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.

 

Guns are for cowards

page: 22
22
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2016 @ 11:09 AM
link   


This country may not be the wild west for our owners.
But for the rest of us it is.

Did you know that home invasion has dropped since all the gun buying began.

Why have you shirked your duty and not gotten qualified, with at least a riffle?


Mike Grouchy




posted on Jul, 29 2016 @ 11:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dragoon01
a reply to: TheAmazingYeti

Accidents Yeti, accidents.

They happen, and nothing you do will prevent that. Gun accidents are not even close to being the top cause of accidental death in this country. Even if they were it would be no reason to ban them. Cars are the top BTW but we dont seem to be clamoring for a ban of cars now do we?




Newsflash: Operating a vehicle is more regulated than a gun. You have to pass a road test and get insurance ontop of registering it.

In 2012 the Bureau of Transportation Statistics for 2012 reported 254,639,386 registered vehicles.

The problem with comparing apples and oranges is that we drive our cars everyday, two or three times. Of course the numbers are going to be higher...




posted on Jul, 29 2016 @ 11:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: tow69
a reply to: SudoNim

It has nothing to do with agree or leave the option is yours....

But just like your right to run your mouth - 1st Amendment

We have our right to bear arms - 2nd amendment

No one here is trying to stop or take away your right so why infringe or even question ours

If you don't like guns don't buy one. Very simple

I don't care for horror films so I choose not to watch one... Make Since


Neither of those Amendments mean f*ck all to me.



circumventing automated censors is a violation of ATS T&C, just a heads up. A civil discourse is the preferred method of communication. It does your position no good when you talk down to people and consistently use slurs and disparaging rhetoric.


Why question the right to own a gun? You don't want people to question whether something is right or wrong? Because someone hundreds of years ago wrote it down on a piece of paper? You now won't let anyone question it? Open your god-damn mind.


Again, a more polite and civil discourse would benefit you greatly and make your position more palatable, even to some who are diametrically opposed to your position on the issue. Is your mind really any more open than those you are engaging in such a hostile fashion? It certainly doesn't come across as such.


Not watching a horror film doesn't murder 30 people a day.
America's gun fetish does. Make sense?


Perhaps instead of ranting like a madman on a message board your time would be better spent engaging your Congressional representatives in the House and Senate by imploring them to amend the US Constitution to void the Second Amendment. For the record though, the "gun fetish" crowd is a miniscule minority of legal firearms owners. An inanimate tool is only as dangerous or evil as the individuals wielding it. Japanese knife attacks, for example, are equally as dangerous as the spurt of school shootings that have occurred the last couple of decades in the U.S.

Another piece of perspective to investigate is taking a look at Australia who implemented a series of laws that would please you to the core. After their seemingly successful gun buyback plan in the late 90's after a massacre in Tasmania nobody seemed to notice that as a direct result of this, violent crimes skyrocketed in the following years. Assaults, home invasions and rapes went through the roof because criminals who don't care about following there were still drastic limits on the types of firearms available to the public but there were options available for the general populace to arm themselves for self defense. I often see anti 2A people lauding what Australia did as a model for Americas future but most of them are completely unaware that there are more privately owned firearms in Australia today than there were at the time of the Port Arthur massacre. just a little food for thought.



posted on Jul, 29 2016 @ 11:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheAmazingYeti

So, if he's never been bullied, who are cowards by the way, and if he's never been shot or know someone to be shot he should give up the fight to end gun violence? LOL pathetic.


No, there is no 'solution' involving taking someone's self-defense tools. You are conflating and jumping to conclusions and you're using bullying tactics "pathetic"? is that your solution, derision?

He wants guns gone. If we all had personal "shields" as in Star Trek and were not able to be harmed or pushed around by the overly-entitled, bullies or strong arm predators, sure, if you could make all projectile weapons 'disappear' and never come back, maybe that would be a possibility.

But there are other tools of violence. Should we ban chain-saws, knives of all kinds, baseball bats without gloves?

You're pushing an argument that is no longer tenable. Your disagreement is with bullies, not tool-owners.

In that, I would agree, let's rid the world of bullying behavior.

I'm out. Read and understand or not, there's nothing else to say.



posted on Jul, 29 2016 @ 12:00 PM
link   
a reply to: TheAmazingYeti

Thanks for making the point.
All those regulations and its multiple times more deadly than firearms. So those licenses and insurance and instructions don't deter bad behavior and they don't prevent accidents.

Regarding use. Your position is that owing guns is for cowards and it has been asserted that owning them is far more dangerous than not owning them. If simply having a gun in the home is so deadly you are making no distinction between "use" of the gun and just owning the gun.
That equates gun ownership with car usage. Would you agree that simply owning a car is not the same as driving it around?
edit on 29-7-2016 by Dragoon01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2016 @ 12:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dragoon01
a reply to: TheAmazingYeti

Thanks for making the point.
All those regulations and its multiple times more deadly than firearms. So those licenses and insurance and instructions don't deter bad behavior and they don't prevent accidents.


All that, and.... cars don't have their own amendment to the US Constitution like guns do!



posted on Jul, 29 2016 @ 12:05 PM
link   
a reply to: TheAmazingYeti
Cops carry their guns every day.

So, what kills more cops?
Guns?


OR


Automobile accidents?






posted on Jul, 29 2016 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: TheAmazingYeti

News flash... I would certainly agree with you that if I am drinking alcohol, using my cell phone, texting etc... while handling firearms would be grossly incompetent and excessively dangerous to anyone in my immediate vicinity. I would be hard pressed to find any legal, law abiding firearms owner who would disagree with the above statement.

The difference between a car and a firearm though is that its essentially a strawman argument you put forth. Cars are everywhere and in public as a direct result of the size of our country and the setup of our infrastructure. Cars affect every American whether you are commuting, driving, a passenger, cyclist or a pedestrian. Firearms do not have the same public presence as automobiles. I can own a car without a drivers license, insurance or registration if I do not intend to drive it on the road. I can drive that car all over my property, do donuts in the back yard with it, build a ramp and try out some Evil Kneivel stunts or whatever else I want to do. The laws and regulations you refer to only apply if you are driving that car on public roadways.

Firearms on the other hand are for the most part, more restricted in public. Yes, there are some areas the country where you can open carry in public without a permit. And while I could be wrong, the last I checked, you had to have a permit, which involves taking a state approved class, a federal background check by the FBI, and being signed off on by a judge or the county sheriff(varies state to state). So if you are carrying a concealed weapon, you actually have a higher threshold of due diligence than you do for a drivers license/vehicle to drive on public roadways. For what it's worth, I find open carrying to be rather stupid and is often done simply because one can do it. It's a bit impractical in my opinion. If you're carrying in public because you want to be "the good guy with the gun" you just painted a target on your back because the "bad guy with the gun" knows exactly who to shoot at first. But that's just me. What other people do within the letter of the law isn't really my business.

The bottom line though is that youve built your entire argument based on an extremely small segment of firearms owners and their related mishaps. My rifles and shotguns, when not in use, are locked in a biometrically opened safe. This means my children for example, aren't going to be able to access them therefore no accidental discharges, no injuries or deaths. Not unless they are some genetic freaks who have my exact fingerprint to open the safe with. At the same time, it takes about3-5 seconds for me to access them in the rare instance that some moron decides my house is an easy target whether it be 4 AM or in the middle of lunch. My guns don't pose a threat to you. In fact, your car is more dangerous to me than my guns are to anybody.



posted on Jul, 29 2016 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

I will be honest I dont like that line of reasoning. I am a strict adherent to the constitution and its intent.
The intent of the bill of rights was to restrict the government by laying out a small sample of the basic human rights the people have. There were those who argued that if the rights were listed down the government might one day grow to the point that it only recognized THOSE rights and restricted all those not specifically listed down. Those people didn't want a Bill of Rights at all, they wanted only the powers that government was allowed to do and anything outside of that was unacceptable.
So following that thinking, all of the laws and regulations regarding the use of cars should be unconstitutional. People have a freedom to travel common roads. Our means of travel and the use should not be subject to government restrictions. We should be able to use the best mode of travel available to us and the government should have no say in that.
The same people moaning about guns will moan that we MUST have regulations and licenses and restrictions because it will be total chaos if we dont again have no clue what they are talking about. We should limit our law and restrictions to those who have caused harm only. Meaning its perfectly okay to have a law saying that if you drive recklessly or cause an accident you are subject to a fine and payment for the damage you have caused. Its not okay to demand that you have a license and use that to turn the right to travel into a privilege.

Anyway off topic post to some extent but I wanted to make the point that we should be consistent in how we look at what is a right and what is a privilege.



posted on Jul, 29 2016 @ 12:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Dragoon01
I agree with your line of reasoning a' la John Locke.

I will continue to use the one that I did, simply because the Constitution and Bill of Rights is the one that we have and are stuck with.

I can buy a car without a background check. Try to buy a gun today from a sporting goods store, they will check your background.

Which one is a privilege and which one is a right?



posted on Jul, 29 2016 @ 12:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: tow69
a reply to: SudoNim

It has nothing to do with agree or leave the option is yours....

But just like your right to run your mouth - 1st Amendment

We have our right to bear arms - 2nd amendment

No one here is trying to stop or take away your right so why infringe or even question ours

If you don't like guns don't buy one. Very simple

I don't care for horror films so I choose not to watch one... Make Since


Neither of those Amendments mean f*ck all to me.

Why question the right to own a gun? You don't want people to question whether something is right or wrong? Because someone hundreds of years ago wrote it down on a piece of paper? You now won't let anyone question it? Open your god-damn mind.

Not watching a horror film doesn't murder 30 people a day.
America's gun fetish does. Make sense?



Why do the Amendments need to be questioned? Is it too complex for you to understand? Because its pretty damn straightforward.
You don't have to like it, agree with it or even understand it. There is nothing YOU can do about it. It was written by a lot of smarter people then you will ever be.

You can also just give up with your weak scenario questions, they are all invalid just like your ideology.

Oh, and your so-called statistics are like movie reviews... they don't mean swat!

You say "you feel sorry for anyone who has to live with a gun in their home"... Well, I say I feel sorry for anyone who has to live with YOU in your home.

Like I said before:

Typical non-American bashing Americans while constantly hanging on the coattails of America.



posted on Jul, 29 2016 @ 12:45 PM
link   
The issue here is that the anti gun people who are honest in their opinion (in other words they truly do care that people are getting killed and do not have a political agenda) are looking at a distorted image and formulating their opinion.
Let me give you an analogy and we will go back to cars since its the latest point brought up.

Lets assume that you are aware that cars exist however you do not own a car and have no intention of every owning one. You think they are dangerous and you have scene all of these statistics to back that idea up.
Now lets assume that the only time you actually see cars being used is in a demolition derby. You see them on TV and documentaries about how deadly the demolition derby is and this forms the basis of your opinion about cars. Now people come along and tell you, no I drive my car all the time and have never had a accident. They tell you about all of the good things that cars facilitate but you will not hear of it because you have scene that demolition derby and you think thats how cars are used ALL THE TIME.

The problem see is that people see the fish bowl of urban life. The street gangs, the violent criminals who use guns to rob rape and pillage. They see the behavior of those urban gangs and how its closely associated with the "respect" that guns bring. They see the innocent people hit in the crossfire of gang warfare. They see all of this demolition derby and they assume that it is the complete picture of gun ownership. This urban demolition derby accounts for the VAST majority of homicides of all types including guns. People living outside of this fishbowl do have and commit crimes but it is at nowhere near the levels of people inside of major city limits. The people inside of the fishbowl do not constitute more than a small percentage of legal firearm owners however they constitute the majority of those who commit firearms crime.
Now I dont suggest that we do anything about this. It is the nature of the human condition. What I do tell you is that you cannot use statistics heavily influenced by that fishbowl to formulate a solution that will primarily impact those who are not in that fishbowl.



posted on Jul, 29 2016 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

You got that right!



posted on Jul, 29 2016 @ 02:39 PM
link   
Tell it to the people that survived the Tiananmen Square Massacre, if using guns are considered cowards.



posted on Jul, 29 2016 @ 02:49 PM
link   
This OP and its supporters are cowardly, trollish, and a complete waste of time.



posted on Jul, 29 2016 @ 02:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: tow69


Didn't think you'd answer my question.
How is your gun going to stop a drive-by shooting?


How is taking away guns going to stop drive by shootings?

Most guns used in homicides arent registered to the shooter.

Mexico has guns, and we have very little border security

1+1=7?
edit on 7292016 by Butterfinger because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2016 @ 03:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheAmazingYeti
a reply to: schuyler

Plenty of other self-defense products and mechanisms. She could get pretty far with:

A) Being aware and not putting herself in that situation

B) Learn martial arts. Judo is fantastic!

C) Carry a taser of pepper spray.


That's great for a strapping young man, me I'm pushing 60 with a bad leg.
I'll just carry my Colt and you can jump and down while screaming like a jack ass.



posted on Jul, 29 2016 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Dragoon01

Hello I'm a an indy 500 winner, I seem to have terrified some people about...my abilities in driving ,NOW they think I WILL ONLY Blaze down the highway .But I CAN'T loose my LAMBO ,man... I use it to stand by for emergencies REQUIRING I do that.
AND ...it's pretty...

Anology talk over...



posted on Jul, 29 2016 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: TheAmazingYeti

Nope, I have to disagree, owning or carrying a firearm does not make you a coward. It means you are perfectly aware of the dangers of the world we live in now. My favorite bits of quip reply are ones like "I carry a gun because a cop is to heavy" or "To old to fight and don't have the patience to negotiate with idiot criminals". I don't go looking for an excuse to shoot somebody, but yeah the to old to fight thing pretty much sums it up. I would rather shoot somebody than be another victim. If that makes me a coward in your opinion so be it.



posted on Jul, 29 2016 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: truthseeker84

They wished THEY had them instead of the communists.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join