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

How I feel about guns. A friendly discourse.

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 12:37 AM
a reply to: GamleGamle bad....I got involved as I agree with the thread premise.....I shall no longer derail.... Carry on

posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 12:43 AM
a reply to: GamleGamle

oh come on man, it was funny. I bet yall saw this movie in theater when it came out and LOLed all the way home. It just so happens I am a big fan of Dutch Gouda.

You want gun control eh?? I think we should teach firearm safety courses starting in elementary school and move on to live fire by middle school. Upon graduation, every student receives either a 30-30, 30-06, or .300 blackout with their diploma, and the right to move from civilian to citizen and all the benefits it will carry. Thats how I believe we can improve control of our guns.

What is your opinion on my opinion on that?
edit on 14-12-2015 by AmericanRealist because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 12:52 AM
a reply to: GamleGamle

recently a reporter asked the white house spokesman how will the legislation stop a bad guy from using a gun illegally..

The spokesman had no answer...

If they don't have any idea how it might stop a bad guy... then if your even mildly paranoid about the powers that be, your next thought is who is the legislation actually for.

I don't have a good answer... but If I was proposing legislation I would like to think I would have a good idea about who it was going to impact and how...

eta: really wish I could fall asleep.

edit on 14-12-2015 by Irishhaf because: additional thought.

posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 12:57 AM

originally posted by: GamleGamle
Statistically speaking there is not much need for a gun over here.

Statistically speaking, it's the governments that have always been behind the worst crimes committed against humanity.

History shows governments have collectively killed 1/4 billion humans on our planet.

Our "gubmints'" are the REAL psychos and most can't handle that kind of truth.

They are FAR more notorious than ANY street criminal.

It's the governments that have ALWAYS been behind the worst crimes committed against humanity.

The REAL serial killers are those we THOUGHT were there to protect us.

"...the tragic fact is that disarming victims leads to great bloodshed. I'm referring to the millions of people who died at the hands of their government over the past century. Most of these mass murders were preceded by a cynical and calculating "gun control" program, leading to eventual disarmament. Genocide followed soon thereafter."

Leave Mass Murder to the Professionals

There are those who believe that the government should have the monopoly on violence; that the government should be the only one armed, and that we should trust the government to protect us. There is just one little tiny problem with that, and that is that the gang of armed men doing the killing and the kidnapping usually IS the government.

It is the governments of the world who have initiated the genocides, the ethnic cleansings, the great mass murders. It's the governments that have systematically exterminated political dissidents. It's the governments who have built the concentration camps and the secret prisons.

It's the governments that have always been behind the worst crimes committed against humanity. Human governments have repeatedly demonstrated themselves to be the most bloodthirsty, ruthless, and corrupt organizations on earth. Even the sickest serial killers have nothing on the state.

And yet some would entrust them with the absolute power of life and death over you and your family. That's what is at stake when you give the government the monopoly on violence, because when the people have no defense the government has no boundaries.

The REAL Mass Murderers

posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 12:59 AM
a reply to: AmericanRealist

Yeah I thought it was funny, but a distraction. Staying on topic is not just about my wants and wishes. Its for people who want to learn something on ATS. About different views and facts. Those videos, there are forums for that to.

I never explicitly said that I wanted gun control, but I see from my wording how it could be interpreted as such.
I definitely believe gun control in the form of licensing an screening makes sense, when the laws and regs are tight.
I do not know how effective they would be in the US.... in combating the current surge in gun violence, as some participants have pointed out, that it is a combination of many factors that can not simply be placed on the presence of guns alone or how they are regulated.

I believe your measures even when implemented correctly are pretty heavy handed. I hope at least that their is an opt out clause here. That none are forced to receive and to participate. I believe elementary school should not mess with anything remotely related to guns. Let middle school deal with that. Let parents teach their children gun safety if its important to them. I think these measures would on one hand guarantee safety for those who were not planning to mess with guns in a bad way in the first place, but would insure everybody who is mentally unstable at least knows how to use a gun.

In other words, I am not diametrically opposed to your views on gun safety, but it can not exist in that vacuum. The sources of desperation and violence, like drug abuse, poverty, mental health issues should be seriously tackled before your ideas could be safely implemented and have a positive feed back loop as a consequence.

That is my opinion on your opinion.

Kind Regards

posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 01:12 AM
a reply to: Irishhaf

Sometimes legislation is passed so they can say we tried or to say that they can not blame the government.

Legislation can not control those who do not care for laws to begin with, its just a way to say, hey we did everything within our power to stop this tragedy. As long as faulty background checks persist, and people fall through the gap, government can be blamed be it justified or not. I think they want to minimize that exposure the most. At least until if ever they can tackle the underlying sociology economic factors.

The big oh they are trying to control us by taking away our guns point of view. Does not seem to add up, because as people have already exclaimed. A civil war would ensue if they ever tried. Furthermore if they play a long game of social engineering, weening of America of the guns. That could either succeed or backfire, but who can say what the future holds? Thank you for your input.

Kind Regards.

posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 01:19 AM
a reply to: Murgatroid

With great power comes great response ability.

In a general sense I agree with most of the sentiment, but.....
You / they make the case but get to the wrong conclusion.

The power lust of man is a sign of its collective immaturity.
I would like to refer you to an iconic historic example. The French Revolution.
Because who is government but a group of people that were willing and able to seize power.
Be it by the pen or the sword.... or the gun as the case may be.

Also see. Astyanax post on the first page.
Lastly.... how is Obama disarming the US population?

Kind Regards

posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 01:59 AM
Actually, your thread has a wrong title. A 'gun' is a tool. The problem is 'bullying', or 'disparity of force'.

You can look at it from four distances.

1. Baby
2. Child
3. Adult
4. Elderly

Each one of those has a certain amount of force, or power. Each one of those groups seeks power over the other - that's just the way groups, individuals, types, ages are. Pecking order.

Now a 'baby' has a certain amount of power because they are under the protection of an adult, hopefully a rational one.

But who protects the elderly? Well in some cultures the elderly are venerated, but not in all. In some tribes, once you are too old you lose your usefulness and you're sent out into the desert to die.

So, basically, lacking the existence of some 'innate power' such as 'the force', some innate ability to be protected, or to be venerated (invulnerable to bullying or disparity of force, or lacking technology like a personal forcefield, a simple, handy tool which can signify:

'Mess with me and you might learn a lesson...hopefully you can learn that lesson from observation and not by experience'.

Or more simply put: 'Don't tread on me'.

A rattlesnake is typically very peaceful but step on it or continue to advance and ignore the 'rattle' and you get bit.

To summarize, since human beings will always have a pecking order, since you can't depend on someone else do defend your sovereignty, or your integrity, the best we can do right now is carry a force multiplier.

When we are in our 20s a "force multiplier" might be our feet - we can run away and by creating distance we reduce your force until it equalizes.

But when you are in your 60s you can't always run away, but you can use your reputation.

If you are female, smaller, weaker, older, slower, then the younger, larger, more masculine, faster will try to prey on you. But if they knew you still had power, even if it was hidden, they would seek other things to occupy their time, such as getting their own loaf of bread, piece of territory, or slice of peace, and not try to take mine.

Focusing on guns happens when people who want to be bullies have to suck it up and realize they're not all that, and they have to respect the value of the female, the youngster, the smaller, the elderly and it's often a bitter pill for them to swallow, being all used to being entitled.

Hope this helps to put it into perspective.

Those who use firearms as 'force equalizers' would rather live in a world where there were no bullies, either bully persons, bully groups, bully creeds, bully ethnicities, or would rather have a personal invulnerability (vernerated, personal force field), but since we don't at our level of technology, we can carry around a 'pew-pew'.

That 'pew-pew' helps a lot because it has a 'deterrence value' and it can act at a distance, giving the slower more time.

We'd all happily trade in our force equalizers for a phaser with a setting of 'stun', so maybe the solution is for those of you who are allergic to lead would invent one of those?
edit on 14-12-2015 by Maverick7 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 02:03 AM

originally posted by: GamleGamle
Lastly.... how is Obama disarming the US population?

He's not, see the Disraeli quote below...

To answer the question, your thread is the perfect example...


In order to get some answers, one has to see who is hiding behind the facade...

“Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.”— Theodore Roosevelt, 26th President of the United States

"Governments do not govern, but merely control the machinery of government, being themselves controlled by the hidden hand." ~ Benjamin Disraeli; Prime Minister of England

Past presidents of the United States and other high profile political leaders have repeatedly issued warnings over the last 214 years that the U.S. government is under the control of an “invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people.”

According to six of our former presidents, one vice-president, and a myriad of other high profile political leaders, an invisible government that is “incredibly evil in intent” has been in control of the U.S. government “ever since the days of Andrew Jackson” (since at least 1836). They “virtually run the United States government for their own selfish purposes. They practically control both parties… It operates under cover of a self-created screen [and] seizes our executive officers, legislative bodies, schools, courts, newspapers and every agency created for the public protection.”

“A power has risen up in the government greater than the people themselves, consisting of many and various powerful interests, combined in one mass, and held together by the cohesive power of the vast surplus in banks.” – John C. Calhoun, Vice President (1825-1832)

From Washington to JFK: Former Presidents Warn About Illuminati

posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 02:42 AM
a reply to: GamleGamle

Not all Americans are whackos who think we should all be packing.
I'm an American who thinks this country should have NO guns.
Americans should re-read the 2nd amendment.
"Well regulated militia". Nothing about guns in America has anything to do with that. It's an amendment that needs ammending.

posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 02:55 AM
a reply to: Maverick7

I respectfully disagree, because I was approaching the subject for the most part from the perspective of guns and all that it may concern. That the participants of this thread like to discuss the matter in a more general fashion is everyone's won right, but does not necessarily reflect on my original intent.

I did not ask why do people carry guns?
I asked why is gun control in one way or another a bad thing, considering the current situation in the US. What are the pro's and cons.

As per your view on the nature of humanity. I can agree that there is a animal component to our existence, but I do not feel that it defines us as a race, not at all completely. My biggest defense is my reputation and my conduct. People do not want to mess with me because I do not put myself in that position. I surround myself with certain kinds of people that do not mess with me and I avoid situations and plan my life in such a way to minimize such exposure. The golden Rule. Do to others as you would have them do onto you.....

To me guns and any other weapon like the atomic weapon... do function as force equalizers, but only until people can live in peace with oneself and one another. For what does it benefit a man to inherit the earth but lose his soul.....

Kind Regards and go in peace.

posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 03:06 AM
a reply to: Murgatroid

Sigh you know what the sad part is about this conversation...... that I almost have no resistance towards your message of their being a force behind government that at least tries to control EVERYTHING for their own gain, and that they are not altruistic, but doesn't explain how TPTB do disarm the US public...... because I can simply move the question to that. Be it Obama or the Hidden Hand.

Once again. Say all you say is true, how is arming the population actually help solve anything. The only thing I have ever seen in this way is people getting armed pitted against each other whilst the really really smart ones secure their interests in the background. Just use human nature against itself.

How is my thread deceptive? I can only guess, but do you mean with the power of ideas, peoples views change? Well yes that does happen from time to time, it is a very powerful tool indeed. Much more powerful than any gun I reckon. When you are able to propagate an idea to a large majority of a population it sticks and takes hold, then its more powerful than any object ever....

Kind Regards and go in Peace.

posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 03:15 AM
a reply to: plaindoughnut

Haha. A well regulated militia sounds prudent.....
It maybe would have been better if "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." been reworded as "The right of the militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The militia that has the security of a free state in mind that is.

Kind Regards.

edit on 14-12-2015 by GamleGamle because: some more exposition

posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 03:27 AM
Wonderful thread, with a majority of civility.

I wish to speak about a few parts in the OP.

First of all, human nature is hard to legislate. A person who is intent upon causing harm to others, especially if out of the blue, will be hard to catch.

How do you legislate a person's mind?

I do not believe there is a way to legislate people to stay sane, or not let their emotions over-rule their logical, sensible minds. Nor is there a way to accurately screen every person for the possibility of them one day flipping out and going on a mass-killing spree.

This leads on to my next point. Safety is an illusion. It doesn't matter where you live. Yes there are relative levels of safety, but no one is truly safe. Even if all the guns on the planet were to magically disappear from the planet; for a person who wishes to do harm, they will find a way.

I believe everyone has the right to defend themselves and their loved ones from harm. No, a gun is not always perfect for this task, but in most cases it certainly can make the difference. Not all situations can be negotiated, not every circumstance can be diffused.

For the crazed person who has lost their mind, there is no reasoning, their is only life and death.

I feel that legislation is doing more harm than good at this point. Expanding background checks, and limiting certain aspects of a tool's functionality are bandaids, and they only bind the lawful, not the real threats.

America is a large place, and I know a lot of Europeans have a hard time grasping the distances from place to place. So the saying "When seconds count, help is minutes away". really does fit the bill here. As does the "I carry a gun, because a police officer is too heavy". These are fair, reasonable statements to be thought about.

Should everyone own a gun? No..
Should everyone who wants to, be allowed too? Yes, as long as they are of sound mind, and are safe and legal to do so.

The moment you begin to impliment more and more limitations on who can own what, you start down a dangerous, slippery slope.

posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 03:27 AM
a reply to: GamleGamle

OK, fair enough. You asked 'why is gun control in one way or another a bad thing, considering the current situation in the US. What are the pro's and cons.'

Gun 'control' is not a 'bad' thing, it is labeled as a solution to 'violence' but it's not.

You can't use a law to change behavior. Imprisonment or penalties do not change behavior. In the US there are already 20,000 laws related to guns and weapons. They are unenforceable, or ineffective at controlling criminal or mental health-related use of violence. Criminals don't look up the legal code to see if they can use a weapon, though some might 'fake' it, thinking that using their finger is gonna get the job done cheaper and with lower penalties.

I would ask you what is 'Gun Control'? If there is such a thing, then why don't you apply it to 'Automobile Control' and stop THEM from killing people?

Gun control is by and large, in the US used as a political hidden agenda, many of those trying to make laws for it have their own firearms or armed bodyguards, because they know 'guns work'.

Most of the people who -want- gun control in the US are rage-o-holics and are so angry they want to kill all people who have guns, and don't care if they are law-abiding or not.

Most people in power see themselves as 'elite' and 'entitled' and want to keep that status and they see having law abiding citizens who also have power as a huge threat to their entitlement.

You might say 'well we're different here and we could actually remove ALL firearms or remove all BAD USE of existing firearms, but that still does not protect the elderly grandmother who lives alone in the rural countryside where cops are too far away to help them, or female drivers who are faced by car jackers, or people attacked with a baseball bat-wielding road-rager, and pepper spray is not reliable.

IMO, if there are ANY groups in your country who are using guns to strong-arm any person who is weaker or less able to defend themselves then there is NO argument, like 'greater good' which is valid. A single life is not up for grabs so you can feel 'happy' and 'have your safe space'.

I feel this reply is less targeted and more of a scatter-shot than my attempt to make it a more basic analysis of 'force equalizer', but if you can come up with a definition of 'gun control', find a substitute which is not ridiculous and just as effective for each individual person then you should go to the UN and present your proposal and you'd surely win the Nobel Peace Prize.

But humans are inherently greedy, violent and aggressive and I will not permit anyone to put their hands on me or my loved ones and right now, that is prevented to the best of my ability, by a layered system of self-protection, with the ability to apply deadly force as a last resort.

Basically my individual right to defend myself and my loved ones trumps your desire to live in a Utopia.

posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 03:31 AM
a reply to: Murgatroid

Immediately after forced seizure of guns in 1997, Australian Government killed twenty mill-Oh, they killed no one, you say?

posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 03:51 AM
a reply to: Cygnis

Yes. I can agree with this.

Should everyone who wants to, be allowed too? Yes, as long as they are of sound mind, and are safe and legal to do so.

This of course being the ideal circumstance as safety, legality and clarity of mind can and will not be guaranteed all the time, but that's just the natural price of living as far as I am concerned.

What do you consider the solution to Gun violence?

How do you feel about Europe lacking gun ownership across the board. I mean we are not on the verge of collapse here....

Kind Regards

posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 04:37 AM
a reply to: Maverick7

I actually enjoyed your latest response for the most part and consider it one of the most On Topic post in this whole thread. Thank You for that. Please try to understand that my beliefs are not static and that above all else this thread is about learning something meaningful about a subject that is controversial and complex. For me this is not about who is right and its certainly not about how I know everything and use all my words to the highest form of accuracy and accountability

In short, I make mistakes and this is not an argument.

I started out this thread from the position that gun legislation control works here in Europe, so why would it not work in the US. I have now come to understand that a big part of it is circumstance and mentality. There was someone who said that distance is also a factor in why people feel the need to protect themselves, your saying it as well and this was something I also had not thought about clearly enough. I live in a exceedingly small country. Help arrives quickly here.

Gun control is a band aid at least in the US. It is simply political maneuvering, to create the illusion of control towards the masses who might live in fear and also of course advance special interests, I do not doubt your words in this.

Crime, Poverty, Cultural conflicts, mental health issues seem to be driving the problem of Gun abuse the most, not so much the guns themselves. I think the idea I have to try to break free from is that gun legislation helps Europe to deal with gun violence, the only reason why we have less of it is probably because we have less problems or at least a different dynamic when it comes to the underlying problems.

Well I consider myself far removed from anywhere near angry or crazed towards gun owners. Nor have I actually every met someone that was.... So lack of experience on that front.

Still do not see how the ""elite"" are going to disarm the general US populace apart from some fringe groups and certain individuals..... so no worries there?

When it comes to defending oneself, pepper spray doesn't seem like a very reliable tool to me so no argument their.

Well of course their are those who use guns in our country to threaten others, but most of it is criminal against criminal violence, so people shrug and toast to them whacking each other of. Even though their is still a safety issue when they fight it out in the streets of urban centers, but it just pales in comparison to US even relatively speaking. Its like 11000 people a year in the US, based on 2013 numbers. No more than 162 people a year in our country, if you would quantify that 20 times to approach the same population level as US then you come out at 3240 deaths through gun violence. If we do the same with the UK you only get 1080 deaths. Still using data from 2013. So the numbers might be slightly different at this time. UK has some of the strictest gun laws. So there seems to be a positive correlation, between gun control and death by gunshot.

I will repeat myself. the biggest factor in gun violence I believe and there is probably research to back this.... is poverty. So kill poverty and you kill most of the problems around guns.

Yes their is a lot of ugliness in the underbelly of humanity, but I consider free will to be sacred. So I believe in our ability to be better than ourselves in the face of extreme adversity. I do not believe in a Utopia, Neither do I have any power over your ability to defend yourself, neither do I wish it.

Thank you for your time and energy talking about this subject with me.

PS Mental healt issues + Drug Abuse + Guns everywhere = Suicide.
Still take away the mental healt issues and you have arrived at the solution all the same.
Phew tired. See you all later, will be returning.

Kind regards and go in Peace.

edit on 14-12-2015 by GamleGamle because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-12-2015 by GamleGamle because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-12-2015 by GamleGamle because: Final Thoughts.

posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 05:07 AM
The thing people don't understand is even though we have guns we don't really want to use them on people. We will if we have to. No responsible gun owner wants to be a potential victim and prays for the chance to use their gun. Gun owners also agree that mentally unstable people and criminals should not have guns. The issue is, any new law or restriction doesn't make it harder for the criminals or unstable people to get the guns. It just makes it harder for the average Joe to get his. To the OP, I like how you approached your thread. So many people hate guns or rip on Americans but you are inquisitive. You explain yourself and you admit you really don't know our culture. I recently saw a meme that said, "if it weren't for guns we'd still be British." I think this explains the American way of thinking. WW2 is also a good example, I'm sure you heard why the Japanese never invaded our homeland. One more thing comes to mind, people say we couldn't stand up to the govt. I'm sure you emember the Bundy Ranch extravaganza. That was a time, right or wrong, that I can remember the people standing up to the govt with arms in hand. Sure the govt could have carpet bombed them and put it to rest but that didn't happen. Cooler heads prevailed and no one was harmed. The mass shooting, obviously we all hate them and wish they didn't happen.
edit on 14-12-2015 by chefc14 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 05:46 AM
a reply to: chefc14

Thank You.

I was childishly ego tripping here high on the praise.

Nah I never had the impression you all were a bunch of trigger happy gunslingers.
Well my first thought was, that they feared having to do battle with the whole weaponized population.
This probably is partly the truth, other being that they simply lacked the manpower, logistics or staging areas needed
to successfully do so. Highly populated, unbelievably large and hard to reach. On top of that armed to the teeth.

It was one of the few times I was actively coming to ATS for up to date info. The Bundi Ranch. I wonder if I posted something then...... anyway I remember
I did see some trigger happy Americans come out of the wood work back then. It was crazy, the show of force the US government rolled out back then.

I can say that, although I still am a proponent to some sort of gun control / legislation in a general sense, when it comes to the US I think that should not be the focus at all. Poverty, Crime, Substance Abuse, Despair, when people feel safe and secure again, when they do not have a reason to be afraid to go out at night. Then and only then, people can talk about gun control. As it stands I hear you have 20.000 gun laws, I do not know if the ATS member who said this was exaggerating, but a simplification of overall gun law seems necessary. At least. Without making it more restrictive overall.

PS. The thread title said a friendly discourse, I have tried my best to make that a reality.

Kind Regards
edit on 14-12-2015 by GamleGamle because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-12-2015 by GamleGamle because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-12-2015 by GamleGamle because: Rewording

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in