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.

 

Challenge to those in favor of more gun control.

page: 10
6
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2018 @ 01:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Wayfarer

The notion of "antiquated concept" here baffles me.

Defending oneself has a basis in natural law. I.e., all creatures on this earth are able to defend themselves or they die out. I don't intend on dying out.

Its not antiquated. Quite the opposite. Believing its "antiquated" it "uppity".


Antiquated in the sense that no amount of firearms is going to protect the citizenry if the Government wants to take your life (given the nature of technological advancements in killing our armed services have made).

I consider it a much better safeguard that an army of the people is unlikely to comply with the command to kill their own loved ones, rather than rely on the notion that if I stockpile AR-15's I'm any more efficacious against a M-1, Bradley, MQ-9, etc.


No, but my firearms do quite well when we are threatened by wild animals like boars, mountain lions, and rattlesnakes.

We still live on a hostile planet, believe it or not.


Completely reasonable (thought I would imagine the subset of the US population that lives in areas where attacks by 'boars,mountain lions, and rattlesnakes is pretty low), and something I believe is covered in my previous posts statement regarding what I feel are legitimate uses for firearms (hunting).

Not to derail, but would you mind sharing some experiences of having to defend yourself from those animals? That sounds both utterly terrifying and wild and my imagination is going crazy over the thought of you in the wilderness a-la Jurassic Park.


Its not.

Half our population is rural. Mountain Lions, bears, coyotes, and rattlesnakes are found on the majority of our landmass.

I've shot 2 coyotes, maybe half dozen bobcats, dozens of feral hogs, and dozens of rattlers. On my property (i.e., not hunting) i've shot half dozen hogs and a dozen or so rattlers.

Found a rattler once underneath the sink. It was small, and we killed it with a meat mallet. The problem with rattlers is if you don't kill them quick, the dogs will try. Then you have a sick dog to deal with.


Do you think you'd require anything heartier than a bolt-action rifle to accomplish those kills though? Where any of the situations out of surprise that you had to make use of a hand-gun or something beefier?


Its better to have and not want than to need and not have.

I only own bolt action and lever action rifles. But the recent rumblings have had me pricing some AR's. I've used an AR while hog hunting, and its super effective (i can usually drop 3 before the pack scatters).

For rattlers, the best thing there is is The Judge. A revolver that accepts .45 and .410 shotgun shells. Essentially, its a legal sawed off .410 shotgun.


Desire for one notwithstanding, would you have an issue with severely restricting/limiting the sale of high capacity semi-automatic rifles as a midway point in the gun control debate (even though it may be the superior hog hunting tool) since you've mentioned you've made do with bolt/lever action rifles up to now without ill effect?


For what? What is the benefit? If its to make people feel better...no.


For the reason I mentioned above.


You are asking if, because i've chosen to not have one up until now, if i'd cede my right for the future?

What kind of answer do you expect?

I currently have no beer in my fridge. Haven't had any in months. Doesn't mean my mood won't change tomorrow. My youngest son might turn to me and say, "Hey dad, we should get some AR's so we can enter the range contests for the AR category", at which point we will go to Cabela's and pick out a nice AR for each of us.




posted on Feb, 19 2018 @ 01:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Wayfarer

My H&K .45acp has two 12 shot clips. would you propose changes to them as well, or just black rifles? (not being a dick, sincere questions)


I guess I would. I can completely sympathize with gun owners (i'm one) and things like the CZ-9 with the crazy ammo capacity appeal to the lazy person in me who's fingers hurt filling clips at the range, but if I weighed my convenience at the range against potential actions that may reduce gun deaths in the cases like school shootings, I think I could live with that. My intent here is to offer a scenario that allows for gun ownership as we have it now, but reduces the capability of commonly used weapons for delivering such high bodycounts in the case of school shootings and similar scenarios.



posted on Feb, 19 2018 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Irishhaf

For one thing, it is HIGHLY likely that the EO that Trump overturned earlier this year that prevented mentally disabled from getting guns could have been used to stop the most recent shooting down in Florida.


How do you suggest "HIGHLY Likely"? Was the kid even seeing a doctor for some kind of mental disorder to even have the EO trigger in his case? That EO was also disconcerting in you could basically rule that 150 million Americans fit a trigger to have their guns confiscated. Seems like a great way to banish guns with determining no one is sane enough to own one...lol

There were a lots of failures here as in there were many actionable intel that agencies failed to act on that the EO would still not have helped...



posted on Feb, 19 2018 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical
Does anyone think it would have been wrong to remove the guns from this person after making death threats and getting expelled from school?

Let's say he didn't shoot the school up and the threats are still out there. Should the guns be taken away, at least until he can prove he is no danger?




The system failed on that...I also think you should be 21 to buy period, AND you need to have someone 21 years or older to shoot one if you are not 21 yet.

The failure part is I do not think we have the right mechanisms in place to truly keep those who should not have a weapon away from them. I also think to not have guns stored correctly is an offense in itself. To have loaded guns around kids, or guns in general easily available with little or no control is wrong. I have 12 guns in a safe that my kids do not know the combo to, as example. I have great kids...doesn't mean all their friends are great, and doesn't mean they would always make the right decision. I removed that chance for neither a right or wrong decision.



posted on Feb, 19 2018 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

then we have the issue of all the weapons and magazines that already exist. If we outlaw high cap mag's, it won't remove them, just make them rare, and expensive. I get what you are saying and why, but like I said, the things that gets done here, really needs to make an impact, and be much more than playacting feelings.

I suggested in another thread that we put a blackout on identity and history of any mass shooter, and execute them quickly. Removing the "hero" aspect, or even the "infamous" aspect might sink in that you aren't going to be remembered forever when you do something horrific.



posted on Feb, 19 2018 @ 02:29 PM
link   
when will people understand that laws can't fix everything instantly and that americas crime rate in every area has been on a steady decline since 1970 anyway and is still on the decline, america still has one of the lowest crime rates in the world despite what all the bad press says about our nation.



posted on Feb, 19 2018 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: vonclod


I don't get the "gun free" crap..if a place is surrounded by guns it's not gun free, gun free would have to be country wide or it's meaningless.

They don't actually want America 'gun free' , just to disarm law abiding citizens.

Gangs get automatic weapons all the time. They didn't acquire those from gun stores. They were smuggled into the country alongside the drugs.

Trying to make the country 'gun free' is akin to de inventing them. Its impossible.



posted on Feb, 19 2018 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

it is illegal for gangs with criminal records to buy guns.

point being is that we can enforce laws and deal with them if we tried.

on the other hand these people slipping through legal cracks can not be dealt with as easy.



posted on Feb, 19 2018 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

I agree it's impossible, there are so many guns floating around it's not possible to keep them out of the wrong hands.
My point on the phrase "gun free" is its a joke..ie Chicago is gun free, how could there possibly be guns there

Obviously there are no border checks to get into Chicago, people need to stop using those disingenuous examples, there is no such thing as "gun free" in America.



posted on Feb, 20 2018 @ 07:03 AM
link   
a reply to: howtonhawky


it is illegal for gangs with criminal records to buy guns.

Murdering people is illegal too.



posted on Feb, 20 2018 @ 07:13 AM
link   
a reply to: vonclod


My point on the phrase "gun free" is its a joke..ie Chicago is gun free, how could there possibly be guns there

That was my earlier point about the places mass murderers kill people in. How can there possibly be guns in schools?
Because intent will find a way.

The problem is criminal intent, not the tools criminals employ.

We can 'war' on drugs and guns all day, that won't stop people with criminal intent from killing people or getting guns and drugs to commit crime.

Criminality is the problem, not firearms.

The reason they focus on firearms is to protect themselves from we the people. As shown in recent mass murder cases, they don't care about people per se, for they knew about these potential killers in advance, and let them go about their 'business' anyway.



posted on Feb, 20 2018 @ 07:16 AM
link   
Nobody is suggesting that there is a possibility of removing ALL guns, but rather with more severe restrictions the numbers and accessibility of them can be reduced enough to affect a statistical change.

The argument that criminals can get guns illegally is subject to this as well, as the less prevalent and accessible they become, the harder it is to smuggle them into the country, and the easier it is for law enforcement to catch them on the way in.

I just have a hard time wrapping my head around the 'acceptance' crowd who suggest that gun control is folly and we just need to get used to school shootings. Additionally, while mental health plays a roll in gun violence, it is not the lynch pin that holds up the entirety of these events, and its debatable which approach (fixing mental healthcare or reducing the number of guns) is easier/more efficient to affect.

While I can find many example of gun control advocates suddenly switching to full support of gun control, I can't seem to find examples of Parents who's kids get murdered in school shootings still adamantly supporting no restrictions to guns (though I'm sure there is probably some that exist). The mindset of 'Freedom is worth more than a child or my child's life' is a curious one to me and seems to be predicated on the fact that for most, the impact is never directly felt.



posted on Feb, 20 2018 @ 07:33 AM
link   
Violence is part of what little culture the U.S. has.

People have seen for many decades that it's perfectly ok to go to other countries and kill millions in the name of profit or opinion and no one really cares.

Why should it be any different at home.

People buying more guns hasn't solved the problem, no one wants to try no guns.

There is no solution and it's only going to get worse.



posted on Feb, 20 2018 @ 07:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nexttimemaybe

There is no solution and it's only going to get worse.


Just like in racing where the car goes where your eyes are, so too does society. While I can sympathize with your pessimism, its not productive. Whether you are right or not doesn't mean we shouldn't try.



posted on May, 9 2018 @ 02:20 PM
link   
It seems to me there are very easy solutions for buildings that don't allow guns.

Set a perimeter and enforce it with an armed guard.

I don't think the sticker on the door is going to stop a shooter.

However I think allowing guns in bars may be a bit of a bad idea but I have no evidence of this.

In the case of schools arming teachers isn't a great idea. One already injured somebody by accident. That will inevitably happen and honestly has scores of problems associated IMO which we could discuss if you want clarity.

I would say treating the school like a court or airport would work. Everyone enters the building through scanners or metal detectors and once inside you don't need guards everywhere and teachers with handguns. Computers would probably stay at school and a streamlining approach protocol could be made.

Otherwise more armed guards are required. A sticker is not going to do it.

Now would the psycho wait at the bus maybe but teachers with a small ccl handgun in a crowded buss stop aren't gonna do it either.

I think than we can leave guns alone. If anything there is more precedent for an AR than a concealed hand gun, which could be considered a public health consideration given the amount of accidents , theft, and poor marksmanship associated with them. .




top topics



 
6
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join