie.)

Besides, as I said, that wasn't me, that was from our wise friends at the fortune cookie company.
They do 'snag' an ego here and there, though... *__-



posted on Dec, 12 2015 @ 09:59 PM
link   
a reply to: machineintelligence

It's as slippery as the slope of "Stronger Gun Control (In the form of Background Checks) -> Gun Confiscation -> Total Firearm Ban -> Tyrannical Government."



posted on Dec, 12 2015 @ 10:01 PM
link   
a reply to: namelesss

I believe he was joking.

The ego problem with firearms definitely exists, but it's generally only the people who tote AR-15s in front of playgrounds and primary schools who have a large one.



posted on Dec, 12 2015 @ 10:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: machineintelligence
a reply to: chr0naut



Everyone obviously must have an atomic weapon. How else could you defend yourself against someone else armed with an atomic weapon?


So you are going to go nuclear in a firearms discussion. Please recuse yourself from representing your argument as you are not very good at it. Hire someone more competent at debate.


I was merely using an absurdity to emphasize a fault in reasoning.

In a natural or man made disaster, the staple Hollywood solution of arming yourself to the teeth, hopping into your car and heading for somewhere else (where?) will not ensure survival. You will run out of food, fuel and ordinance and to survive, you will have to infract against the rights of someone else (as you will have squandered all your resources on a pointless road trip). This immediately marks you as a combatant and someone who is organized and more populous, will annihilate you in their own defense. It is obvious from history and experience that cooperation, compassion and effort is far more effective a survival strategy but it doesn't make for good lone-wolf, man against the world, Hollywood stories.

As far as I am concerned, Americans are free to do what they want. Their empire is over. The civil unrest occurring now are the death throes, like every other empire previous. Gun proliferation will just hasten the breakdown. It is just sad, the number of innocents that will end up caught in the crossfire.



posted on Dec, 12 2015 @ 11:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: machineintelligence
a reply to: chr0naut



The truth, however, is that any American can make an application, toddle down to Wal Mart and pick-up a gun. The majority of those new gun owners have a false sense of security and are far more likely to injure themselves or their loved ones than to ever be in a situation to defend themselves with it.


You simply don't understand what you are talking about. We have gun ranges all over the place where I live. I know the community of gun owners because we see each other at the range, at Church, and yes at the Walmart. We have Gun Shows with hundreds or thousands of vendors where you know many of the people who pay to attend as well as the regular vendors. I know for a fact that even little 10 year old girls here with pink AR-15 variants are dead shots who love to go out with Mom and Dad to the range every time they get a chance. Many of us buy our ammunition in bulk and split it. We fire 120-300 rounds through each weapon every week. I understand you are not aware of this because you clearly post in ignorance.


Perhaps consider nuclear proliferation as an extreme application of the 'reasoning' that would arm the general public.

Everyone obviously must have an atomic weapon.

How else could you defend yourself against someone else armed with an atomic weapon?

If they blocked free access to atomic weapons from the general public, only criminals would have atomic weapons.

... and the only way to overcome an atomically armed 'government' is to be able to meet its forces with similar strength.



Hmmm, considering that criminals are in control of all the nuclear weapons (if you believe that governments are inherently corrupt, as I do) presently, wouldn't you say we're pretty much already in the soup? Remember all those rumors about the "suitcase" nukes that "disappeared" from the Soviet arsenal? I'd be willing to guess that the control laws on nukes are about as stiff as can be imagined and yet some seem to have wandered away from the fold.



posted on Dec, 12 2015 @ 11:16 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Gee, in our neighborhood, we have a lot of that co--operating stuff, including making sure that people who own guns and like to shoot them have a safe environment to do so. We're not a bunch of one-man-lone-wolf people. We've survived some pretty nasty natural disasters in the past decade or so and we're a stronger community for it. We also learned during those disasters that our locals are the only help on which we can depend. State and federal people waltz in with manuals and paperwork after the work is done.
You've watched too many Hollywood movies and know too little about rural life in the US.



posted on Dec, 12 2015 @ 11:21 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut




As far as I am concerned, Americans are free to do what they want. Their empire is over. The civil unrest occurring now are the death throes, like every other empire previous. Gun proliferation will just hasten the breakdown. It is just sad, the number of innocents that will end up caught in the crossfire.


Again you show your ignorance of what is going on in the United States. The American Empire is the only currently existing global empire on the planet. They control the IMF, the FED, the US military, The UN, NATO. Pretty much the entire power structure of the world. Civil unrest is caused by the control freaks who try and disrupt American liberty. They routinely fail in the end.



posted on Dec, 12 2015 @ 11:23 PM
link   
a reply to: machineintelligence

The "American Empire" is pretty much the source of all the world's problems.

edit on 12/12/2015 by Eilasvaleleyn because: Reasons




top topics



 
34
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join