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.

 

Gary Johnson: "Gun Restrictions Make Us Less Safe".

page: 2
15
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: atomish

Much harder than in the US. On top of that any kind of carry permit is almost unheard of outside of the private security sector. The reason so many people in Switzerland have guns is as protection against foreign armies. In a situation like that the government will disperse ammo.

The proliferation of guns in Switzerland has little to no bearing on its low crime rate. A 2014 study even showed that only 25% of the population owned a firearm. This is lower than any of its neighbors.




posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: atomish

Much harder than in the US. On top of that any kind of carry permit is almost unheard of outside of the private security sector. The reason so many people in Switzerland have guns is as protection against foreign armies. In a situation like that the government will disperse ammo.

The proliferation of guns in Switzerland has little to no bearing on its low crime rate. A 2014 study even showed that only 25% of the population owned a firearm. This is lower than any of its neighbors.


Very interesting, I am going to do some reading up on this. The Swiss comparison gets thrown around a lot!

Thanks for the info, friend!



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 01:17 PM
link   
Gary Johnson: "Gun Restrictions Make Us Less Safe".

That they do.

The only thing gun control does is make a 'safe space' for mass shooters.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Let's think about what would happen without any kind of gun regulations. That means no kind of class or test required for concealed carry. What do you think would have happened in Aurora or Orlando if someone with no kind of training tried to shoot back? What if multiple people with no training tried to shoot back? We're talking a dark venue suddenly erupting in chaos. Do you really think these untrained shooters are going to help the situation?



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254




Let's think about what would happen without any kind of gun regulations.


Oh you mean as the found fathers intended.

Not much of a problem from 1776 to 1934.

I wonder how Americans ever got along WITHOUT it.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 01:30 PM
link   
I want to know something.

If we enact the gun ban, make the lists to put people on, suspend rights and liberties,. . . . .

Does that mean there will be no more terrorist attacks and mass shootings?



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy




Does that mean there will be no more terrorist attacks and mass shootings?


What it means is the United States of Dysfunction made the last great leap in to a police state.

Where the citizens have become enemies of the state.

By default we are the terrorists.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: gladtobehere

I vote the 2nd before any other issues because it is a line in the sand I don't want to see crossed by Government. It is both symbolic and indicative of a free society to be armed.

Gary is now the only pro 2nd amendment candidate.

He has my vote.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

I don't want to surprise you but things have changed since 1934. Let alone 1776. When the Constitution was written your options were a flintlock or a musket. The fastest these can be reloaded is 15 seconds. And that's after every shot. Compare that to any gun you're able to purchase at your local Walmart. Even if we look at 1934 semi-automatics are much easier to come by with larger ammo capacity.

Then there's also the fact that population/population density had also increased. Meaning a single bullet has a much higher likelihood of hitting multiple people.

The founding fathers simply couldn't anticipate that we would have weapons that could empty their 30 round magazine in a matter of seconds. Not that we would have cooties full of millions of people. Times change and so must we.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

So because the founding fathers didn't anticipate the internet, we should limit free expression?



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Nope, not that law, It was written so in case we needed to defend ourselves from the government, so we had a level playing field. Besides banning things does nothing to stop criminals from having these things. If they obeyed the laws they wouldn't be criminals in the first place.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Where are they? In places that aren't gun free zones.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 02:07 PM
link   
a reply to: avgguy

So why dont we ban the black markets then?



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raven95
a reply to: avgguy

So why dont we ban the black markets then?


I believe a black market is banned by it's very definition, being a market dealing in non-compliant (see: banned) goods and services.




posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 02:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: atomish

The reason so many people in Switzerland have guns is as protection against foreign armies. In a situation like that the government will disperse ammo.


Let's hope for Switzerland's sake that government dispersal of ammunition isn't tied up in a bureaucratic process that takes many ages and filing out forms and paperwork and signatures and waiting in lines to fulfill.

It would be like if the men and women of the US military had to wait in line at the DMV for their ration of ammo, only to find out they have the wrong form or they have to wait for approval to be snail mailed from (insert capitol here).
edit on 16-6-2016 by Aldakoopa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

There's a bit of a difference between something that gives you access to all of human knowledge in a matter of seconds vs something that can kill dozens of people in a matter of seconds.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

The tool has no bearing on the person using it. Stop blaming inanimate objects. Blame the nut bag!



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

I'll ask you; will gun bans prevent terror attacks and mass shootings?



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 02:51 PM
link   
Which countries that have levied severe restrictions against guns have lowered their overall homicide rate as opposed to the gun-death rate?

It seems these countries that try to limit firearms just end up with killings done using other weapons.

Seems to me murderous impulse is the problem, not the means with which to fulfill that impulse. But I am very interested to hear about success in lowering overall homicide rates.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

What do you do to prevent a violent robber from killing you?




top topics



 
15
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join