It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
What's odd is that citizens feel the need to own and/or field firearms to protect themselves in whats supposed to be a first world nation!
The premise of the second amendment was sound for the time period in question. But it was never really envisaged to accommodate the kind of armaments and weapons in this day of age nor the mentality and or mental health concerns that rather an alarming amount people display
The day before he left Pasadena, bound eventually for Belgium, he launched his first public attack against Germany’s new regime. “As long as I have any choice in the matter, I shall live only in a country where civil liberty, tolerance, and equality of all citizens before the law prevail.” The completion of the syllogism was simple—”These conditions do not exist in Germany at the present time”—and would not, Einstein implied, as long as the current regime remained in power.
In the spring of 1929, he wrote that “the people themselves must take the initiative to see to it that they will never again be led to slaughter. To expect protection from their governments is folly.”
originally posted by: UpIsNowDown
a reply to: SlapMonkey
Oh and no I did not even bother reading this epic rant of yours back at me, far to long and personal against me for some reason.
I'm not okay with any gun violence against innocent human beings, but as the Jefferson quote in my signature will help you understand, I realize that there are those who will abuse the ability to own firearms from time to time in this or that place, and that there are no laws that will ever deter anyone from doing such things.
But I will tell you, in a country of over 320-Million people, where there are more privately owned guns than people, when a heavy year of school shootings consists of 36 of those firearms being used illegally against innocent people on school property, I would argue that the statistics on that are pretty damn amazing (considering that you cannot legislate away murderous behavior).
Let's look at something interesting, though: According to this "The Guardian" article, there are 30,000 deaths attributed to firearms annually in the U.S. (that's obviously an average), but it notes that:
About two-thirds of those are suicides.
So, if we take that as a general fact, then we are looking at 10,000 firearm-related deaths, and not even all of those can be assumed to be crimes. But just for the sake of erring on the side of caution, we'll pretend that every single one of the 10,000 deaths is a crime--some bad guy who ignores all laws and just takes someone's life.
With the estimate of guns in American being more that one per person (the "The Guardian" article says 88/100 people, but that's not correct), and there being 10,000 illegal uses against human beings in a year, you're looking at, by the percentage of guns owned, a 0.003125% number of firearms being used to take a human life...and that's only dividing by the number 320-million. If I wanted to be more accurate, according to this "WaPo" article, there are estimated to be 357-Million firearms owned in the United States, bringing that percentage to a ridiculously negligible 0.0028%.
Seriously, that's less that one percent of one percent of firearms used to take the life of someone other than the person holding the gun.
So, yes, you'll have to excuse me when I say that, statistically speaking, and for a nation where firearms are so readily available to nearly everyone of age to own, we're doing really, really well as a nation when it comes to the ratio of firearms owned to firearms used to kill other human beings.
But, like I said--no, I'm not "okay" with innocent people dying at the hands of murderers, but I'm also not going to defend someone who says that the "saturation of guns in the USA" is the problem, because statistically speaking, that's asinine.
Fair enough. But, if you would entertain a hypothetical for me: If there are no guns in the country, how do you think that would affect gun deaths?
originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: SlapMonkey
Did Albert Einstein own a Gun?
Just because the man's opinion was affected by war and mass genocide or changed over time does not mean that he would not subscribe to some form of gun control.
Einstein said that "God does not play dice with the universe".
Allowing our children and mentally unstable persons access to firearms, and sometimes military grade assault weaponry amounts to children playing dice with death or Russian roulette even.
18 U.S. Code § 922 - Unlawful acts
(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person—
(4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;
He also said "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
Does that sound like the words of a man who would subscribe towards gun ownership?
Have you heard for sure that it was bullying? I haven't caught part of the story that has noted that yet.