It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Banning assault weapons again.

page: 21
<< 18  19  20    22 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 20 2005 @ 05:55 PM

Originally posted by Fry2

It is very easy to kill 10 or more people with a pistol. It is a lot harder to do the same with a knife.

You obviously know as little about knife fighting as you do firearms.
I could kill ten people in a crowded room with a knife before anyone even knew what was happening. Try that with a firearm. There are soooo many ways to kill another human being. Why decide to go after the really loud one that attracts attention? Every stat I have read so far puts sharp or pointy things much higher on the list for violent crime tools.
When are you handing in your kitchen cutlery by the way?

[edit on 20-4-2005 by Fry2]

Amen bro. Here is a link to what a man who knows how to use a knife to the detriment of society can really do:
Then there is the lawyer who was shot at point blank range and was able to point out to cops his shooter:

It's almost like comparing apples and oranges, guns and knives, besides when did that become the topic? Knives?

posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 05:45 PM
Knives are weapons. In the UK they're trying to ban them as assault weapons. It's relevant.

posted on May, 6 2005 @ 08:48 AM
Dear all,

Sorry for the delay in replying as I have been off grid for a bit.

Nice to see as usual the same old con tricks being used by the GunNut Lobby. Deviation and obfuscation.

I am only surprised we have not had a couple of choruses of "Cars Kill People So Why Not Ban Them?"

The simple fact underneath all of this is that civilian gun ownership in the US leads to thousands of uneccesary deaths every year that could easily be avoided. This is not a matter of opinion or conjecture. It is an unalterable fact.

So what is the answer put forward by those who want guns?

The old Ostrich maneuvre. Ass Up, Head Down.

I mean there is no chance that heaven forbid, you could amend the constitution to save some lives. I mean a 200+ year old document could not possibly fail to be fully relevant over two centuries later.



posted on May, 6 2005 @ 09:42 AM
Praise The Lord And Pass The Ammunition

Wow! 21 pages and still growing. Quite a nice franchise, this thread.

I've been reluctant to contribute, as I pointed out about 8 pages ago. Yeah, I know, silly me, missing out on all this constructive, thoughtful and civil dialog.

Here's an issue finally being resolved, at long last, through reasoned discourse and profound contemplation -- a historic occasion of far-reaching consequences -- and I'm missing out.

Damn the bad luck.

I guess I'm just old-fashioned, which in this case means having my eyes glaze over when those oldies but goldies I used to listen to on the Victrola get endless airtime in a newfangled “Inter-net” discussion thread.

You know, despite the digital fidelity of broadband communications, the tune still sounds as scratchy and off-key as it did thirty years ago.

Of course, back in them days we didn't have such modern classics as “Guns don't kill people, people do,” or “A handgun is 43 times more likely to kill someone in the home,” and other such breakthroughs in modern philosophical thought.

Nope, back then, guns were made out of stone, and we used them to keep saber-toothed tigers, bears and the neighbors away from the roots and berries we hoarded in our caves.

So I suppose I should keep up with the times, but it gets harder each year as these old bones get more brittle.

I guess this is something of a young man's game, after all.

The Point Of The Exercise

Of course, I know I'm an old fool for thinking threads like this are a waste of time, but humor an old fool for a moment, if you will, by answering a question for me.

And here it is:

How many people following this thread have changed their minds based on the discussion so far?

Anyone? Anyone?

You'll have to speak up, because my hearing isn't so good anymore.

Too much gunfire, I suppose.

posted on May, 6 2005 @ 10:19 AM

To answer your question best I can, I would have to say that you are getting old if you think anyone comes in here to have their mind changed.

I think it is time for you to hang up your keyboard and move to Fort Lauderdale or Bournemouth.



posted on May, 6 2005 @ 10:51 AM
Truer Words Were Never Spoken

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
To answer your question best I can, I would have to say that you are getting old if you think anyone comes in here to have their mind changed.

That has got to be one of the most candid, insightful and dead-on posts I've seen in many a long while.

Thanks for a pointed, poignant and poised response to an otherwise dry rhetorical question.

"You have voted BillHicksRules for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month."

Only one left. I better keep my powder dry.

posted on May, 6 2005 @ 01:42 PM

I thank you greatly for your kind vote and words.

I have been participating in forums for some years now both in here and on other sites.

I can be quite an emotive poster and most definetly sarcastic and cutting, however, I very early on learned that if I was wanting to change minds I might as well command the tide not to go out.

So now I just have fun instead.

Cheers to you fellow traveller of the Web.


posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 10:13 AM

For the third time, Columbus City Council has passed a ban on assault weapons.

Two previous Columbus ordinances addressing the firearms were ruled unconstitutional by the courts.

This new ban passed Monday night prohibits citizens from buying assault weapons within city limits. It also calls for anyone who currently owns an assault weapon to register the weapon within 30 days.

The definition of an assault weapon for the purposes of this ban is any semi-automatic rifle having a detachable magazine and other certain types of features.

Full Article

We'll it looks like the bill managed to pass. I am hoping that this ordinance will be ruled unconstitutional by the courts again.

posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 12:03 PM
Personaly, I would like to see all firearms removed from existance. Not banned... simply destroyed, melted down.

That woudl be becasue I have had teh misfortune of haveing 2 guns pulled on me. Fortunatly I was able to talk my way out of being shot in both situations. Being who I am I would far rather have to deal with someone wielding a knife, bat, mace, warhammer, spear, basicly any melee weapon. Thats because I know how to defend myself against these weapons.

This however will never happen and thus regulation of firearms is the closest form of controle that is even a possibility.

that said... I think instead of creating new laws.. why don't we just enforce the laws we have? This goes for all laws not just gun regulation. Ohh wait.. I know why... that would mean that people whould have to be responsable for their own actions.. silly me.. what could I have been thinking.


posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 08:32 PM
Its simple
why you need to keep saying the same things over and over again is what i dont understand.
guns dont kill ppl.
ppl kill ppl.
ppl with guns kill ppl.
so why treat it like its a new problem now that we have guns that do it fast?
Because thats all they do.
they just make the inevitable come sooner.

posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 02:28 AM
What i dont get is alot of people here in other threads are constantly complaining and in fear about how our government is taking away all of our freedoms, how all our rights are disapearing, ect, How can you support the ban of Firearms? That would not only go against your stance that we are loosing our freedoms, but it would also leave you completely defenseless when our government realy does step in and strip you of your rights.

It makes no sense to me.

posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 12:42 PM
taste that good ol goverment take over,good thing with 2nd amendment

posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 11:21 PM
I've been away from this thread for quite a while, but it was a wonderful excercise for me at the time.
Thought maybe I'd drop back in and see what anyone thinks, in case we have new participants.

The second ammendment is explicit on the point that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Observation and documentation however is not infringement, correct?

I believe very strongly in the right to own weapons. I believe that it should be legal for me to own an assault rifle, because the intent of the second ammendment is that I should be capable of helping a militia defend this nation should the need ever arise.
I also believe however that the government should keep close tabs on my weapon and use thereof. Owners should be licensed and registered. One should not be able to obtain ammunition for a weapon he is not registered as owning, and a database of purchases should be used in the discovery and investigation of people who provide weapons and ammunition in an unlawful way (ie: if somebody is buying ammo for a gun he doesn't own, there is a possibility that he has a stolen gun, which is more likely to be used for a crime). If I buy a weapon, I should have to come in and present it on occasion to show that I have not sold it illegally. Weapons should also probably have tamper-proof identification, such as an RFID device securely embedded somewhere within where it can not be accessed without destroying the weapon, so that weapons can be scanned to determine that they have not been stolen and the origin of the weapon can not be concealed by destroying the serial numbers.

Legally owned and registered weapons are least likely to be used for the comission of crimes, so I support legal gun ownership, but I also support careful observation, investigation, and prosecution as well as extremely strict punishment for those who arm themselves in an illegal way, because they are most likely to commit crimes.

In short: Security! Security! Security! Intelligence can reduce gun crime without infringing the right to keep and bear arms. I for one am a big proponent of that.

posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 08:11 PM
If somebody shoots at you what do you want to do?
Shoot back?
well i suppose you could die.
thats an option isnt it?
wouldnt you want to take your chances of getting him first?
and i dont mean just shooting him in the head before he even decides he wants to shoot you.
i mean reactionary.
if you survive are you gonna
A. Shoot back?
B. bleed to death?
i dont see all that much of a choice really

posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 02:56 AM

Originally posted by xpert11

Not likely since if they want to harm you and couldnt get a gun they will just get a knife.

You have more chance of defending against a knife then a gun.

Do you think banning legal ownership of guns is going to keep them out of the hands of criminals ?

Outside of gangs which make up a very minor section of the population illegal gun ownership isnt wide spread.
People in Urban areas for example dont have a need for guns legal or illegal to defend themselvs.

ok buddy lets pull your head out of the sand or some other dark place. I hope you ARE NOT a US citizen. What ever citizeship you enjoy you are obviously not very informed about weapons.

For your comment about the knife- your concept cannot be more mistaken. I would be what you call an EXPERT on bladed weapons, firearms in both the long and short variaties and bare handed.

Taking a gun from someone in close range is MUCH easier than taking a knife. WHY? every part of the gun you ar not holding- the part protruding from your grip is a potential grip for the person disarming you- a simple twist and the gun holder is no longer in control of his/her firearm.

A knife on the other hand leaves a whole lot of nothing to grab hold of except something that is going to cause you harm.

I bet you believe there is know way OJ could have gotten BOTH Nicole and her fling? Most knife fights/attacks are over before the victom realizes they are under attack.

here is an article by a well respected peer on THAT issue.

As to NOT for any reason needing a gun- VERY wrong. Not every little ol lady is as able as I am. I certainly would not want my future wife NOT knowing how to use one- she is only 5'0"- a tiny little thing. God created man, Sam Colt made them equal! wit the right training (and she is receiving it) a would be bugalar is going to magically make it into my house and get within range to disarm her. That burgalar is going to be "deader than a seven day stunk up skunk"

My firearms are not locked up- i have a combat 12gauge under the bed as well as several Glocks in stratigic locations around the house -- loaded. My children have all fired them, under supervision of course, and would not in a million years touch one without my giving them permission- or it being abosolutley necessary. They are very aware of what a firearm can do and that what ever it hits is likely to die and once something dies it does not come back like in video games.

Take a child hunting and discuss mortality sometime- life is precious and it should be treated as such but if someone is trying to harm you or you need to eat- it may be necessary to take life.

Gangs only a small percentage of the population- ok i'll give you that.

But you keep missing the fact that Law abiding gun owners aren't the ones commiting gun crimes!!! And that if you ever did ban guns only the CRIMINALS will have them.

there addess those two points- otherwise you are just blowing niave hot air.

posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 08:14 AM
Ok, here goes my input on this...
In my younger days, I did some things im not proud of.
I broke many laws. And I hurt many people, and im sorry for that (not physically, mostly just from stealing).

The one thing I feared the most was being shot.
That made not do alot of things that I would have done.

Once I grew up, and realized I cant do that kind of stuff, I straightened myself out.

Now I am on the other side. I try my best to do my little part to make up for it. If I see somebody doing some very stupid that could allow them for instance to be taken from, I tell them. I will tell them exactly how it is done, and how to prevent it.

I have had guns pulled on me, never when I was a threat or doing anything wrong. Just the wrong place at the wrong time.
In the past 3 years I have been shot at 3 times. A total of 31 rounds fired right in my general direction. I have also been robbed at gunpoint in a parking lot by 4 men, I was with a girl. I have watched people die from being shot. I had a party once, a big one, advertised and everything. 3 people got shot. 1 died. My mother when I was a baby, was out driving one day, I was in the car. Somebody cut her off, almost running her off the road. She honked at him. He got behind her and followed her home. He pulled up behind her in the driveway, sideways, and stepped out of the vehicle. He pulled out a 12 gauge sawed-off double barren shotgun and slung it over the roof of the car, right at her. My grandma walked out, and he got in the car and left.

Even after this, I still promote guns. I would never, ever, EVER, agree with anyone that would want to ban guns.

First of all, and PLEASE, DO NOT TAKE OFFENSE TO THIS, I am not trying to point a finger in any way, I am just telling you how it is.

I was born and raised in San Diego, California. We have more immigration there then practially anywhere else. They all come through there.

All of the experiences I mentioned above, every single one, the person with the gun was mexican.

I will leave you to your own conclusions on that.
But also, they were all criminals. And being criminals, laws dont matter. In none of these scenarios, did any of the victims have a gun, or a means to defend themselves.

I have purchased a gun for my mom. I have tought our entire family how to safely store, hold, clean, operate, and fire guns.

I carry a knife, a can of OC/CS Spray (pepper spray with CS Tear gas in it), and a gun, almost everywhere I go. The gun is an iffy thing. Sometimes I take it, sometimes I dont.

Point is, this leaves three options in defending myself. Minor threats get sprayed. Serious threats can be disarmed and if need be, injured.
Extreme threats can be fully taken out.

I have been jumped, more than 1 time, for no reason whatsoever. I have seen some of the nastiest things you would ever want to see. I have seen street violence at its worst. But I promote the right to own weapons. Even for those criminals. Law enforcement does not solve the problem. That means when it comes to your door, its you or the criminal. Who do you want to win?

Also, my 16 year old brother carries a knife and spray on him at all times too. I have also trained him how to use both. How to disarm a threat.

I also live in Arizona now. We are the wild west. I can walk into the gas station with an AK-47 on my back, and two handguns at my sides. It is completely lega, and it is the norm out here.

A 16 year old meth addict, a female, attempted an armed robbery of a video store in Phoenix a few months ago. One of the men renting a video there saw her pull a gun out and point it at one of the workers and tell everyone to get down. He drew his sidearm, and fired 3 shots. Needless to say, the place wasnt robbed, and no innocent people were hurt.

Sometimes, we need to be people. And we need to stop and think.

"The world is crap. Everything about it is crap. Peace is no more. Freedom is no more. How did this happen? Us. Humans. We created all of our problems. And we did it with power. You cant withdraw that power now."
Would you start a war, just to go into it with a banana as a weapon?
No. Thats how it is. You cant change it. If you give up your guns, great for you. Does that mean everyone else will? No. As far as I stand, I will not give up my weapons. I will not jeapordize my life or the life of my family members either. If it comes down to the government going in each home and taking weapons, I will give in, because the consequences for fighting it will surely be deadly (Note: WACO). But they dont know what I have buried around the baron desert that surrounds me.

posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 08:28 AM
I've always laughed at the notion that if, one day, the government decided to corral everyone in, that we'd all fend them off with shotguns, grenades and assault-rifles. If it comes down to you surrendering or fighting it out... unless you've got a good hiding-place, you're not going to beat the government at anything. You will either be locked up with the rest of the population or you will be destroyed by any of several possible weapons that will either vaporize you or leave you buried alive in the bunker you've dug out for yourself as you anticipated your victory over the government.

I'll never go quietly into the night... but I recognize that if it came down to it, I wouldn't have a chance of standing up to the government, and all it's marvelous tools of death, while I hid behind "assault-weapons."

[edit on 2-4-2006 by firebat]

posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 10:45 AM

Originally posted by firebat
I've always laughed at the notion that if, one day, the government decided to corral everyone in, that we'd all fend them off with shotguns, grenades and assault-rifles. If it comes down to you surrendering or fighting it out... unless you've got a good hiding-place, you're not going to beat the government at anything.

Are you kidding the US military cant even handle a small percent of the Iraqi population armed mainly with assualt rifles,grenades and bombs. By most estimations a few thousands isurgents.

Forget it if a few million Iraqis decided to fight the US military it would be over and the US would be sent packing. They couldn't dream of controling a armed population 10 times that of Iraq even if they were all armed with the most basic small arms and crude bombs.

You cant Underestimate the power of hundreds of millions of people.

posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 12:18 PM

Originally posted by xpert11
Americans can keep there guns along with lawsuits and your health system. After you have been shot by an armed robber (he/she is preventing crime by robbing a petrol Station) and you dont have have health insurance thus unless your rich your Screwed.

Wow, do they teach this propganda in the schools in your country?

What makes you think only rich people can get health insurance?

I worked at Wendy's serving hamburgers when I was younger (some 20 years ago). I made minimum wage. I was poor. I had excellent health coverage. Every job I have ever had after that has provided me with excellent health coverage.

In every state of the union there are laws that prohibit hospitals from turning away emergency cases if the person does not have the ability to pay.

In my community, it is a major struggle for hospitals to treat all of the illegal aliens because they never get paid for treating them.... but they do treatr the emergency cases.

We do agree on one point though... the lawsuits here are absoulutely out of control.

posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 05:03 PM
I have been away for a very long time, but when I saw this thread pop up again near the top of its respective list, I couldn't resist the urge to jump into it again.

I will concede that those of us who believe in the right to own firearms and those who don't may simply have to agree to disagree. Attitudes are based primarily on experience - if you have never been in a situation where a firearm (or other waepon) did, or could have, saved you or a loved one from death or great bodily harm, you may be more inclined to be anti-gun in your sentiments. That is fine in my book; you go right ahead with the notion that firearms have no place in the hands of civilians and that your "government" will protect you. I have had far different experiences in my lifetime, and I choose the opposite.

To BillHicksRules, and XPert11, you never acknowledged my point that survival and/or self-preseveration is one of the first laws of nature - why is that? In fact, BHR, you never addressed any of the prior points I made. Like I stated in a far previous post, I am an idealist by nature but a realist by experience. I believe that you two simpy have not had the experience with life and death that a good number of persons on this planet have had. Go ahead and enjoy your tea and crumpets, or sushi, or whatever your cultural directions dictate. When the S* hits the fan, just please do not impose on me the burden of protecting or providing for you, because I will not do it.

In the US, our founding fathers were very wise; they foresaw the need for the individual to have some means of protection from opresssion. I do not feel agreeable with the notion that all we need is to have "plastic sheeting and duct tape" to deal with a national crisis. If you do, then you are fools.

new topics

top topics

<< 18  19  20    22 >>

log in