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.

 

Second Amendment Advocates Have Blood on Their Hands

page: 12
88
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 09:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

There are gun control policies in America. What, in particular, would you see as being needed in addition to what is already there?

Beyond this, why are we talking about gun control when this turd kills people randomly, but not drivers license control when another turd runs a van into a crowd? WHy is one mode of murder more alarming than another?

The term "gun violence" is a propaganda term. It asks its user to ignore that violence is the issue by putting "gun" as a classifier. Pure propaganda.


A vans primary function is to transport goods.

A carving knife's primary function is to carve meat.

A hammers primary function is to knock in nails.

All of the above can and have been used to kill people.

What is the primary function of a hand gun?


- kill snakes
- kill coyotes
- kill hogs
- compassionately end the life of a deer that my rifle didn't kill
- kill home intruders looking for whatever
- R&R at a firing range with my son on a Saturday afternoon

What you have established is that a gun is a machine that humans have created as a tool. The above short list are good reasons, some where mine or my families life depends on our ability to deploy the appropriate tool. The last thing I need when there is a mountain lion stalking someone in my family is some fat old asshole in Washington deciding what is and is not appropriate defense.

We already have laws regulating this tool. In this case, the law was not followed. That aside...guns are not the only method of murder that is used. Im not sure why one method is reviled above others....murder is murder.




posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 09:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: strongfp



Bottom line is, something does need to be done, and it seems no-one is doing anything.

88,000 Americans die every year because of alcohol. CDC
No one is doing anything.


Alcoholics Anonymous - www.aa.org...

I'm not finding a "Gun Owners Anonymous" anywhere.

Clearly people ARE trying to do something about alcohol.


Another pointless post. There are plenty of organizations of gun owners, just because they don't have the name you want doesn't mean they don't exist. There are many national gun safety programs sponsored by those organizations trying to advance gun safety.

Again, please get educated on this issue. You clearly are out of your element in this thread.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 09:38 AM
link   
I feel no guilt. no amount of gun control will stop a criminal. The blood is on that guys hands...and his alone.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 09:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy

Believe it or not, the NRA (oh noeees!) does gun safety programs all across the US.
So do individual state governments, county governments and municipal governments.


Which clearly waren't working.


Ohhh, it seems like AA sucks at what they do. Check out the recidivism rates.
Why aren't you out there picketing to have alcohol banned?


Mate, I'm a product of AA and NA. I got off both alcohol and drugs because of those programs. YES THEY DO WORK.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 09:39 AM
link   
a reply to: strongfp




yea so does sugar, cigarettes, car collisions, etc, etc. but all those aren't something that was designed with the intention to kill.

So what?

Your fall back is that something that isn't designed to kill and kills far more people each year is OKAY?



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 09:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
Another mass shooting.

And this is not going to be a popular thread……

So before anyone wants to post some knee jerk reaction this title please just read what I have to say.

So I have often said that the reason that Trump does what he does is because his base of support do not challenge him. If every time he says or tweets something stupid and his base of support rush to defend him he will keep doing it, even to the detriment of the nation. This is because there are two extremes, his opposition are pretty unlikely to support him no matter what and he knows this, trying to appease them is pretty pointless yet his supporters it seems will defend him no matter what. By extension then so long as Trump supporters continue to defend him they too are also partly to blame for the mess he is slowly creating.

This however is not another Trump thread.

I realised yesterday that this line of thinking applies to more than just trump supports and partisan politics. It could apply to political issues, second amendment advocacy for example.

The biggest obstacle to introducing gun control policies in America is a lack of political will and the force behind the big lobbies. If Trump and the Republicans were to turn around today and announce they were going introduce British or Australian gun laws it would be political suicide. The NRA has something like 5 million members (some estimate up to 14 million) so right away they have lost 5 million votes. That alone could be enough to have a huge impact in swing states however we know that there are many millions more in America who would also strongly oppose any such changes to gun laws. It would be political suicide so no politician is going to want to do it because doing so would be to sacrifice the power that comes with political office. Some would probably even take to actual violence in opposition to any changes in the law.

Let me say that I think its sickening that the politicians refuse to act out of this fear, they fear losing the support of the gun lobbies and they fear losing the votes that will see them maintain their position of power.

Yet if the people who are such strong advocates of gun rights were to revolt, if they were to say enough is enough and in enough numbers and demand sweeping changes to gun laws to try to stop all these senseless killings then things would change. It would give the politicians the political will to stand up to the gun lobbies and pass laws that would be the start of adopting more sensible gun laws.

The big problem then lies with those who refuse to challenge these gun laws for selfish reasons. After every mass shooting there is a plethora of individuals who rush to defend their guns and deflect away with other arguments about cars, knifes, mental illness and that I am British…..

The truth is that every time you defend your right to own a gun you are defending the rights of the shooter as well and as such I believe you have blood on your hands. So long as you continue to defend your precious second amendment you are defending the ability for these men to walk into a church or school and kill indiscriminately. If you would change your thinking, admit this is wrong and pressure your politicians to act to bring about stronger gun regulation and kick out the gun lobbies it would happen.

You have the power you just refuse to use it.

It coms down to that old quote

“The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing”

That is what is happening right now you are all sitting back doing nothing, preventing change and the result is a mass shooting almost every day.

You second amendment advocates have blood on your hands.
Sure, give up our guns...And after that, give up Free Speech, like they did in your country...And then start arresting Christians for speaking out about muzlim terrorists and homosexuals like they do in your country...And maybe adopt Hillary as our new Queen...

It wasn't guns that killed those people in the church...It was a sick mind...The killer could have used a bomb or a Semi and drove thru the church to kill those people like they do in your country...

This guy had a sick mind poisoned by the sick media and liberal politicians encouraging these sickos to do harm against conservatives...

I notice you do not mention that this guy was prohibited from owning a firearm legally...And he was stopped by a citizen with a firearm who owned it legally...THAT will not happen in your country...And now I understand you guy are trying to ban knives in your country, or already have??? That'll help in one of your muzlim acid attacks, eh???

The fact is, if some people in that church were carrying firearms, this sicko may not have been able to kill anyone...

You crazies are letting your country be over run by muzlims who when the numbers are large enough will eliminate all of you...That's their agenda...They even publicly admit it...Your police are afraid to go into large portions of your cities because they fear the muzlims...And then you elect a muzlim mayor in London...

There are bad people in Britain...There are bad people in the U.S...And it's getting worse...Those people in that church chose not to protect themselves from bad people even tho they had the means to do so...Of course it never occurred to them something like that could happen there...But as we see, it can now happen anywhere...And we're not stupid enough to give up the only protection we have...



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 09:40 AM
link   
a reply to: strongfp

And, as was pointed out early in the thread, something often overlooked is the fact that all those things not to kill anybody all kill more people than guns do.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 09:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties
Alcoholics Anonymous - www.aa.org...

I'm not finding a "Gun Owners Anonymous" anywhere.

Clearly people ARE trying to do something about alcohol.

Alcoholics Anonymous is a private organization, so, yes, PEOPLE are doing something about alcohol.

Any call for gun control is saying that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT should do something (more/different) about it...these are not the same thing.

The federal government tried to deal with alcohol--it was called prohibition and it created organized crime, more or less. Do people really think that having the federal government control firearms will have any different outcome?



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 09:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Iscool

It wasn't guns that killed those people in the church...It was a sick mind...


Are you suggesting the perpetrator walked into that church, opened up his skull, removed his brain and beat people to death with it?



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 09:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Kryties


Mate, I'm a product of AA and NA. I got off both alcohol and drugs because of those programs. YES THEY DO WORK.


Just like not committing murder with a gun works for not increasing the murder by gun rates.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 09:42 AM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Dude... Although I admire your OP and your reasons for it I must inform you that I have been arguing exactly this point with Americans for over 20 years....

Unfortunately there is one main reason why you will never change their minds, and this is it:-


Americans believe that a society with more guns is a safer society, the more the better....

Most of the rest of the world believe that less guns in society is a safer society.....


You cannot argue your point unless you first convince them that society is safer with less guns.... And I can't ever see that happening unfortunately...

Good luck.

PA



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 09:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Kryties




Mate, I'm a product of AA and NA. I got off both alcohol and drugs because of those programs. YES THEY DO WORK.

Congrats!

You are alive..... over 2.3 million died world wide because alcohol. You were addicted to it and you are proud that it is still legal. Congrats again! Screww all those people that died, I guess?



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 09:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

If they couldn't use a gun, they would use IEDs, vehicles, poison, airplanes, knives....

People intent on mass killings will find a way.


If there were true then why is it not happening on the same scale in Europe, Canada or Australia?

Sure I 100% get what you're saying and its a good point but its not applicable to every case of mass shooting in America.


America has about 90 guns per person, Canada has just over 30 per person. By those stats, considering we have one tenth the population, we should still have one tenth the amount of shootings. It only takes one gun to go on a shooting spree. Ammo only takes a second to reload. One person can carry a lot of ammo. We own four rifles ourselves. Locked in a gun safe.

I'm not doing more math on that (math needs the right mood), but I'm quite sure the numbers show that in Canada, we just don't like shooting each other. Not saying Americans "like" shooting each other, just that some of them don't seem to mind as much 🤔

Definitely there is an issue with mental illness, not getting noticed, and treated...plus, there's a massive dysfunction in the law enforcement, sometimes Americans call a cop to help protect them, and it turns out to be a bad cop, so I can see where there's more of a need to have home protection for themselves.

Gun controls only do so much, we have controls up here, but someone who really wants a gun to do crime, can always find one...



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 09:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: strongfp

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: strongfp

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: face23785

I mentioned manufacturing because what if the states bans all foreign firearms from being sold in the US, and only allows for domestic sales, where strict supervision of them being made, to when they leave, and maybe only certain government approved stores can sell fire arms.
Then yea, rework the background checks, and have proper sales of regulated fire arms.
The most used argument i hear is that people who follow the laws strictly get a bad rep because of people who murder, go on killing sprees, etc. it make sense. But if that were the case, then I am sure those people wouldn't be against more government control over the sales and manufacturing of weapons.
Bottom line is, something does need to be done, and it seems no-one is doing anything.


You would be mistaken. Most of us are against such restrictions specifically because we're law abiding citizens with a constitutional right that is already regulated and expensive enough. Making it more expensive and harder to get isn't gonna stop criminals. Most criminals don't obtain their guns by going into stores or gun shows. Shifting the sale point to a government controlled facility won't change that. All it will change is where us law abiding folks get our guns.


I realize this. I know the "criminals get guns blah blah" washed out argument, heard it a million times.
But regulation needs to start somewhere. If you're a law abiding citizen then you should have no issue getting a gun.
One of the main issues is that guns are so easily dismissed and people are far to slack about them. I wonder how many people buy a gun, only to sell it a few months later because they are 'bored' with it.

I think you missed my point.


No I didn't miss the point, and it's not a washed out argument. The entire point of this is to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people isn't it? So why focus on doing things that will only make it harder for law-abiding citizens to get them? This is why you guys can't get anywhere. Every time something like this happens, you propose pointless changes that will have zero impact on gun crime. It doesn't get opposed because the NRA has 300+ politicians bought and paid for. It gets opposed because people who are well-informed on this issue realize it will have no impact and don't want to burden the general public with pointless regulation.


Right, so there's a massive bullying issue from lobbyists and biased opinions?

Hmm...

And you keep bringing up the argument. The same one EVERY time. I know the argument, and I agree with it.
But you clearly cannot comprehend what regulating manufacturing and sales of guns can lead to. you're being stubborn, tunnel visioned.


Dude, you acknowledged it won't affect criminals. So what am I being stubborn about? Is your goal to stop criminals, or just to burden to law-abiding? If it's to stop criminals, you already admitted your proposal won't do that. Who's being stubborn?


Because I already addressed in one of my earlier posts that some will obviously slip through the cracks. you are not paying attention to anything I am saying. you immediately assume I am anti-gun, and go straight for my throat with the same dumb argument that everyone clearly knows. Yes criminals will gets guns, we all know this.
But, if you make initial gun sales more strict they won't go flying off the shelves to dumb gun owners and guns won't go 'missing' from the manufacturer to some organized crime or thieves. Which will have a snow ball effect further on down the line, it will slow the amount of guns flowing out into the streets.

I also agreed with someone else that background checks and what not need to be reworked, so not just anyone can go in and buy a gun. It has no effects on law abiding citizens who are able minded and have intention for long term ownership.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 09:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy

You were addicted to it and you are proud that it is still legal.


I never said that. I would appreciate it if you would stop putting words into my mouth.


Screww all those people that died, I guess?


More absolute nonsense. Again, trying to put words into my mouth.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 09:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

There are gun control policies in America. What, in particular, would you see as being needed in addition to what is already there?

Beyond this, why are we talking about gun control when this turd kills people randomly, but not drivers license control when another turd runs a van into a crowd? WHy is one mode of murder more alarming than another?

The term "gun violence" is a propaganda term. It asks its user to ignore that violence is the issue by putting "gun" as a classifier. Pure propaganda.


A vans primary function is to transport goods.

A carving knife's primary function is to carve meat.

A hammers primary function is to knock in nails.

All of the above can and have been used to kill people.

What is the primary function of a hand gun?


- kill snakes
- kill coyotes
- kill hogs
- compassionately end the life of a deer that my rifle didn't kill
- kill home intruders looking for whatever
- R&R at a firing range with my son on a Saturday afternoon

What you have established is that a gun is a machine that humans have created as a tool. The above short list are good reasons, some where mine or my families life depends on our ability to deploy the appropriate tool. The last thing I need when there is a mountain lion stalking someone in my family is some fat old asshole in Washington deciding what is and is not appropriate defense.

We already have laws regulating this tool. In this case, the law was not followed. That aside...guns are not the only method of murder that is used. Im not sure why one method is reviled above others....murder is murder.


The point i was trying to make was you asked about driving licences?

As you say the primary use of a gun is to kill, the only other use is to intimidate. You can say going to a firing range but that is just really practising to kill isn't it.

Your gun laws are your own and I respect your rights and all but pretending that a gun is like a car or a chainsaw or anything other than a tool specifically designed to kill is daft.

I am all for guns and hunting but how many of the massacres and murders in the world are commited with hunting rifles?

Do you ever go hunting with a revolver or one of those semi automatic guns that seem to be the weapon of choice in mass shootings?

Maybe you do so I ask.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 09:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: Iscool

It wasn't guns that killed those people in the church...It was a sick mind...


Are you suggesting the perpetrator walked into that church, opened up his skull, removed his brain and beat people to death with it?


Really man? Is it going to be that difficult to have an honest conversation in this thread?

are you suggesting that inanimate objects can undertake their own action?



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 09:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: PerfectAnomoly
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Dude... Although I admire your OP and your reasons for it I must inform you that I have been arguing exactly this point with Americans for over 20 years....

Unfortunately there is one main reason why you will never change their minds, and this is it:-


Americans believe that a society with more guns is a safer society, the more the better....

Most of the rest of the world believe that less guns in society is a safer society.....


You cannot argue your point unless you first convince them that society is safer with less guns.... And I can't ever see that happening unfortunately...

Good luck.

PA







Yet the statistics show there's actually no correlation between the gun ownership rate of a country and it's gun crime rate. Both sides of that argument are wrong. Overall crime rate is actually a better indicator of how high your gun crime rate will be, regardless of how strongly or loosely regulated guns are in that country.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 09:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: Iscool

It wasn't guns that killed those people in the church...It was a sick mind...


Are you suggesting the perpetrator walked into that church, opened up his skull, removed his brain and beat people to death with it?


Really man? Is it going to be that difficult to have an honest conversation in this thread?

are you suggesting that inanimate objects can undertake their own action?


The fact that they are reduced to arguing "points" like that should tell people all they need to know about their position. It's weak as #, can't be supported by logical arguments.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 09:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: nonspecific
A vans primary function is to transport goods.

Depends on who owns it and why it was purchased.


A carving knife's primary function is to carve meat.


Depends on who owns it and why it was purchased.


A hammers primary function is to knock in nails.

Depends on who owns it and why it was purchased.



All of the above can and have been used to kill people.



Right, because it depends on who owns it and why it was purchased. But primary function is irrelevant when the outcome is the murder of innocent people.


What is the primary function of a hand gun?

Depends on who owns it and why it was purchased.

In my household, the primary purpose of my EDC pistol is a "the great equalizer" if I ever was in a position where my life was in danger, no matter the species of animal (including human). My rifle and shotgun are for fun, but could become self-defense tools in a heartbeat if necessary (although the bolt-action rifle would be a bit cumbersome for that purpose).

Just because you believe that "primary function" matters is irrelevant, because humans are exceptionally clever beings, and one man's benign tool could always be another's murder weapon.

Again, intent of the owner is what matters, now your personal belief concerning the "why" behind the design or ownership.




top topics



 
88
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join