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.

 

An outsiders questions on US gun control.

page: 4
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler

So, if this was discussed with the OP before, then is this simply a trolling thread to garner flags and stars? Being an American, I guess I am not sure and need to have it clarified for me, since I am not British and do not understand their strange and odd ways.




posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 02:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
a reply to: nonspecific

You've been here long enough to know already what the response would be. This is nothing new.

You knew and you did it anyway.


I suppose I misunderstood the levels of violence and crime in some places in the US but given that I have never witnessed it is it not somewhat understandable?


You're coming across as someone who lives in a crime-free environment with no need to defend yourself. It's certainly true that the UK has less crime, but does that mean you don't have any? There are over 200 countries in the world. The US ranks 10th in "Murders with firearms" and the UK ranks 44th. That's a whole lot more than 75% of the countries in the world. How did the UK get to be 44th if guns are illegal?

And in both countries, though the population thinks otherwise, crime has been going down over the last few years. But to think that this is because our governments have passed decrees is naive.

Oh, and all those countries that have vastly more "murders with firearms" than even the US, those countries that rank 1-9. In the vast majority of those countries the law is the same as the UK or worse. No firearms allowed. Now if laws do the trick, how is that even possible?

Source


As we both know I do not live in a crime free enviroment, I do however feel the need to protect myself and I do this in two ways, firstly I do not put myself in dangerous situations and secondly I know how to fight if needs be. The likleyhood of someone pulling a gun on me is as close to zero as it could be, the liklelyhood of them actually shooting me is less so.

As to the figures you quoted the rankings are somewhat irrelavant if you look at the actual figures.

Total murders with firearms UK: 14

Total murders with firearms USA : 9,369.

This was never intended to be a comparison of the 2 nations but using the figures you gave was innacurate.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: nonspecific
As I said in the OP the issue was not the owning of a gun or multiple ones but carring them in public without good reason.


You do not need a reason to exercise your rights.


This again is something I simply fail to understand, the issue of Rights.

I see this a lot for US members, I often wonder as to the way the world changed over the years.

The people that created these rights could not have forseen drug and gang culture when this "right" was given, does not law need to evolve with society?


Oh, I forgot to address your wild misconception on the issue of the origin of these rights. In the United States, according to our supreme laws (The United States Constitution and Bill of Rights) these rights are NOT GIVEN by the government. See, that is a common misconception by many. As it clearly states in our Declaration of Independence,

...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

In modern language, this means that we are all born with these inherent rights....they are granted by our creator (whoever that creator is for any individual, it does not specify a specific deity). Governments can only protect, i.e. secure, those rights for the people.

The Bill of rights expands and codifies the "...among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..." by identifying some of them individually, like the right to keep and bear arms (the topic of this discussion). This indicates the government is supposed to protect these rights from infringement. In this particular amendment, the phrase "well regulated" means well trained (the 18th century definition of that phrase), not to impose laws to regulate (our modern definition of that word) the exercise of these rights.

I just wanted to clear up that misconception of your where you stated that when this "right" was given. In your country, perhaps the government grants your rights, and for you that might be normal. But in the United States, that is not the case, as I have explained prior.


I did explain from the start that I was an outsider so any misconceptions I may have could be put down to simple misunderstanding of a very complex country.

So in laymans terms are you saying that all Americans have certain rights because some people hundreds of years ago said so and then wrote it down?

I do not wish to cause offense here but that almost sounds like a religion to me?



I was, honestly, trying to inform you of how our two forms of government differ in some very basic and important ways. Yet, you seem to want to twist that into some form of alternate debate, and derail your own thread?I will try not to take that as a slight against our country and our citizenry sir. The FOUNDERS of our country established these supreme laws. These laws, which are not immutable, can be changed given the proper legal course of action. Is it difficult to do this, yes, for very good reason.

As for the governing body in the UK, seems you still have a royal family, which, history describes as being granted by divine order, does it not? So, to me, that sounds like a religion that was established in your country going back many many more years than the United States was even in existence.

If I were you, I would look more closely at your own form of government in that respect before making any personal analysis of others form of government.





You seem to be mistaken and belive I am somehow insulting you and your culture and this is not the case.

If I do not understand something then I try to understand it, I like to ask questions to find answers. You are now asking me to look at my own countries government before questioning yours and I agree that they are both flawed.

I said in the OP that this was most likley a bad idea and it appears my initial assumption was correct.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 02:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: schuyler

So, if this was discussed with the OP before, then is this simply a trolling thread to garner flags and stars? Being an American, I guess I am not sure and need to have it clarified for me, since I am not British and do not understand their strange and odd ways.



Looking to get stars and flags with a anti gun thread on ATS? really?

That's a pretty daft thing to say in my opinion, If I wanted stars and flags the last thing I would do is start this thread I have got about 2 stars and a heap of abuse from it.

If I want stars and flags then I'll head to the general chit chat forums, that's where most of mine come from, I came here looking for insight into the mindset of the average gun toting american and I think I found it.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: nonspecific

I was honestly trying to answer your questions, in an upright and respectful manner. Then you come back with a comparison and accusation that equates my government and it's citizens with a religion, and I am out of line?

Sorry, but, it sounds to me now like your statement of being truly interested in learning was disingenuous at best. I am more than happy to discuss this like adults, as long as the dialog is reciprocal.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 02:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: nonspecific

I was honestly trying to answer your questions, in an upright and respectful manner. Then you come back with a comparison and accusation that equates my government and it's citizens with a religion, and I am out of line?

Sorry, but, it sounds to me now like your statement of being truly interested in learning was disingenuous at best. I am more than happy to discuss this like adults, as long as the dialog is reciprocal.


Well why not start again then, I know how close to the bone this subject is and tried to respect that but just(not just from you) seemed to be getting the same old "god damn rights" routine that always seems to crop up.

I will ask you a question if I may?

Would you feel comfortable moving to and living in a country that had very low levels of gun crime but did not permit the ownership of hand guns?

Could you feel safe not owning a gun in a society were it was not needed?

A genuine and honest question in my quest to understand.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 02:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: nonspecific

I was honestly trying to answer your questions, in an upright and respectful manner. Then you come back with a comparison and accusation that equates my government and it's citizens with a religion, and I am out of line?

Sorry, but, it sounds to me now like your statement of being truly interested in learning was disingenuous at best. I am more than happy to discuss this like adults, as long as the dialog is reciprocal.


Well why not start again then, I know how close to the bone this subject is and tried to respect that but just(not just from you) seemed to be getting the same old "god damn rights" routine that always seems to crop up.

I will ask you a question if I may?

Would you feel comfortable moving to and living in a country that had very low levels of gun crime but did not permit the ownership of hand guns?

Could you feel safe not owning a gun in a society were it was not needed?

A genuine and honest question in my quest to understand.


I did just that for the first 45 years of my life. Ask me what country that was. But, hypotheticals are irrelevant when we are talking about this topic IMO. The question itself is based upon a falsehood...and the answer is just as relevant.

I live in the real word, not in a hypothetical one.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: schuyler

So, if this was discussed with the OP before, then is this simply a trolling thread to garner flags and stars? Being an American, I guess I am not sure and need to have it clarified for me, since I am not British and do not understand their strange and odd ways.


When I said "we've discussed this before" I did not mean to imply it was a similar thread with the OP. I meant "we" in the collective sense of ATS. So your conclusion here is mistaken. My fault. So sorry.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 02:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
a reply to: nonspecific

You've been here long enough to know already what the response would be. This is nothing new.

You knew and you did it anyway.


I suppose I misunderstood the levels of violence and crime in some places in the US but given that I have never witnessed it is it not somewhat understandable?


You're coming across as someone who lives in a crime-free environment with no need to defend yourself. It's certainly true that the UK has less crime, but does that mean you don't have any? There are over 200 countries in the world. The US ranks 10th in "Murders with firearms" and the UK ranks 44th. That's a whole lot more than 75% of the countries in the world. How did the UK get to be 44th if guns are illegal?

And in both countries, though the population thinks otherwise, crime has been going down over the last few years. But to think that this is because our governments have passed decrees is naive.

Oh, and all those countries that have vastly more "murders with firearms" than even the US, those countries that rank 1-9. In the vast majority of those countries the law is the same as the UK or worse. No firearms allowed. Now if laws do the trick, how is that even possible?

Source


As we both know I do not live in a crime free enviroment, I do however feel the need to protect myself and I do this in two ways, firstly I do not put myself in dangerous situations and secondly I know how to fight if needs be. The likleyhood of someone pulling a gun on me is as close to zero as it could be, the liklelyhood of them actually shooting me is less so.

As to the figures you quoted the rankings are somewhat irrelavant if you look at the actual figures.

Total murders with firearms UK: 14

Total murders with firearms USA : 9,369.

This was never intended to be a comparison of the 2 nations but using the figures you gave was innacurate.


No it wasn't. A ranking is perfectly accurate, plus I gave you the source of ALL the figures so you could look yourself. The fact remains that though US statistics are higher, if you actually look at the graph I provided (Just click on "Total Murders") you see how vastly "inaccurate" comparing US and UK murders are with, say, South Africa, which has gun laws much more restrictive than the US.

But you;re still doing the same thing, telling us how safe you are and how you have no need for carrying a gun, and implying no one else does either. We're trying to teach you why, and you refuse to listen. What is it about "Gun Free Zones" that you don't understand? What is it about South Africa's restrictive gun laws (more than the US, but less than the UK) that explains an overwhelmingly higher murder rate with firearms?

Address those issues, please. And the fact that you feel you are very safe is very nice. We don't live where you do.
edit on 12/26/2015 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 02:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: schuyler

So, if this was discussed with the OP before, then is this simply a trolling thread to garner flags and stars? Being an American, I guess I am not sure and need to have it clarified for me, since I am not British and do not understand their strange and odd ways.


When I said "we've discussed this before" I did not mean to imply it was a similar thread with the OP. I meant "we" in the collective sense of ATS. So your conclusion here is mistaken. My fault. So sorry.


I realised that and also missed intrepid's recent thread, Just loaded the dishwasher and put my son to bed before reading, Looks like some of my answers may be in it.

I am glad you pointed it out though.

As has been discussed before we may speak roughly the same language and be roughly the same colours but as societies we are vastly different and almost alien to each other.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 02:54 PM
link   
a reply to: nonspecific

For many people, especially in the US, voting is a right, and any attempts to secure the voting process with IDs or anything else are met with cries of discrimination for a host of reasons. In some places, the voting restrictions are loose enough it is suspected that non-US citizens can vote, and for some people, this is OK because they say those people live here, so they should vote.

Contrast that attitude toward the gun argument where the right to keep and bear is just as much a basic right as voting ever was. Many of those same people want all kinds of restrictions before you can get a gun, assuming they want you to be able to have a gun at all.

But both are your right - voting and the right to keep and bear arms. So it is a double standard for many.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
a reply to: nonspecific

You've been here long enough to know already what the response would be. This is nothing new.

You knew and you did it anyway.


I suppose I misunderstood the levels of violence and crime in some places in the US but given that I have never witnessed it is it not somewhat understandable?


You're coming across as someone who lives in a crime-free environment with no need to defend yourself. It's certainly true that the UK has less crime, but does that mean you don't have any? There are over 200 countries in the world. The US ranks 10th in "Murders with firearms" and the UK ranks 44th. That's a whole lot more than 75% of the countries in the world. How did the UK get to be 44th if guns are illegal?

And in both countries, though the population thinks otherwise, crime has been going down over the last few years. But to think that this is because our governments have passed decrees is naive.

Oh, and all those countries that have vastly more "murders with firearms" than even the US, those countries that rank 1-9. In the vast majority of those countries the law is the same as the UK or worse. No firearms allowed. Now if laws do the trick, how is that even possible?

Source


As we both know I do not live in a crime free enviroment, I do however feel the need to protect myself and I do this in two ways, firstly I do not put myself in dangerous situations and secondly I know how to fight if needs be. The likleyhood of someone pulling a gun on me is as close to zero as it could be, the liklelyhood of them actually shooting me is less so.

As to the figures you quoted the rankings are somewhat irrelavant if you look at the actual figures.

Total murders with firearms UK: 14

Total murders with firearms USA : 9,369.

This was never intended to be a comparison of the 2 nations but using the figures you gave was innacurate.


No it wasn't. A ranking is perfectly accurate, plus I gave you the source of ALL the figures so you could look yourself. The fact remains that though US statistics are higher, if you actually look at the graph I provided (Just click on "Total Murders") you see how vastly "inaccurate" comparing US and UK murders are with, say, South Africa, which has gun laws much more restrictive than the US.

But you;re still doing the same thing, telling us how safe you are and how you have no need for carrying a gun, and implying no one else does either. We're trying to teach you why, and you refuse to listen. What is it about "Gun Free Zones" that you don't understand? What is it about South Africa's restrictive gun laws (more than the US, but less than the UK) that explains an overwhelmingly higher murder rate with firearms?

Address those issues, please.


As I tried to point out you are seeing this as a "US against YOU our culture is better than yours one" this is not the case.

The difference I was trying to show is that there is a diference between "gun free zones" and not being allowed to carry fire arms in all but exeptional circumstances.

It was never intended as an insult and I would say the figures quoted show that the rankings are an inacurate statistic.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

The sociological aspect has been discussed ad nauseam too. There are two sides to the issue and there will likely never be a law passed that is prohibitive enough to please those who want more gun control.

My knowledge of the op, having read a number of their posts, makes me believe that they are not deliberately trolling. The fact remains the topic and concept isn't new and there is nothing but the same argument on either side. There was no other outcome.

I guess I'm just frustrated by the topic.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 03:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
a reply to: greencmp

The sociological aspect has been discussed ad nauseam too. There are two sides to the issue and there will likely never be a law passed that is prohibitive enough to please those who want more gun control.

My knowledge of the op, having read a number of their posts, makes me believe that they are not deliberately trolling. The fact remains the topic and concept isn't new and there is nothing but the same argument on either side. There was no other outcome.

I guess I'm just frustrated by the topic.


I hear you and completely agree.

I have just come to accept that the unwitting allies of and the knowing advocates for statolatry are legion and cannot be ignored.

It is an incessant battle against totalitarian ideology. Simple intellectual dishonesty and/or misunderstanding is at the heart of these ideas and the only solution is to completely refute them.

Repeat as necessary. Unfortunately.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 03:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
a reply to: greencmp

The sociological aspect has been discussed ad nauseam too. There are two sides to the issue and there will likely never be a law passed that is prohibitive enough to please those who want more gun control.

My knowledge of the op, having read a number of their posts, makes me believe that they are not deliberately trolling. The fact remains the topic and concept isn't new and there is nothing but the same argument on either side. There was no other outcome.

I guess I'm just frustrated by the topic.


For what it is worth I am not trolling although I understand the thought process involved.

Mettalicus made a thread a little while ago about the UK and the EU and got similar accusations because the situation seemed bizzare to him.

I feel sad if I am honest that people feel the need to be armed on a daily basis, something that is truly alien to me and most UK members.

This was as I have said many times now never an attack on the American culture but simply a desperate attempt to understad it.

Appologies to anyone that was offended by my simplistic questions about a culture I do not understand.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: nonspecific

Understood. I too wish only to be involved in an intelligent discussion on this (ad nauseum) topic. I say it that way because, no matter how many times it arises, the outcome (as has been said) is the same. We will never come to a mutual understanding due to the fact neither of us on each side of "the pond" grew up in the same society.

I respond to these threads because if we that protect our rights are silenced, then our rights will be threatened.....period. History proves out this point, over and over. Frankly, I do not wish this to happen on my watch.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 03:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
a reply to: greencmp

The sociological aspect has been discussed ad nauseam too. There are two sides to the issue and there will likely never be a law passed that is prohibitive enough to please those who want more gun control.

My knowledge of the op, having read a number of their posts, makes me believe that they are not deliberately trolling. The fact remains the topic and concept isn't new and there is nothing but the same argument on either side. There was no other outcome.

I guess I'm just frustrated by the topic.


I hear you and completely agree.

I have just come to accept that the unwitting allies of and the knowing advocates for statolatry are legion and cannot be ignored.

It is an incessant battle against totalitarian ideology. Simple intellectual dishonesty and/or misunderstanding is at the heart of these ideas and the only solution is to completely refute them.

Repeat as necessary. Unfortunately.


As I stated before My opinion has no bearing on your laws it was simply an oustsiders questions on your current situation.

I respect your rights to own firearms I simply questioned the need to carry them in public.

No ill intent was intended.
edit on 26/12/2015 by nonspecific because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: nonspecific

Ultimately, it's not cultural or at least the principals involved aren't dependent upon culture.

It's not a slight to say that you don't understand or won't accept the principal of individual liberty. Heck, many Americans are similarly ignorant of the consequences of sacrificing difficult truth at the alter of utopianism.

Because there are so many more pressing issues that have a much greater capacity to upset society, I think this issue is an accurate measure of the political ends of the proponents of civilian disarmament.

"Freedom is never an achieved state; like electricity, we've got to keep generating it or the lights go out."

-Wayne LaPierre



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 03:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: nonspecific

Ultimately, it's not cultural or at least the principals involved aren't dependent upon culture.

It's not a slight to say that you don't understand or won't accept the principal of individual liberty. Heck, many Americans are similarly ignorant of the consequences of sacrificing difficult truth at the alter of utopianism.

Because there are so many more pressing issues that have a much greater capacity to upset society, I think this issue is an accurate measure of the political ends of the proponents of civilian disarmament.

"Freedom is never an achieved state; like electricity, we've got to keep generating it or the lights go out."

-Wayne LaPierre


This Is why I ask these kinds of question.

What is Liberty? I often see this word and never really get the meaning of what it actually means, I can google it but it seems to be a real American term.

What and why is it so important?

Again a genuine question.
edit on 26/12/2015 by nonspecific because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: nonspecific

The simplest definition would be freedom of thought, action and expression.
edit on 26-12-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join