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: 13
88
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 09:48 AM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

More people use those substances and material 'things' on a daily basis than guns. Statistically they will be higher because when tens of millions and hundreds of millions of people use or consume those, yes they will kill.
But a gun, only used by a small percentage of the population on a daily basis can do so much damage all at once. hmmm.

I don't see people going around with bags of sugar shoving it down peoples throats to kill them. Didn't see Steve paddock throwing cigarettes at people killing them. I saw bullets, what did you see?




posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 09:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: strongfp

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.


Same. I'm not anti-gun - but the minute we try to suggest better controls in a thread like this we immediately get accused of being "anti-gun". It's a tactic they use to try to discredit our opinion, one that I spotted a long time ago.

It would probably surprise many of those ignoramuses here that I am actually applying for a gun license myself down here in Oz, and am glad that I have to jump through some strict hoops in order to do so - knowing that as a result of these laws we have avoided mass shootings and have reduced the likelihood that bad people get their hands on them.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 09:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: strongfp

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.


It's not a matter of some slipping through the cracks. Your proposal will only impact people who obey the law. Period. We're not the problem. Address the problem. Just passing "gun control" so you can feel better while accomplishing nothing of substance is pointless.

You guys shoot yourselves in the foot every time with these pointless proposals that will have no impact on the actual problem. You just have an emotional need to do something, whether it actually helps or not. Most of us are reasonable, you just have to get down in the weeds, understand the issue, and propose something that will actually help not that's simply meant to make you feel better.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 09:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: nonspecific

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.


I do not use anything other than bolt action and lever action rifles for hunting. I don't see the need to kill more than I want to skin/clean....and a bolt action will give me that limit naturally. Not to mention i prefer to leave some on the hoof for next hunt.

I carry either a "Judge" revolver loaded with .410 or a .40 S&W semiauto (its what I carry daily...6 in the mag and 1 in the pipe, small and easily concealed) also for emergency. Like having a hog decide to fight instead of flee, or rattlesnakes. Also its easier to apply a mercy shot when the animal won't die and is suffering. The judge works nice during deer season to grab Turkey's, too.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 09:49 AM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Your way of thinking is just ignorance just like all in government who wants to take my guns. I say come and get them. But you will have to pry them from my cold dead hands after I take as many with me as I can. Law abiding citizens like myself are not the problem. Criminals that shoot people don't care about the gun laws.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 09:49 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?


I was simply replying to a ridiculous post with an equally ridiculous suggestion.


edit on 6/11/2017 by Kryties because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 09:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: nonspecific
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.


On both counts, yes. Semi-automatic rifles and shotguns are extremely common among hunters in my area, including AR-15s for coyotes and hogs. Its also increasingly common to see deer hunters trying their hand at hunting with a revolver.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 09:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: strongfp

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.


Same. I'm not anti-gun - but the minute we try to suggest better controls in a thread like this we immediately get accused of being "anti-gun". It's a tactic they use to try to discredit our opinion, one that I spotted a long time ago.

It would probably surprise many of those ignoramuses here that I am actually applying for a gun license myself down here in Oz, and am glad that I have to jump through some strict hoops in order to do so - knowing that as a result of these laws we have avoided mass shootings and have reduced the likelihood that bad people get their hands on them.


Isn’t arson now the preferred way to commit mass killings in Oz?



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 09:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: vor78

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
And no I am not advocating the government banning all guns, I have said it countless times I think the Australian example is what I think should be followed.


They'd have to do door-to-door searches and confiscation in every home in the United States in order for the Australia style bans to work. Non-compliance would be overwhelming.


What's the primary function of a gun???
To kill animal when hunting...It's far more effective than a slingshot or empty beer bottle...
To protect yourself from dangerous animals when roaming around in the great wilderness of the U.S...
To protect yourself and others from people who try to kill you with those items you listed, and other guns and acid attacks...
To get a good night's sleep in a fallen world...



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 09:51 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

You know what amazes me about this some "debate" times?

When people try to ignore the mental health angle to things. They blithely ignore that suicide by gun hovers around twice as many homicides by gun. But it's not a mental health issue.

They ignore that two-thirds of all gun crime is committed in inner cities.

They ignore that something like 80% of gun crime comes from people who weren't legally allowed to have a gun to begin with.

So it really does boil down to nothing more than a magic wand solution that effects only the majority, because of a minority.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 09:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties


Same. I'm not anti-gun - but the minute we try to suggest better controls in a thread like this we immediately get accused of being "anti-gun".


Because our 2nd Amendment rights have been chipped away and chipped away until we barely have any real right any longer.

The problem I have with this is its an inalienable right, meaning any suppression of it is a tyranny. If my government will impose tyranny on me so I cannot defend myself...exactly what other tyranny will it impose?



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 09:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: nonspecific
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.

You are really, REALLY letting your ignorance show, here.



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.

I know that I'm not BFFT, but I'll answer--if it were my choice, I'd use an AR-10 as my hunting rifle of choice. Being a veteran, the AR platform is exceptionally familiar and comfortable to me, and the vast amounts of ways that they can be customized make them PERFECT for use as hunting weapons. (if you are unaware of the difference between an AR-15 and an AR-10, basically the 10 has a longer barrel and shoots a larger .308 round versus the AR-15's .223 round...but better to ensure that the animal is killed versus wounded and left to a slow, painful death)



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 09:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: vor78

originally posted by: nonspecific
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.


On both counts, yes. Semi-automatic rifles and shotguns are extremely common among hunters in my area, including AR-15s for coyotes and hogs. Its also increasingly common to see deer hunters trying their hand at hunting with a revolver.


AR-15s also make a great home defense weapon. I know most of the anti-gunners won't watch this because they're afraid to learn that they have a bunch of misconceptions about the gun, but for anyone interested in actually becoming knowledgeable, watch this:




posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 09:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: SlapMonkey

You know what amazes me about this some "debate" times?

When people try to ignore the mental health angle to things. They blithely ignore that suicide by gun hovers around twice as many homicides by gun. But it's not a mental health issue.

They ignore that two-thirds of all gun crime is committed in inner cities.

They ignore that something like 80% of gun crime comes from people who weren't legally allowed to have a gun to begin with.

So it really does boil down to nothing more than a magic wand solution that effects only the majority, because of a minority.


And that this mental health problem really is all our fault. 2/3 of those suicides are veterans. Something like 30% of all gun deaths in the US are veterans deciding that they can't go on any longer.

We send them in to war so they can be broken, then don't put them back together again. In many cases it may not even be possible. War is among the worst things a people can do to themselves.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 09:54 AM
link   
a reply to: PerfectAnomoly

Yes,a lot of dictators' agree with your less guns in society way of thinking.
You disarm the people and it makes it easier to control them and dispose
them.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 09:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: nonspecific
Dumb question here but is mental health care free or paid for? sorry to bring the other thread to this one but I feel it is relavant.



Everything is always paid for...nothing is ever free.


But many, if not most, insurance plans cover mental health pretty well. If you're implying that cost may stop someone from seeking mental health, I would argue that the road block would be willingness to seek help way before cost becomes a factor.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 09:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: strongfp

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.


Same. I'm not anti-gun - but the minute we try to suggest better controls in a thread like this we immediately get accused of being "anti-gun". It's a tactic they use to try to discredit our opinion, one that I spotted a long time ago.

It would probably surprise many of those ignoramuses here that I am actually applying for a gun license myself down here in Oz, and am glad that I have to jump through some strict hoops in order to do so - knowing that as a result of these laws we have avoided mass shootings and have reduced the likelihood that bad people get their hands on them.


Isn’t arson now the preferred way to commit mass killings in Oz?

Nonsense...The bad guys can and do steal your guns...The bad guys can get the guns off the black market...The bad guys don't worry nor care about gun laws...They want guns, they get guns...Your laws only make it much harder for honest people to be able to protect themselves...



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 09:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Kryties


Same. I'm not anti-gun - but the minute we try to suggest better controls in a thread like this we immediately get accused of being "anti-gun".


Because our 2nd Amendment rights have been chipped away and chipped away until we barely have any real right any longer.

The problem I have with this is its an inalienable right, meaning any suppression of it is a tyranny. If my government will impose tyranny on me so I cannot defend myself...exactly what other tyranny will it impose?


It's a tad hard to have a decent, intelligent conversation about the topic when the people who disagree just start shouting "ANTI-GUNNER!!!!!" and don't listen to a word we say.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 09:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Iscoolwhoops...Sorry...Posted to the wrong person...I meant to post to the person you were responding to...



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 09:57 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Isn't that why drones are supposed to be so good? It puts fewer soldiers out in the mess. Just fight wars with computers. Punch a few buttons and stay emotionally removed from it.



new topics

top topics



 
88
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join