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: 3
15
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 04:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn

"But there's just no evidence whatsoever to suggest that it makes us any safer, and in fact restricting guns makes things less safe, that's the camp that I'm in," he said in a phone interview this morning.


Except Australia. And New Zealand. And England. And Germany. And Canada. And Switzerland (to clarify: not the guns themselves). And Norway. And Denmark. And...

Let's take my own country of Oz as a nice example. Ten mass shootings in the ten years leading up to the Port Arthur massacre which sparked this country's gun restriction. Not a single one since. Now, I'm not saying it isn't a coincidence... But it obviously isn't a coincidence.


Because numbers of mass shootings is the only metric. Never mind population, number of guns, other crimes...

Another ATS poster was so nice to show me that the crime rates in Australia have not actually decreased since the 1996 confiscation, and sexual assaults have been steadily increasing!

In Great Britain there are quite a number of home invasions during the evening when the residents are on site, because the criminals know they will not be staring down the barrel of a gun.

When you look at the actual rate of violence, the USA is not even in the top half of monitored countries. And if you take out our Democrat/progressive-run, draconian gun control, gang infested cities we rate below Australia.

Wacky.




posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: gladtobehere


We cant simply pile up laws on top of a constitutional amendment to make it in effect void. These dudes, Obama and the like, talk as if there is no process to this.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 04:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
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.


With a little knowledge, you can kill hundreds of people in a matter of seconds.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 04:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
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


Like how to build a bomb! Just ask Dzhokhar Tsarnaev!



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 05:30 PM
link   
a reply to: VictorVonDoom

And how often has that happened?



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: gladtobehere

I don't know much about this guy, but he seems sensible in that regard. Shame that a third party candidate doesn't have much chance of winning.



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 12:37 AM
link   
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

That's a very circumstantial question. Since this is Australia, it's reasonable to presume they don't have a gun. They'll probably have a knife or a crowbar or something like that. Assuming I can't just run away, ambushing them, siccing my dog onto them, or barricading the entrance to my room are all decently viable options.

If this were America, if I did have a gun, and it was nearby, and it was loaded... Well, my aggressor would probably also have a gun, so the net total is 0. Easier for me to fight them. Easier for them to fight me.
That's assuming they don't break into the dining room, I'm in the shower, and the gun is in my bedroom.



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 12:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Raven95

Dumbass the black market isn't legal it's the name given to things traded illegally.



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 12:58 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

No it won't but there be a dam sight less.



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 02:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

That's a very circumstantial question. Since this is Australia, it's reasonable to presume they don't have a gun. They'll probably have a knife or a crowbar or something like that. Assuming I can't just run away, ambushing them, siccing my dog onto them, or barricading the entrance to my room are all decently viable options.

If this were America, if I did have a gun, and it was nearby, and it was loaded... Well, my aggressor would probably also have a gun, so the net total is 0. Easier for me to fight them. Easier for them to fight me.
That's assuming they don't break into the dining room, I'm in the shower, and the gun is in my bedroom.



No. That was not the question.

If a robber has an illegally smuggled firearm(and untraceable firearm) that they bought from a gang on the black market that they smuggled and threatened an unarmed person how would that person that was threatened defend themselves?

Wake up. Guns are not bad. They have their legitimate defensive uses.
edit on 17-6-2016 by John_Rodger_Cornman because: added words



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 02:44 AM
link   
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

Their only legitimate defensive uses are against wild animals or against themselves (in terms of defense.) Having guns be the solution to the problem that guns cause is circular logic. Do you also argue that we need more nukes?

Thankfully, we don't have too many illegally smuggled firearms in the hands of robbers over here. Not compared to America, at least. The difficulty in obtaining one far outweighs the benefits of using one for a robbery. The majority of the illegal guns I'm aware of are in the hands of bikies, who tend to live and let live as long as you don't get on their bad side.
edit on 17/6/2016 by Eilasvaleleyn because: Reasons



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 02:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
The majority of the illegal guns I'm aware of are in the hands of bikies, who tend to live and let live as long as you don't get on their bad side.


Then why shouldn't they be allowed to own them? If they tend to live and let live? Unless someone gets on their bad side how? Threatening them or their family?

The bikers here in America are usually armed (as expected) and for the most part cause no trouble either. Why should they be disarmed?

Shouldn't they be allowed to protect themselves from any guns or wild animals they may face?
edit on 6/17/2016 by atomish because: Last line



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 02:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

Their only legitimate defensive uses are against wild animals or against themselves (in terms of defense.) Having guns be the solution to the problem that guns cause is circular logic. Do you also argue that we need more nukes?
No one here is arguing for nuclear proliferation.
Thankfully, we don't have too many illegally smuggled firearms in the hands of robbers over here. Not compared to America, at least.The drug problem here would make illegally smuggled guns a necessity for drug traffickers and gangs that have to protect their drugs The difficulty in obtaining one far outweighs the benefits of using one for a robbery.We can't stop smuggled in drugs what makes you think you can stop smuggled guns? The majority of the illegal smuggled guns I'm aware of are in the hands of bikies,Here it will be the pimps and drug sponsored gangs and foreign sponsored terrorist cells with smuggled illegal guns and the general population unarmed. Think about that. who tend to live and let live as long as you don't get on their bad side.


I am going to ask you again.

If an armed robber is going to do harm or kill a person what option does that person have other than being armed and defending themselves?

Do they just wait and let the robber/terrorist/rapist kill them?

Or should they be able to fight back and have a decent chance at surviving.
edit on 17-6-2016 by John_Rodger_Cornman because: added content

edit on 17-6-2016 by John_Rodger_Cornman because: added content




top topics



 
15
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join