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: 15
88
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 10:07 AM
link   
a reply to: face23785




Just proof positive that if they can't get guns they'll simply use something else. No one decides to commit murder because they own a gun.


9-11 was a mass box cutter attack.




t's a complete failure of logic to think stopping people from getting a gun will stop them from killing.


It is.

It's also a failure of logic for those running around trying to 'blame' people that live hundreds of miles away from the event for the action that was in violation of existing laws.




posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 10:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: face23785

YOU, YOU, YOUR, YOU GUYS...

I see you've already established a them versus us mentality. If you can't set aside your arrogance then what's the point of even trying to come to a compromise?

I am not anti-gun, but you have already established I am. So, no need to even argue with me anymore. Like attempting to talk gun control to a brick wall.


The compromise was already reached. What this is, is trying to renegotiate prior agreements:

- National Firearms Act of 1934
- Gun Control Act of 1968
- The Brady Bill
- School Safety And Law Enforcement Improvement Act
- Various and Sundry Executive Orders

And now we need to renegotiate again???



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 10:08 AM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

It is a mental health issue. The guy was sick. He beat his wife and young child. He did not use a gun then. If it was not a gun he would have stabbed or choked or beaten someone to death.

Again, you start these threads for stars not conversation or debate.

What saved more from being killed? 2 men with legal weapons. The 2nd Amendment worked.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 10:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

War and mass shootings by crazy people... Nothing much we can do about either. At least that's what I'm told.


Not without fixing the violence that humans tend to display. We aren't that different than the apes we are closest to.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan




And now we need to renegotiate again???


Apparently.

They won't be satisfied until we are forced to go sit on a couch and talk about our moms to a Freud.

Then we might get to practice a right clearly spelled out in a piece of paper.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 10:10 AM
link   
a reply to: matafuchs




Again, you start these threads for stars not conversation or debate.


you really think I start a thread like this expecting stars???

come on really?
edit on 6-11-2017 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 10:11 AM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

How did I know this was going to be another thread from you?

You love the attention, don't you?



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 10:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: matafuchs




Again, you start these threads for stars not conversation or debate.


you really think I start a thread like this expecting stars???

come one really?


Your OP got 15 stars, the first reply "what a joke" got 54 stars.

If you want stars then you are doing this all wrong.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 10:14 AM
link   
Another thing I'm noticing on the news, is everyone wondering how this shooter got a gun. In Canada, with all our controls and regulations, anyone can still get a gun, easily.

So how is anyone (news media) wondering how he got a gun?



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 10:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties

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.


Do you think that might be because your side of the conversation seems to frequently start with "you literally have blood on your hands?"

I feel like that might be a factor...



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 10:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: nonspecific
[
what I meant was is the medication available easily for mental health issies in the US.

Medication is readily available in the U.S.--hell, we're one of the most heavily medicated nations in the world, if memory serves correctly. Access to treatment (medicinal or otherwise) is not the problem, at least for the vast majority who live close to facilities--I can't speak for the extremely rural people of our nation.


My partner suffers from trauma based psycological issues and on occasion needs medication. Without them she is a liability. Anxiety, paranoia, comes out with all kind of crazy stuff and at times is verging on being a danger to herself and others due to delusions.

That's not a fun place to be, for sure, and I hope that your partner can continue living a relatively "normal" life with help from the meds. I had to watch a mental illness take my grandmother from me, extremely slowly and it put her in much agony. My empathy always pours when I hear people whose loved ones suffer from mental illness. Here's to hoping for continued health in that regard...


As people are(possibly quite rightly) are saying that these mass shootings are due to mental health issues could it be a lack of availablity or affordability that allows these things to occour?

I can't make a blanket comment as to every single instance, but on the whole, I would argue that it is absolutely not the issue. It would be interesting, though, if every time something like Texas or Vegas or Pasadena or any of these incidents happened, that they looked into the health insurance and treatments of the individual. Often they do, and often these people are found to be on anti-psychotic meds, whose side effects in and of themselves can actually make people react this way.

I'm not going to get into it on here, but I have my suspicions that, often times, the medications are contributing to the psychotic behavior, not inhibiting it. The problem therein lies with individual responsibility and following up with doctors if medications are causing certain thoughts a feelings.

But that's for another thread, I suppose.


Genuine question as if its a health issue then that is what needs to be addresed and as many have said the gun ownership quiestion is irellavant.

The thing is, mental-health evaluations cannot be forced unless there is a crime involved, so it all lies on the individual, their family and friends to notice warning signs and to voluntarily get checked out. That's a tough first step for many people.

But, no, access to, affordability of, and availability of mental health care in America is not a problem for the majority of people.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 10:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo969-11 was a mass box cutter attack.


oooookay.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 10:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: Kryties

No they are not.

Yet the numbers don't lie.

But if you don't like that analogy.

Cigarettes kill around 500 people yearly. It literally says on the box that smoking will kill you.

Do cigarette makers have blood on their hands?


Every single firearm that has ever been legally sold on the civilian market in the United States was intended, designed, marketed and sold for lawful purposes only. That's the point they're ignoring, and that's the point that makes the comparisons relevant. There are any number of products on the market that can be and are highly dangerous if used improperly or with criminal intent. Firearms are among them, but they're no different from the rest.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 10:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: snowspirit
Another thing I'm noticing on the news, is everyone wondering how this shooter got a gun. In Canada, with all our controls and regulations, anyone can still get a gun, easily.

So how is anyone (news media) wondering how he got a gun?


Because (a) it's a valid question, (b) most people don't want to accept the fact that it's easy to purchase firearms under the radar of background checks (illegally), and (c) is helps stoke the fear about current laws not doing enough.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 10:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: Kryties

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.


Do you think that might be because your side of the conversation seems to frequently start with "you literally have blood on your hands?"

I feel like that might be a factor...


Show me just ONE TIME that I, personally, have said this. YOU WILL NOT FIND IT. Feel free to try anyway, if you do not believe me. Yet I get immediately labelled. It's ridiculous, and total hypocrisy.

I do not see many people saying "you have blood on your hands" - it seems like one or two people said it then others latched onto that and now suddenly everyone who wants to talk about gun control MUST be "anti-guns" and all the other nonsense we get called.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 10:20 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Looking at the crazy eyes on the latest mass shooter, I am thinking that he might have been on some of that medication that they like to pass out like candy today.
Remember the crazy eyes on the Aurora, Colorado theater shooter? He was taking crazy pills.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 10:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: nonspecific
[
what I meant was is the medication available easily for mental health issies in the US.

Medication is readily available in the U.S.--hell, we're one of the most heavily medicated nations in the world, if memory serves correctly. Access to treatment (medicinal or otherwise) is not the problem, at least for the vast majority who live close to facilities--I can't speak for the extremely rural people of our nation.


My partner suffers from trauma based psycological issues and on occasion needs medication. Without them she is a liability. Anxiety, paranoia, comes out with all kind of crazy stuff and at times is verging on being a danger to herself and others due to delusions.

That's not a fun place to be, for sure, and I hope that your partner can continue living a relatively "normal" life with help from the meds. I had to watch a mental illness take my grandmother from me, extremely slowly and it put her in much agony. My empathy always pours when I hear people whose loved ones suffer from mental illness. Here's to hoping for continued health in that regard...


As people are(possibly quite rightly) are saying that these mass shootings are due to mental health issues could it be a lack of availablity or affordability that allows these things to occour?

I can't make a blanket comment as to every single instance, but on the whole, I would argue that it is absolutely not the issue. It would be interesting, though, if every time something like Texas or Vegas or Pasadena or any of these incidents happened, that they looked into the health insurance and treatments of the individual. Often they do, and often these people are found to be on anti-psychotic meds, whose side effects in and of themselves can actually make people react this way.

I'm not going to get into it on here, but I have my suspicions that, often times, the medications are contributing to the psychotic behavior, not inhibiting it. The problem therein lies with individual responsibility and following up with doctors if medications are causing certain thoughts a feelings.

But that's for another thread, I suppose.


Genuine question as if its a health issue then that is what needs to be addresed and as many have said the gun ownership quiestion is irellavant.

The thing is, mental-health evaluations cannot be forced unless there is a crime involved, so it all lies on the individual, their family and friends to notice warning signs and to voluntarily get checked out. That's a tough first step for many people.

But, no, access to, affordability of, and availability of mental health care in America is not a problem for the majority of people.


Interesting.

So it is not gun ownership and it is not a lack of availability as such of medical care for those with mental health problems.

I would agree that poor diagnosis and wrongly prescribing medication can make a bad issue a lot worse and would not be suprised to find out that it was a likely culprit in many cases.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 10:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: Kryties

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.


Do you think that might be because your side of the conversation seems to frequently start with "you literally have blood on your hands?"

I feel like that might be a factor...


Show me just ONE TIME that I, personally, have said this. YOU WILL NOT FIND IT. Feel free to try anyway, if you do not believe me. Yet I get immediately labelled. It's ridiculous, and total hypocrisy.

I do not see many people saying "you have blood on your hands" - it seems like one or two people said it then others latched onto that and now suddenly everyone who wants to talk about gun control MUST be "anti-guns" and all the other nonsense we get called.


No you'll just ignore legitimate questions you can't answer, like why it's ok that more people die from cars even though they weren't designed to kill.

Edit: I'll rephrase. Why does the fact that cars aren't designed to kill make the number of auto-deaths less urgent to solve than the gun deaths?
edit on 6 11 17 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

The funny thing is, I think that these 'renegotiators' forget who holds the pen concerning these things. Trump, for better or worse, is a tough negotiator.

I'd love to see them try on this topic...they may end up with things being repealed instead.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Okay then what are you talking about? Your title suggests that gun owners are to blame for mass shootings... You're kind of contradicting yourself here.

Regardless, no amount of firearm laws will prevent a would be gunman from shooting people. They'll figure out how to get one. Though if nearly everyone had a gun I doubt any active shooters would get very far.

Also there aren't many shootings in Canada because on top of heavily restricted access to firearms our population is but a fraction of yours and on average our culture is more benevolent. We don't glorify war and violence to the degree you do in the US. We're just more peaceful. Though shootings do still happen. Not long ago there was a shooter in Moncton. He killed multiple police officers. New Brunswick is about as dry and unassuming as it gets, so it just goes to show that it can happen anywhere...




top topics



 
88
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join