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.
originally posted by: waynos
Thank you for your response and not just telling me to mind my own business. I know we aren’t changing anything here, just talking about it.
originally posted by: waynos
Re your response to the first point. Yes, I can see that this does happen, sorry, I was responding only in response to this particular thread, not generally.
originally posted by: waynos
Regarding points 2 and 3. Are you proposing that because you can’t ban cars or smoking (the fact that this is not true and there are many car and smoking bans in force, but let’s go with it) then that is a reason not to try and curb gun deaths? Seriously? You are saying “we can’t fix everything, so let’s fix nothing” because that is the logical extension of that position. Nothing is taboo, anything goes, screw everyone. I disagree.
originally posted by: waynos
If a cop shoots an unarmed man, it’s only his fault if the unarmed man was clearly unarmed and making it clear, you are inventing scenarios to justify gun ownership again. This is just a circular argument that avoids acknowledging any actual issues. If a wingnut goes on the rampage, he can only shoot tens of people if he has access to a gun. Not the guns fault, the fault is that of a society that thinks guns are acceptable.
originally posted by: waynos
Also, it’s not “my” foreigner situation you’re referring to. You, or others, introduced that element to the thread in order to deflect and avoid having to discuss why access to guns makes it easy for loonies to shoot people. I just found Trumps travel ban ironic, given the real numbers involved, considering his utter avoidance of a much greater problem.
originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: Xcathdra
It also means that if we remove guns there would be a lot fewer victims.
originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: Xcathdra
Gun control in only certain areas doesn't work, anyone can go outside the border and get a weapon cheaply. It's only when you make guns expensive to purchase everywhere that gun control can work.
Also, those cities might have crime problems but mass shooting problems have been a nationwide issue. Parkland had armed security on the school grounds and it still didn't do any good.
originally posted by: Aazadan
Gun control in only certain areas doesn't work, anyone can go outside the border and get a weapon cheaply.
originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: Xcathdra
Regulation leading to higher pricing is what has kept full auto's from being used in crimes. The concept clearly works. But it won't stop mass shootings until it's applied to all guns, until that happens it will only stop crimes from being committed with specific weapons.
If a cop shoots an unarmed man, it’s only his fault if the unarmed man was clearly unarmed and making it clear, you are inventing scenarios to justify gun ownership again. This is just a circular argument that avoids acknowledging any actual issues. If a wingnut goes on the rampage, he can only shoot tens of people if he has access to a gun. Not the guns fault, the fault is that of a society that thinks guns are acceptable.
If a wingnut goes on the rampage, he can only shoot tens of people if he has access to a gun. Not the guns fault, the fault is that of a society that thinks guns are acceptable.
originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: Krakatoa
You can't protect your home with methods other than a gun?
originally posted by: Aazadan
originally posted by: jjkenobi
Ask yourself:
How many mass shootings have occurred in "gun free zones".
If you answered "damn near every one" then you are correct.
Parkland had an armed security guard on the premises.
originally posted by: Krakatoa
Was that school a "gun free zone", yes or no? It is a simple question.
originally posted by: Aazadan
originally posted by: Krakatoa
Was that school a "gun free zone", yes or no? It is a simple question.
I'm not sure. But they had armed guards on scene.
Why do you want to arm the teachers? What if a teacher snaps, how will the students protect themselves? Shouldn't we arm the students instead? 30 good guys with a gun per room?
originally posted by: Krakatoa
First, having an armed guard on duty is irrelevant to the question. If it was posted as a gun free zone, then it qualifies to on that list mentioned earlier.
Second, who said I wanted to arm teachers? Or students? All I asked was if the school was listed as a gun free zone.
You are assuming too much, and not answering the question.
originally posted by: Aazadan
originally posted by: Krakatoa
First, having an armed guard on duty is irrelevant to the question. If it was posted as a gun free zone, then it qualifies to on that list mentioned earlier.
Second, who said I wanted to arm teachers? Or students? All I asked was if the school was listed as a gun free zone.
You are assuming too much, and not answering the question.
Like I said, I don't know if it was a gun free zone or not, but it was public knowledge that they had armed guards.
If you want to remove gun free status (assuming it had it) you're obviously wanting more people to carry. That sounds to me a lot like arming teachers.