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.

 

The sad casualty of guns and stupid people in America

page: 13
15
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 4 2016 @ 09:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: BoldAlligator
a reply to: Mianeye

I didn't read the thread and I won't because it's nonsense. Guns make this country more safe. You're grandmother, your wife, your sister, etc. are being protected every single day. Every time they come home late from work, go to the mall or the grocery store whether we realize it or not.


It gives that purse snatcher pause, because little ole granny just might have the great equalizer tucked in there with her wallet.

That's a luxury you have been afforded and if you think there are better alternatives, please go pursue them. I don't even own a gun but I know that this country is safer for all of us because of guns.


Unfortunately, no you aren't. America's crime rate is higher than nearly all countries where its people aren't freely able and willing to arm themselves.

Your fantasy is a lovely one, but i'm afraid you live outside of reality if you believe it to be true.


America's crime rate and America's gun crime rate are two different things.

And the majority of gun crime is committed by, shockingly, criminals. Criminals that shouldn't have had a gun to begin with because it was already illegal for them to have it. So where's your magic wand fix?

The thing people like you ignore, and are happy to ignore, is that the overwhelming majority of legal gun owners never have a problem if any sort, be it a stolen gun, a suicide, or a negligent homicide. The agenda you push would only affect that group, being the ones that never have a problem to begin with, and do nothing to those that are the problem because you have no mechanism to eliminate guns entirely. The only thing that would solve the problems you cite is to magically make guns disappear, and somehow legislate the stupid out of people.




posted on Oct, 4 2016 @ 09:49 AM
link   
a reply to: eriktheawful

had a mountain lion about 300 yards from my front door last week. 3 years ago one left scat by the back door.

I could go on....but you get the picture. City folks just don't get this.



posted on Oct, 4 2016 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Yah, they don't respond too well to "Here kitty kitty kitty."

My biggest worries are bobcat, coyotes, pit vipers, bucks (lots of people think deer are these passive, gentle creatures. Right. tick off a buck and watch what happens), wild boar.

However, black bear is making a comeback here in SC. Been a lot more sightings recently. Most times you can scare them off....unless it cubs and their mother. That's a different story



posted on Oct, 4 2016 @ 10:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: SudoNim

What exactly is your point here? A gun in a home, whether securely kept or not is more risk than is necessary.

Objects under the same conditions may not carry the same risk. A knife left on a counter is not as much of a risk to a child than a loaded gun is.

Which is why we should treat them with different rules, and therefore you can't compare the two, completely exposing any pro-Gun argument that cites knives or cars as being just as dangerous.


Oddly enough, an unloaded gun is even less risk than a knife on the counter.

The use of the phrase "as necessary" pretty much seals the deal as far as credibility. Who judges what or how much is "necessary"? No, wait, let me guess. It's going to be you, isn't it?

There always seems to be a strong correlation between the people calling for moral and social guardianship over "the people" and those who decide to self-appoint themselves as those very same guardians.

You are also using a poorly constructed bait and switch. You start by talking about firearms that are being held responsibly, but then you offer up the example of a "loaded gun" being left out for the kids to play with - pretty much as far from "responsible" as you can get.

Choose one paradigm and stick with it.



posted on Oct, 4 2016 @ 10:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: SudoNim

Yes, it took a hyperbolic path right over it.

If you take action to make something not happen, and that action can be seen as directly responsible for your success, then you can lay claim to success.

i.e., my kid hasn't shot someone because i keep access to my guns under strict control, so my methods are successful. Its not because he repels tigers.


So if I keep a tiger locked in my house and it doesn't kill my children because I have strict controls, ipso facto it shouldn't kill anyone's children if they used strict controls and should therefore be encouraged?

Your logic is flawed and quite frankly arrogant.

Millions of "irresponsible" people have easy access to guns which endanger their families lives and all you can say is, "I consider myself responsible".


What?

You shouldn't do metaphors.


That's a funny way to spell "mushrooms".



posted on Oct, 4 2016 @ 10:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
The thing people like you ignore, and are happy to ignore, is that the overwhelming majority of legal gun owners never have a problem if any sort, be it a stolen gun, a suicide, or a negligent homicide.


They're not ignoring it. In fact, they know that it's their biggest problem - not enough people are being criminals to increase support for gun control. Hence the drive to find other ways to take away your rights.



posted on Oct, 4 2016 @ 10:34 AM
link   
a reply to: eriktheawful

Just about anything "wild" is dangerous. My son was ran out of the yard by a big old tom turkey a couple years back. This sucker stood about 4 feet tall when he stretched up.

LOL, my little weenie dog is terrified of birds after some bird of prey got her once. It swooped down and tried to carry her off. Left claw marks on her sides. Her butt is way to fat to be carried off so easily...but she is terrified of being outside during the day. She spends most of her time hiding on the back porch. If she goes into the yard, she is always looking up. And she barks at anything resembbling a bird, including the hummingbirds. Poor traumatized puppy.



posted on Oct, 4 2016 @ 11:06 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Poor dog!

I had 7 wild turkeys run across the road a couple of weeks ago. They came bursting out of the woods into the road and I had to slam on my brakes.

Was glad to see them as I had not seen as many of them as I used to when I first moved out here.

Now there is some good eating! They are not huge and fat like the domesticated ones that people buy in the store.

Not too hard to hunt, except they stay very quiet, and can suddenly burst out running or flying. Perfect for shotguns. If I tried to use a bow, for them, I'd never get one.



posted on Oct, 4 2016 @ 11:15 AM
link   
a reply to: eriktheawful

Dig a trench, and run some seed as bait. If you can figure out their daily circuit (i assume yours take the same path everyday, similar to those out here) you just put the trench in the middle of it.

Not a very good way to hunt in modern times....but its how my grand father used to get his turkeys. He'd take his pick of them, and set the rest free before filling in the trench. It only needs to be a couple feet deep with a slow incline to the entry.



posted on Oct, 4 2016 @ 04:30 PM
link   
To Homer Simpwon and every other delusional ahole jeopardizing our rights and safety:

NEW STUDY PROVES IN 5 MIN MORE GUNS =LESS CRIME 2015



And if you have the time:

John Lott: Why More Guns Equal Less Crime




More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws,
Third Edition (Studies in Law and Economics)


“John Lott’s More Guns, Less Crime revives the wisdom of the past by using the latest tools of social science. By constructing careful statistical models and deploying a wealth of crime data he shows that laws permitting the carrying of concealed weapons actually lead to a drop in crime in the jurisdictions that enact them. . . . By providing strong empirical evidence that yet another liberal policy is a cause of the very evil it purports to cure, he has permanently changed the terms of debate on gun control. . . . Lott’s book could hardly be more timely. . . . Lott’s work is a model of the meticulous application of economics and statistics to law and policy.”
- (John O. McGinnis National Review)








"Where you have the most armed citizens in America, you have the lowest violent crime rate.
Where you have the most gun control, you have the highest crime rate."
- Ted Nugent



posted on Oct, 4 2016 @ 08:12 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

My sisters when they live in Port Angeles, Washington had a tree that "purred".

Every now and then a puma would decide to rest in the branches of a tree not far from their rental house...

I never got to see it. More's the pity. They're such pretty animals. Dangerous, perhaps, but pretty never the less. Loaded shotgun sat by the door, at all times.



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 02:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: SudoNim

What exactly is your point here? A gun in a home, whether securely kept or not is more risk than is necessary.

Objects under the same conditions may not carry the same risk. A knife left on a counter is not as much of a risk to a child than a loaded gun is.

Which is why we should treat them with different rules, and therefore you can't compare the two, completely exposing any pro-Gun argument that cites knives or cars as being just as dangerous.


Oddly enough, an unloaded gun is even less risk than a knife on the counter.

The use of the phrase "as necessary" pretty much seals the deal as far as credibility. Who judges what or how much is "necessary"? No, wait, let me guess. It's going to be you, isn't it?

There always seems to be a strong correlation between the people calling for moral and social guardianship over "the people" and those who decide to self-appoint themselves as those very same guardians.

You are also using a poorly constructed bait and switch. You start by talking about firearms that are being held responsibly, but then you offer up the example of a "loaded gun" being left out for the kids to play with - pretty much as far from "responsible" as you can get.

Choose one paradigm and stick with it.


What purpose does a gun have in your home?

There seems to be such a strong correlation between Americans and fear of not having a gun.

Such paranoid and scared people. No wonder the world considers America a joke. I mean look at the elections.



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 02:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: SudoNim

Yes, it took a hyperbolic path right over it.

If you take action to make something not happen, and that action can be seen as directly responsible for your success, then you can lay claim to success.

i.e., my kid hasn't shot someone because i keep access to my guns under strict control, so my methods are successful. Its not because he repels tigers.


So if I keep a tiger locked in my house and it doesn't kill my children because I have strict controls, ipso facto it shouldn't kill anyone's children if they used strict controls and should therefore be encouraged?

Your logic is flawed and quite frankly arrogant.

Millions of "irresponsible" people have easy access to guns which endanger their families lives and all you can say is, "I consider myself responsible".


What?

You shouldn't do metaphors.


I thought by using metaphors and dumbing it down you'd maybe understand, hold on let me see if I can explain it in pretty pictures for you.



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 02:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: SudoNim

Oh I can wrap my head around your tiger analogy, but it's just completely WRONG.

Here, let me try to make you understand better since you are obviously confused:

Apples vs. Oranges

Rocks vs. Plants.

Water vs. Metal

Your analogy simply does not work because it's using something that is alive, living and breathing, compared to something that in inanimate and not alive, nor can it think.

Unless that's the problem? Maybe that is the problem: you think that firearms can act on their own.

My guns are tools. They do have a purpose. You keep trying to paint them with a broad brush. Wrong answer.

See, here is a better analogy of what you are doing: Everyone should not be allowed to own cars, and instead should use mass transportation, because cars can be dangerous. They can kill not only the people around them, but those using it. On top of that, they pollute the environment and consume fossil fuels, which is a bad thing, so we should limit that, and force everyone to give up their cars, because they have a perfect alternative that everyone can use!

That is your logic. Except: you're forgetting the many millions and millions of people who do not live in cities that have mass transportation. They need their cars to get back and forth to places because there is no mass trans for them. They need those vehicles to haul things. There for they are useful tools to many people.

My guns do several things:

1) They put food on the table. Specifically food that is high in proteins.
2) They keep us safe from dangerous animals (what? You think the US is nothing but one huge mega city? Uh...NO, look below, that's a picture of my "back yard"):



Plenty of critters in there that can kill you dead.

3) It acts as a form of defense against those who might wish to do us harm or remove our property.

Calling the police and expecting them to save us from everything is NOT an option. They'll still get called because I need too, but it will already be over by the time they are able to get here.

Even the sheriff's department here urges people to keep themselves armed who live out of the city, as they will not be able to respond quick enough.

And that's is what YOU can't seem to wrap your head around. The US is not some huge mega city that everyone lives in. We are a huge country, and only 62 percent of us live in big cities....which only comprise of 3.5 percent of the US:

U.S. Cities are Home to 62.7 Percent of the U.S. Population, but Comprise Just 3.5 Percent of Land Area

You are certainly entitled to your opinion (and as mentioned before by someone else, I too am always seeing how the strongest anti-gun opinions are by our non-US members here, over and over and over again. We get it: you guys don't like guns. Tough. We live here, you don't. Get over it.), and that it only has one use.

That thinking shows very narrow or closed minded thinking, and a huge lack of both education about firearms and most certainly a lack of understanding about the US and everyone in it.

Even here in the US: the strongest anti-gun activists do not live out here where 40 percent of us do. They have no clue, and stupidly think that we can just run down a block and get a coffee from Starbucks.

Yah.......nearest one to me is about 18 miles away.

So again: A gun is nothing more than another tool that has various uses. Yes, it's dangerous. Yes, dangerous things should be kept safe and locked up. That's a no brainer.

Just like a chainsaw. Damn dangerous thing......you can use it to clear trees and provide wood for multiple uses (just like a gun can provide food for you), yet at the same time, imagine what a chainsaw welding person could do in a crowd of people.

It would not be pretty.



Did you miss or just ignore the response I gave to you earlier that for hunting purposes I concede firearms may be needed. I also agreed that the regulations/training etc you set out needed looked sufficient.

I'm not talking about people who hunt or live in remote areas where wildlife is an issue.

I'm talking about the idiot who just watched an episode of Police Cops and think he's going to shoot dead 4 armed robberies who've broken in to kidnap his wife.



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 03:37 AM
link   
The battle against the ignorant, and yes evil people, trying to steal your constitutional right to defend yourself and your
family will continue:

15 year old girl leaves anti-gun politicians speechless






GUN CONTROL - Bruce Willis, Ice T, Sandy Hook victim, Veteran, speak up -



Then, what's the real reason behind "GUN CONTROL"?

George Mason said it well...

"To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them."

Power corrupts, and absolute power currupts absolutely.

Protect our 2nd Amendment. Protect your right to defend yourselves.

edit on 5-10-2016 by AlienView because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-10-2016 by AlienView because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 03:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

My sisters when they live in Port Angeles, Washington had a tree that "purred".

Every now and then a puma would decide to rest in the branches of a tree not far from their rental house...

I never got to see it. More's the pity. They're such pretty animals. Dangerous, perhaps, but pretty never the less. Loaded shotgun sat by the door, at all times.


Wouldn't be leaving your gun near the door.




Wait... you said Puma not Panther.



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 03:56 AM
link   
Enjoy.




"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." - William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783



Or...




“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759


I think it was Thomas Jefferson who said something along the lines of "I would rather a dangerous freedom, than a peaceful slavery."

In your all-fired rush to trample freedoms enumerated in our Constitution, never forget that when one goes others have a habit of following...

But I'm sure you know that, right?



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 04:03 AM
link   
a reply to: SudoNim

Somehow I knew you'd go there. You're nothing, if not predictable.

The loaded shotgun is where it can be got to, if or when it's needed. On a set of racks, locked. Now then, would you care to go further with this?

...and yes, I did say puma. As in a creature that can leap upwards of 18' feet from virtually a standing start. Weight, sometimes, in the neighborhood of 200 lbs, and come fully equipped with sharp teeth and claws, and have been known to attack humans. Yes, that puma.

Not a comic book character.



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 04:37 AM
link   
When you tell people they're stupid, only stupid people will agree with you.

The net effect of threads like these is to ensure no one ever changes their mind.



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 04:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: SudoNim

Somehow I knew you'd go there. You're nothing, if not predictable.

The loaded shotgun is where it can be got to, if or when it's needed. On a set of racks, locked. Now then, would you care to go further with this?

...and yes, I did say puma. As in a creature that can leap upwards of 18' feet from virtually a standing start. Weight, sometimes, in the neighborhood of 200 lbs, and come fully equipped with sharp teeth and claws, and have been known to attack humans. Yes, that puma.

Not a comic book character.



Wow calm down there, it was a joke.

De-stress yourself. I think you need to take a step back and not get so angry.
edit on 5-10-2016 by SudoNim because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in

join