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.

 

White House: Obama ‘Profoundly Frustrated’ — Ready For More Executive Action On Gun Control

page: 10
35
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 04:00 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

a reply to: Irishhaf

Cummings P, Koepsell TD. Does owning a firearm increase or decrease the risk of death? JAMA 1998;280:471–3.

Kleck G. What are the risks and benefits of keeping a gun in the home? JAMA 1998;280:473–5.

Miller M, Azrael D, Hemenway D. Household firearm ownership and suicide rates in the United States. Epidemiology 2002;13:517–24.

Kaplan MS, Geling O. Firearm suicides and homicides in the United States: regional variations and patterns of gun ownership. Soc Sci Med 1998;46:1227–33.

Boor M, Bair JH. Suicide rates, handgun control laws, and sociodemographic variables. Psychol Rep 1990;66:923–30.

Kellermann AL, Rivara FP, Somes G, et al. Suicide in relation to gun ownership. N Engl J Med 1992;327:467–72.

Kellermann AL, Rivara FP, Rushforth NB, et al. Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home. N Engl J Med 1993;329:1084–91.

Brent DA, Perper JA, Allman CJ, et al. The presence and accessibility of firearms in the homes of adolescent suicides: a case-control study. JAMA 1991;266:2989–95.

Cummings P, Koepsell TD, Grossman DG, et al. The association between the purchase of a handgun and homicide or suicide. Am J Public Health 1997;87:974–8.

Wintemute GJ, Parham CA, Beaumont JJ, et al. Mortality among recent purchasers of handguns. N Engl J Med 1999;341:1583–9.

Kleck G, Hogan M. National case-control study of homicide offending and gun ownership. Soc Probl 1999;46:275–93.

Kleck G, Gertz M. Armed resistance to crime: the prevalence and nature of self-defense with a gun. J Crim Law Criminol 1995;86:143–86.

Gotsch KE, Annest JL, Mercy JA, et al. Surveillance for fatal and nonfatal firearm-related injuries—United States, 1993–1998. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2001;50(SS-2):1–34.

Get reading.

edit on 23-6-2016 by SudoNim because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 04:00 AM
link   
a reply to: SudoNim

Edited out the question;

Also the Orlando shooter was investigated more thoroughly than I was before I got permission to work around Nukes.... so what law would have stopped that shooting?

ETA: so you are telling me a gun has never saved a womans, or a childs life, or an elderly persons life?
edit on 23-6-2016 by Irishhaf because: additional thought



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 04:04 AM
link   
a reply to: SudoNim

So your trying to prove guns can kill? Was this in doubt?



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 04:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: SudoNim

Edited out the question;

Also the Orlando shooter was investigated more thoroughly than I was before I got permission to work around Nukes.... so what law would have stopped that shooting?

ETA: so you are telling me a gun has never saved a womans, or a childs life, or an elderly persons life?


No i'm saying that the occasions of it saving a life are outweighed by the occasion that it costs a life.

If Car Deaths/Injuries were higher than Safely Completed Car Journeys... we would ban cars.

Gun Deaths/Injuries are higher than Instances were a Gun Prevents Death/Injury... why don't we ban them?



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 04:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: SudoNim

Edited out the question;

Also the Orlando shooter was investigated more thoroughly than I was before I got permission to work around Nukes.... so what law would have stopped that shooting?

ETA: so you are telling me a gun has never saved a womans, or a childs life, or an elderly persons life?


No i'm saying that the occasions of it saving a life are outweighed by the occasion that it costs a life.

If Car Deaths/Injuries were higher than Safely Completed Car Journeys... we would ban cars.

Gun Deaths/Injuries are higher than Instances were a Gun Prevents Death/Injury... why don't we ban them?


So you're saying out of all the guns in circulation, more have been used to kill than not?



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 04:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: SudoNim

Edited out the question;

Also the Orlando shooter was investigated more thoroughly than I was before I got permission to work around Nukes.... so what law would have stopped that shooting?

ETA: so you are telling me a gun has never saved a womans, or a childs life, or an elderly persons life?


No i'm saying that the occasions of it saving a life are outweighed by the occasion that it costs a life.

If Car Deaths/Injuries were higher than Safely Completed Car Journeys... we would ban cars.

Gun Deaths/Injuries are higher than Instances were a Gun Prevents Death/Injury... why don't we ban them?


So you're saying out of all the guns in circulation, more have been used to kill than not?


Where did I say that?

A cars purpose is primarily for travel. If the number of attempted travel instances result in more death/injury than safe travel then cars would be banned.

A guns purpose is for "protection". The instances of gun related death/injury is higher than number of death/injuries prevented(protection) by guns. Guns should be banned.



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 04:19 AM
link   
a reply to: SudoNim

Constitution...bill of rights... established court precedents...

The fact that most of these plans to ban them involve violating some measure of due process...

or how about the fact that to live in a free society carries with it some measure of risk..

do you want to turn America into Israel... essentially a police state?

Laws wont stop the crazy, or the criminal...

Timothy Mcveigh didnt use a gun look at the damage he did.

He could have killed many more in Orlando with a couple cans of gasoline and some planning.. (this has been done in other places)

Sorry I do not want to sacrifice any more rights and freedoms on the alter of I hope it protects us...

When I return to the states I will be moving to a place that has an average response time of 1 hour by the cops (yes I dont want to live in a city)... which means self protection is my only avenue to protect my wife and myself.



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 04:21 AM
link   
a reply to: SudoNim

I do believe there is more worry over Nuclear Warfare than mere gun owners whom legally and rightfully have guns written into the Second Amendment by the Founders of America.

The US bombing Hiroshima didn't destroy millions of peoples lives because of a Gun, the Gov't wants to take people who are Lawful and Abiding Citizens Guns away because of a few. Perhaps the Gov't shouldn't have Nukes? They've been proven Guilty, they destroyed a Japanese City of innocent people, and the effects are still on going.

I mean Nukes are highly destructive as we all have seen. People pay the Gov't to watch out for them, not turn their lives into a Nanny State because of the few who cannot abide by 'The Law'. Innocent before proven Guilty.
edit on 6/23/2016 by awareness10 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 04:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf

Sorry but your wife is more likely to die if you own a gun than if you didn't.
How about America turns into a less dangerous country, like most of the other civilised countries.

Laws don't stop criminals? Source please.

So you are not in America right now? How on earth did you survive and protect your wife while outside of America.



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 04:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: awareness10
a reply to: SudoNim

I do believe there is more worry over Nuclear Warfare than mere gun owners whom legally and rightfully have guns written into the Second Amendment by the Founders of America.

The US bombing Hiroshima didn't destroy millions of peoples lives because of a Gun, the Gov't wants to take people who are Lawful and Abiding Citizens Guns away because of a few. Perhaps the Gov't shouldn't have Nukes? They've been proven Guilty, they destroyed a Japanese City of innocent people, and the effects are still on going.

I mean Nukes are highly destructive as we all have seen. People pay the Gov't to watch out for them, not turn their lives into a Nanny State because of the few who cannot abide by 'The Law'. Innocent before proven Guilty.


Nukes are a completely different subject and deserve its own debate.

Someone wrote something over 200 years ago and no-ones allowed to question or change it? Deny ignorance, sheep. The times of changed stop living in the past.



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 04:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: SudoNim
a reply to: Irishhaf

Sorry but your wife is more likely to die if you own a gun than if you didn't.
How about America turns into a less dangerous country, like most of the other civilised countries.

Laws don't stop criminals? Source please.

So you are not in America right now? How on earth did you survive and protect your wife while outside of America.



What law would have stopped the orlando shooter? legally bought weapons (back ground check) and investigated by the FBI twice...

How about adam lanza... kills his mother takes her guns and kills more, what law would have stopped that?


So how long till my wife is killed by my guns... I am curious we are 10 years married... I have owned guns for 25 years they have never killed a person.. I hope I never have to drawn down on a person.

But finding yourself in a dangerous situation is the wrong time to wish you were armed, I prefer not to depend on the generosity of the criminal for my survival.

eta: even though its a snarky back handed attack ill answer... risk assessment, we avoid areas that are seeing increases in crime, we travel in groups... and I will say honestly it sucks living in a country where it is pretty much against the law to be pro-active in defending yourself or loved ones.
edit on 23-6-2016 by Irishhaf because: additional thought



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 05:16 AM
link   
a reply to: SudoNim

Guns Deaths this year 5,486 / 357,000,000 guns in US circulation
Vehicle Related deaths this year 18,996 / 253,000,000 Cars on US roads.

The numbers for cars and gun owned can not be exact for obvious reasons but it more than makes my point.

www.romans322.com...
www.washingtonpost.com...
www.latimes.com...

So tell me more about how we're banning cars?
edit on 23-6-2016 by JinMI because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 05:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: neo96

What's that have to do with my post?

And if arms control laws don't work, why can't I buy one of these shoulder fired rocket launchers to protect my family? They're certainly shorter than some rifles. And who knows when a bunch of criminals might try to attack us.


ETA: In fact, that example is also proof that arms control laws do work. Have you seen how heavily armed some rebel groups and paramilitaries are? They can have howitzers, anti-aircraft weapons, tanks, small attack helicopters, and much more. So why don't American gangs and crime rings have those? they don't have them because our arms control laws have eliminated that threat. Otherwise, gangs would be shooting bazookas at police cars and anti-aircraft weapons at police helicopters.



In fact YOU CAN have a Rocket launcher if you want one. $200 for an M72 LAW (Light Anti-tank Weapon) with NO paperwork at all. You CAN get a 37MM and 40MM (Harder to find) Grende launcher WITH NO paperwork. Now getting the rounds that go into them is a bit harder. You do need paperwork for that.

You CAN buy a Anti-aircraft gun if you want. I know of a couple people that have Quad mount .50 CAL WW2 AA halftracks that have fully operational weapons. Yes you need paperwork for that (In fact 4 sets one for each .50 Cal.)

You can buy a 155MM WW2 Long Tom if you want. Again the shells might be a bit harder to get.

The reason gangs don't used them is the same reason why most of us gun owners don't have them.
- They cost to much
- They are not practical
- They take up lots of room.
- They require specialized trining to use.

In case of gangs:
- To hard to hide


And when was the last time you saw a gang having a shootout with police or shooting a police chopper?
Now if the police start using armed choppers or MORE armour vehicle you might see gangs using these things.



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 05:50 AM
link   
a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

UMM give me that M-134.

But I would need another $500K to keep it in ammo.



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 07:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: SudoNim

Guns Deaths this year 5,486 / 357,000,000 guns in US circulation
Vehicle Related deaths this year 18,996 / 253,000,000 Cars on US roads.

The numbers for cars and gun owned can not be exact for obvious reasons but it more than makes my point.

www.romans322.com...
www.washingtonpost.com...
www.latimes.com...

So tell me more about how we're banning cars?


I think you need to go back and read my post, you clearly failed to understand it.

I'm struggling to put this in simpler terms than I did before. Why are you posting figures on the number of guns in circulation and the number of cars in circulation?

Ok lets try:

A cars "task" is to transport people from one location to another. Each journes is a completed task.
How often is a car used to perform its task VS how often someone is injured/killed by a car?

A guns "task" is to prevent crime and protect your family.
How oftern is a gun used to perform its task VS how oftern someone is injured/killed by a gun?



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 09:21 AM
link   
Why do terrorist attacks elsewhere include bombs that kill more people, yet here they use guns? Maybe because they want our guns taken away so we can't defend ourselves? Just some food for thought.






posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 09:27 AM
link   
a reply to: mrsdudara

Defend yourselves against who?

Maybe its not terrorists using guns its Americans killing each other with guns. Which is something they are trying to stop.



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 09:30 AM
link   
a reply to: SudoNim
Maybe it is a 2nd amendment that they are trying to dismantle...

Which is something I and trying to stop!



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 10:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: SudoNim
a reply to: Dragoon01

This is the point that seems to go over everyone's heads. It's astonishing really.

If you could guarantee that EVERYONE could act in a sensible, reasonable and safe manner than nothing would need to be banned/controlled. But since we don't live in this fantasy world it is SAFER to apply bans/controls on anything that could be dangerous.

Everyone is so f*cking self-involved that they take it personally.

No-one is saying YOU, YES YOU PERSONALLY, are going to kill people or should not own a gun.

They are saying that if the same methods and rights you have to own a gun are applied to everyone then there are people who will abuse this and result endanger other lives. This is why it needs to be controlled.

It's already been established that guns don't protect people, so if controls or bans could save lives why shouldn't you try it?
Because your selfish? Because of "IT WON'T BE ME" attitude.

Everyone thinks "I'm not a murderer so why can't I have a gun", I'm betting some murderers held the same opinion before something turned them to crime.

I just can't get over how self-absorbed, selfish and ignorant some gun owners can be. It' shows a huge lack of intelligence.



You want to talk about selfish. You make your argument based on your personal opinion that "guns dont protect people" and then you tell me that you and people who think like you are smarter and thus more able to decide whats best for me. You profess that you and others like you are somehow more suited to tell ME what my rights are!
I know what my rights are, I dont need you or anyone else to tell me what they are.
I dont care that other people cant handle freedom!
Thats the price of being free!
My rights are not measured by the inability of others to control themselves.
People will abuse freedom and that is why we must be prepared to protect ourselves, because its SELFISH TO THINK THAT OTHERS SHOULD DO IT FOR US!!!!

You and everyone who thinks like you seek to infringe on me. You seek to take a portion of my life away. You seek to impose your design of tyranny upon me.
I will not stand for that. I will do whatever is necessary to prevent that from happening, if that means burning the country down to its foundations and starting over...so be it. Clearly to many people today have no concept of liberty and freedom and cannot handle the responsibility that the design of our government and society entails.



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 10:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: SudoNim
a reply to: Irishhaf

Sorry but your wife is more likely to die if you own a gun than if you didn't.
How about America turns into a less dangerous country, like most of the other civilised countries.

Laws don't stop criminals? Source please.

So you are not in America right now? How on earth did you survive and protect your wife while outside of America.


My wife is more likely to die if i own a gun?

Apparently reality is something you have completely given up on.
We are all likely to die...in fact its a certainty.

You want to know the source of the assertion that laws don't stop criminals?
EVERY MURDER EVER. that's the source.

Stop using bogus "studies" to make your statistical assertions. They are as worthless as the paper they are printed on.




top topics



 
35
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join