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: 8
6
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

Yes, the law was passed in 1982. 1982, being the year the law was passed in, was lower than the year before it. 1981 was also higher than 1980.

1982, the year that the law was passed in, was followed by the year 1983. 1983 being the first year the law was in effect for an entire year rather than a partial year, thus making the data complete rather than partial, saw more homicides than 1982.

I'm glad you looked at the numbers, but I don't think we need to go year by year here in the thread. You're welcome for the information




posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 01:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

Except what you said was that the murder rate dropped after the first piece of gun legislation was passed. It didn't.

I'm not going all over the map just because now you want to change the parameters of what you said after the fact.




originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

Yes, the law was passed in 1982. 1982, being the year the law was passed in, was lower than the year before it. 1981 was also higher than 1980.

1982, the year that the law was passed in, was followed by the year 1983. 1983 being the first year the law was in effect for an entire year rather than a partial year, thus making the data complete rather than partial, saw more homicides than 1982.

I'm glad you looked at the numbers, but I don't think we need to go year by year here in the thread. You're welcome for the information


It's cool you can count.

You win. The numbers in no way went down. Somehow 700 is greater than 800. I know I said your math skills weren't bad earlier, but you're making it hard to stand by my previous statement. Obviously 1982 (when the legislation was passed) doesn't count. How could I be so dumb? That year doesn't exist? It's outside of this reality in a vacuum.

You're right!

Forget the data you provided that shows the numbers of homicides lower for a decade from the year prior to the legislation passing, the murders definitely went up.

I'll be waiting for your next data set that shows the complete opposite of what you state. Hopefully you don't have a job where numbers matter...



posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

i think the part about the court order to take meds has a work around they use often and that is the 3 day stay will turn into the two week stay if no meds taken. Also there has to be some emergency clause cause they will shoot you up quickly if they claim you are outta line. Luckily i have never taken those types of pills. Thanks for the clairity


Emergency meds can be administered without a court order, yes. I believe it takes 2 doctors to sign off on it, but its been a number of years since i worked in direct inpatient.

They go to court after 3 days (assuming you aren't simply released....which happens frequently for people who just got too drunk and stupid). The judge typically does what the doctor recommends, mostly because someone who is insane cannot really mount much defense against a doctor. But i have seen that happen once or twice (and seen a judge chastise the doctors).



posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo


It's cool you can count.


I know



You win.


Sweet!


The numbers in no way went down.


Sure they did. Eventually. No need for the hysterical dramatics.


You're right!


Sweet.


I'll be waiting for your next data set that shows the complete opposite of what you state.


Good luck.


Hopefully you don't have a job where numbers matter


Don't worry about my job

edit on 16-2-2018 by Shamrock6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

also if one finds themselves going to one of those places under judges orders then the best coarse of action is to not go past the input station for 2 days. Do not talk to any doctor and they have to release you after 48 hrs. The doctors do have the right to inject anyone seen as being a problem without any court order in the name of sanity.

I spoke with a few people in the field and was told that nobody gets out without medicine. That is just anecdotal but has some truth behind it.

The largest problem with that system is pharma interference. When you go to those places you become a ward of the state and pharma pays the state for drug interaction evidence. So each ward that is prescribed any type of corrective medicine is monitored for side effects before release and then the state gets a certain amount for each ward. This is why it is said that if you do not accept the meds you will be committed and forced to take and the majority of people just take the pills and get out without any other type of treatment. As far as talking to a professional for any other reason that drug interaction is not permitted by employees. It is a failed system because of big pharma dipping into the system.



posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Retard.

a reply to: Wayfarer



posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 08:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf

After lengthy discussion with folks I care about but are the "common sense gun control" types, I was informed these are the specifics:

- get money out of politics
- people need to be more respectful of others
- the NRA should be tried for terrorism
- outlaw assault weapons
- no more bump stocks
- no more "crankers" (I have no idea what that is)

Like I said, they are good people but these ideas are all over the map. They are angry over the shooting (as most people are I think) and want Congress to do "something".

I try to explain letting Congress do "something" as a knee jerk response, historically, has never been good. I try to explain their specifics are not really specific nor is their any data to support they will solve school shootings.

Waste of my breath. Time for Mob Rule I guess.



posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 08:47 PM
link   
The problem with background check is that it will not stop or quell the shootings, because all these shootings are caused either by a "second shooter" or by neurological "mind control" weapons-

The only thing that "background checks" would cause, is to discredit the FBI and the agencies that provide the PASS evaluation on the above mentioned "checks" once EU controlled MKULTRA subjects attack another school.



posted on Feb, 17 2018 @ 07:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: aethertek

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: aethertek
a reply to: network dude



in THIS ONE INSTANCE, the shooter bought a gun legally. He did have a history of mental illness that SHOULD have been enough to restrict his owning any firearms, but somehow, all that was missed.


Really, what about this guy from the NRA, his display of mindless juvenile violence should preclude him from having access to anything beyond a .177 @ 200FPS & even then he'd probably put someones eye out.



NRATV host smashes television with a sledgehammer to defend Trump

www.mediamatters.org...

K~


why are you even here, it that is the mentality you possess? This is a real issue, kids killing kids. Jesus, forget that you hate republicans for one #ing second.


Yes it is a real issue, we have idiots like the one I presented glorifying mindless violence to either solve some perceived problem or deal with his emotional stress.

So you keep whining away about your precious guns & how they're not the problem but people are.

That's right people are the problem, people who want their freedoms but none of the personal responsibility that comes with so called "freedom".

You want your guns fine, prove to me your not a threat then you get your precious guns.

K~


once you prove to me that getting rid of my guns will make all criminals never seek or possess a gun as well, I'll gladly give mine up. I'll just hunt with a bow and arrow. But until you can prove that, you don't have a clue how the world works.



posted on Feb, 17 2018 @ 07:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: network dude

I’m not sure he legally purchased the firearm because he was a bit dishonest on 11f and 11i. Expulsion for pulling a knife on a guy over a girl would be a legal decision by a local authority and should have been reported.


That is something that also needs to be looked at. How can we verify these forms when the app is taken. Lying is still a valid way around the system, but it shouldn't be an option. Good point.



posted on Feb, 17 2018 @ 08:23 AM
link   
a reply to: ABNARTY

Other than outlawimg assault weapons i have no issue with your friends ideas. Bump stocks and crankers are lame.



posted on Feb, 17 2018 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

That's the point. Who disagrees with 'get money out of politics'?

Specifically and/or directly, how does it solve school shootings?



posted on Feb, 17 2018 @ 07:49 PM
link   
It isn't the agency that kills, it is bullets ripping through bodies that maims and snuffs out life. Any agency that seeks to take the life of others, is impotent until they possess a weapon of choice. Whatever their rage, whatever their aberrant mindset rationalises as being rightful action, none of it is potent until they hold a weapon. The weapon of choice we are discussing here is the gun, particularly the automatic and semi-automatic variety. Why? Simply because they give the agency the capability to take more lives in one event than the non-automatic kind, and I believe that this knowledge is what accounts for the frequency of gun rampages occurring. Someone who intends to take as many lives of random strangers and then perhaps suicide themselves will attempt to do so more if they have automatic and semi-automatic weapons, rather than just a few handguns that require more multiple loadings to do an equal amount of damage as with an automatic or semi-automatic weapon.

Mass shootings are not rampages against specific people, but against particular aspects of society, so the proper response to them is to make it as hard as possible for 'anyone' to own and possess an automatic and semi-automatic rifle and automatic shotgun. Completely and utterly remove the right to sell, buy, or own these kind of weapons. By doing this, you will at the least, go towards reducing the frequency of occurrence of mass shootings. Of course, gun rampages will still occur, but by a significant reduction in both frequency and victims, and that is the goal. By removing the ability to obtain automatic and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, it can be achieved.

You'll still have the right to 'bear arms', but these will only be hand guns of the revolver kind, which are more than sufficient to defend one's home and family. However, the goal is more to defend people in public spaces, and although the current (twisted) rationale is to try to arm everyone with a gun, it is not the only type of defence that can be brought to bear on the problem. Adequate defence can be brought to bear by proper and well-thought out legislation, such as I am advocating here. Bear in mind, just because you think it won't work, does not mean that it shouldn't be attempted.

Before a mass shooter can act out their plan a chain of circumstances has to fall into place, at some point along that chain of circumstances society can and must interject itself, not at one point, but at multiple points. One such interjection can occur at the point where the weapon is bought. On application for buying a gun, the gun buyer should have to submit to a series of mandatory interviews by various state and federal agencies (eliminating any possibility of bribe or collusion) whose representatives meet face-to-face with the potential gun buyer in order to assess their suitability for the granting of a gun license. Remove the ease by which a gun can be bought. Until a license (acting also as a register) is granted by both state and federal authorities (you will need both), you will not be able to walk into a gun store, or any store, or go to any online outlet and buy a gun.

A second interjection can be made by requiring mandatory training in the care and use of the gun bought. The whole focus of gun control has to be predicated on the word 'control', at both state and federal level. A third interjection can target people who already own guns. Extend mandatory interviews, firstly at state level, then at federal level. Ensure face-to-face meetings happen. Find out why people want to own a gun, because much could be learned from their statements.

Much more could be done to reduce both the frequency of mass shootings and victims. You just need the will to do what is right.



posted on Feb, 19 2018 @ 10:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: craterman
Retard.

a reply to: Wayfarer



I'm not sure why you had to share your recent diagnosis with the rest of us, but thanks I guess?

p.s.(since you've just recently joined those ranks I'll give you a pass this time, but FYI its pretty bad form to use that word, and since you're really just adding to the mis-characterization of yourself you should use the more PC term developmentally challenged or cognitively impaired).

Cheers!



posted on Feb, 19 2018 @ 11:21 AM
link   
I say ban social media.

Ban FB, ban Youtube, we can go even farther and ban the smart phone, ban the news outlets from reporting these incidents, ban , ban, ban, ban, ban.

Was there a "Tide Pod Challenge" before the assault weapons ban? I only ask vecause this is a social media phenomenon.

I see everyone pull up old ass statistics that happened in a pre social media age. The old numbers do not mean sh×t these days because the culture has changed. People are addicted to self righteousness and selfie frenzy to get the most likes and shares on social media.

None of you or any other poster on any of these gun control threads have even considered that times have changed and morphed into something we have never seen before. There is nothing to compare it to. Nothing you say or do will chamge the minds of people who want to do harm.

People's minds have been warped, the "me generation", which can include everyone in my opinion, does not care if you ban, ban, ban.

The population is more than ever, stress to pay the bills, stress from the media to "be somebody", and just the overall madness of the whole world is completely different now.

So please, restrict away, ban away, and see what the next headline is. People make pressure cooker bombs, fertilizer bombs, car crowd homicides, what's next from the demented minds that want to hurt people and make the headlines.

By the way, I have three children here at home that go to school. My daughter is scared to death about something happening at her school. There isn't much I can do but comfort her and try to educate her on what to do if something does happen. Does it suck? Hell yes it does, I try to explain to her just how many people are actually here in the states and that the statistical numbers of it happening are actually way low in the scope of things.

It sucks people, but social media and the news media is making it worse.

Everyone has an agenda to fulfill.








edit on 19-2-2018 by liejunkie01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2018 @ 11:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: liejunkie01
I say ban social media.

Ban FB, ban Youtube, we can go even farther and ban the smart phone, ban the news outlets from reporting these incidents, ban , ban, ban, ban, ban.

Was there a "Tide Pod Challenge" before the assault weapons ban? I only ask vecause this is a social media phenomenon.

I see everyone pull up old ass statistics that happened in a pre social media age. The old numbers do not mean sh×t these days because the culture has changed. People are addicted to self righteousness and selfie frenzy to get the most likes and shares on social media.

None of you or any other poster on any of these gun control threads have even considered that times have changed and morphed into something we have never seen before. There is nothing to compare it to. Nothing you say or do will chamge the minds of people who want to do harm.

People's minds have been warped, the "me generation", which can include everyone in my opinion, does not care if you ban, ban, ban.

The population is more than ever, stress to pay the bills, stress from the media to "be somebody", and just the overall madness of the whole world is completely different now.

So please, restrict away, ban away, and see what the next headline is. People make pressure cooker bombs, fertilizer bombs, car crowd homicides, what's next from the demented miss that want to hurt people and make the headlines.

By the way, I have three children here at home that go to school. My daughter is scared to death about something happening at her school. There isn't much I can do but comfort her and try to educate her on what to do if so.ething does happen. Does it suck? Hell yes it does, I try to explain to her just how many people are actually here in the states and that the statistical numbers of it happening are actually way low in the scope of things.

It sucks people, but social media and the news media is making it worse.

Everyone has an agenda to fulfill.









Its sad to hear a defeatist attitude like this (though I appreciate you sharing it with us). Acceptance is the enemy of Improvement.

The right to bear arms itself is an antiquated concept (as its purpose for creating an avenue for the citizens to defend themselves from a government is long past). Gun ownership has a valid conceptual place in society (hunting, law enforcement, target practice for pleasure/sport), but the complete and utter devaluation of ANY element (children's lives being paramount among them) that could limit their numbers over the ready and immediate availability of firearms with the capacity to turn one person into a killing machine with far greater ease than any other methodology (bombs, vehicles, etc) is like some NRA (and Gun Lobby who stands to be/stay rich from gun sales) cash cow wet dream.

The very fact that the NRA has spent hundreds of millions to prevent any kind of assessment of firearm affects vis-a-vis their relation to gun deaths should be pretty telling that there is an agenda most likely motivated by greed that is driving the current gun debate climate.

There are many who consider firearms to be the ultimate safeguard against tyranny (and federal bondage), however I think the scenario now (as per your thoughts on the matter above) are best summed by my man Roy Batty:

"Quite an experience to live in fear, isn’t it? That’s what it is to be a slave"



posted on Feb, 19 2018 @ 11:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer




Its sad to hear a defeatist attitude like this (though I appreciate you sharing it with us). Acceptance is the enemy of Improvement. 



It is not a defeatist attitude. It is in direct contrast with the call of certain individuals to enslave us further and to strip away the very foundation of what this country we founded upon, freedom. If we continue to sign over every single right that was bestowed upon is from our forefathers vision of a free nation, what will we have them? And yes every single right we have is under fire all of the time, whether it comes from the limitation of free speech, more regulations, or outright bans on certain elements of the constitution and the Bill of rights.




The right to bear arms itself is an antiquated concept (as its purpose for creating an avenue for the citizens to defend themselves from a government is long past)


Long past? Just how far back in history do we need to look as to where a population that cannot defend themselves against tyranny often ends in massive bloodshed and complete genocide?




The very fact that the NRA has spent hundreds of millions to prevent any kind of assessment of firearm affects vis-a-vis their relation to gun deaths should be pretty telling that there is an agenda most likely motivated by greed that is driving the current gun debate climate. 





Is the NRA the only lobby that is out to look after and support the people and businesses in which it represents? Is the NRA not made up of members/citizens that join so they can rightfully be represented and have a strong voice of what they believe to be right?




"Quite an experience to live in fear, isn’t it? That’s what it is to be a slave"



Do you live in fear? Why do you feel the need to dictate the way someone decides to live, is it driven by fear?



posted on Feb, 19 2018 @ 11:59 AM
link   
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".



posted on Feb, 19 2018 @ 12:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: liejunkie01
a reply to: Wayfarer







Do you live in fear? Why do you feel the need to dictate the way someone decides to live, is it driven by fear?


Well, I probably live in a bit of fear even if I don't realize it completley, but my statement was in reference to your direct assertion that your daughter is scared to go to school. Scared=Fear as I was alluding to it.



posted on Feb, 19 2018 @ 12:04 PM
link   

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.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join