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.

 

America-273 mass shootings in 275 days of this year

page: 6
5
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 04:01 AM
link   
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Sure. Doesn't change everyone's rights.

Should we limit all Constitutionally protected rights to their 1787 levels?

Don't like what the 2A says? There's a process spelled out in The Constitution to change it.




posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 04:17 AM
link   
a reply to: cynicalheathen


So you agree that times have changed then....


edit on 6-10-2017 by hopenotfeariswhatweneed because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 04:26 AM
link   
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Well, it'd be kinda unrealistic to say no.

What argument are you trying to make?

That people no longer have the right to arm themselves accordingly to defend themselves from threats and a tyrannical government?

That law abiding citizens should be forced to have inferior small arms compared to criminals and the government?

Does an individual citizen have less of a right to defense of self and country in 2017 than they did in 1787?



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 04:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: cynicalheathen
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Well, it'd be kinda unrealistic to say no.

What argument are you trying to make?

That people no longer have the right to arm themselves accordingly to defend themselves from threats and a tyrannical government?

That law abiding citizens should be forced to have inferior small arms compared to criminals and the government?

Does an individual citizen have less of a right to defense of self and country in 2017 than they did in 1787?






I see you are confused....

Are you defending your country like you did in 1787 from a foreign power ? Or are you defending yourself from your own countrymen......I

I will go with confused as it is really not that difficult to make a distinction.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 04:56 AM
link   
a reply to: PraetorianAZ




It has already been proven many times over the more guns = less violent crime.


Got anything to back that up .



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 05:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: hutch622
a reply to: PraetorianAZ




It has already been proven many times over the more guns = less violent crime.


Got anything to back that up .





A fully loaded AR15 pointed in your direction.....



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 05:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: BlackSkinhead

originally posted by: avgguy
It's our right to own guns here, written in the constitution. A gun is a tool that you can use for good or evil. unfortunately an infinitely small minority of legal gun owners use their tools to kill other people.


That was written when single fire rifles were the norm mate not fully automatic 1000 round weapons.


And that wasn't my question. I don't want a 20 page thread about your rights because I'm very aware of them. I just want an answer to that question , please



I'm sure they factored in the internet, radio and cable TV when they were writing the 1st.

By the way, citizens had military grade weapons back then.




posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 05:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneedI see you are confused....


I see you have no argument, only insults.


Are you defending your country like you did in 1787 from a foreign power?


The American Revolution was over in 1783. The U.S. wasn't fighting any foreign power in 1787.


Or are you defending yourself from your own countrymen.


We retain the right to defend ourselves from any threats, be it criminals or over-reaching tyrants.


I will go with confused as it is really not that difficult to make a distinction.


Actually, it's a pretty easy distinction. I'll spell it out.

U.S. residents retain the right to bear arms in order to:

- defend against criminals, such as those who would seek to murder, rape, rob, assault, etc...

- defend against a government which would seek to subjugate, massacre, or otherwise attempt to mistreat the citizens who give it power.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 05:45 AM
link   
What about when the zombies come? Bill Burr wants a gun.




This debate always will come up every time a loon goes on a mass shooting spree, but I came to understand the points of gun ownership from Americans here on the board over years of my complaining on gun related violence.

Don`t try and penalize the vast majority of law abiding citizen for the actions of those from the gutter, remove the law abiding citizens rights and you`ll still have those armed from the gutter, making them less safe not more.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 05:53 AM
link   
I had a look at the raw data on this and looked at who the mayor is in each of the top cities where the shootings occur.
Over 50% of ALL the mass shootings in America - if you take the 4 or more people killed or injured as a rule as in the stats in the OP - occured in just 33 cities (consider that there are close to 20,000 municipal govts in the USA), and this is what it shows:



The issue is overwhelmingly in large cities controlled by Democrat mayors.
Now this is not necessarily a Democrat governance and policing issue, I suspect that it is more an issue relating to the size of the city and hot spots of poverty. It's certainly not a gun issue - if it were the distributions would be more spread across America.

The question is, would the Democrats be able to solve their mass murder issue in the areas they run if there were a ban on bump stocks, silencers, or more strict gun registrations/ mental health restrictions?

Maybe the answer is to ban cities and poverty.

edit on 6/10/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 05:58 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan


Because in statistics the mantra is "figures don't lie, but liars can figure".


and statistics can be manipulated to express a desired out out



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 06:39 AM
link   
a reply to: BlackSkinhead

I think I remember something from history classes in grade school about the British army marching toward Concord to take up some guns which got the whole American Revolution started. This way be the case should the government decide to try doing it again.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 06:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: RazorV66
a reply to: BlackSkinhead

Do you have a link for that statistic?
That doesn't seem right to me.
Chicago is a war zone every day but 273 in 275 days sounds fishy.


Chicago isn't even in the top 20 in the U.S. in terms of murders per capita.
edit on 6Fri, 06 Oct 2017 06:45:32 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago10 by Greven because: (no reason given)


(post by hopenotfeariswhatweneed removed for a manners violation)

posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 03:35 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 10 2017 @ 12:15 AM
link   
The Statistics don't lie, but they also aren't saying what people make them out to be saying.

The USA had 15,696 homicides in 2015, out of a population of about 323,000 people. That is one in 20,000 odds of being murdered.

The UK had 594 homicides in 2014, out of a population of about 65,000 people. That is less than one in 100,000 odds of being murdered. So about 5 to 6 times better than the USA.

But the thing is: both of those are obscenely low!!!

en.wikipedia.org...


In 2013 34,064 people in the USA died in traffic accidents. Twice the number who died from homicide.
In 2013 1,827 people in the UK died in traffic accidents. About 3 and a half times the number who died from homicide.

en.wikipedia.org...

That's just to put it in perspective.



You might as well be comparing the payout rate of the two countrys' national lotteries, and concluding that because one of them has a slightly better payout rate, smart investors would want to play that lottery for investment purposes.

Taking small probabilities seriously just wastes your time, and everyone else's.



The reason the USA like guns is not related to the prevention of homicide. It's for other reasons, and an increased (although still miniscule) homicide rate is simply understood to be part of the cost of freedom.




top topics



 
5
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join