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.

 

Why I believe gun control will never stopped a person's intent to kill.

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 07:31 PM
link   
Our beloved and trusted physicians kill more people than guns, via their prescriptions. So yes... the intent to kill does not need a gun.




posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 07:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
Our beloved and trusted physicians kill more people than guns, via their prescriptions. So yes... the intent to kill does not need a gun.





That's right, I don't think anyone can argue that a killer intent on killing can be stopped, the argument I do see though is that high powered rifles that shoot lots and lots of bullets quickly make it easier for these killers to kill lots of people.



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 08:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: silo13
Another thing to consider?

IMO - (and many others) - this past 'killer' - WANTED TO BE STOPPED!

He posted on Instagram, FB, and other social media - what he intended to do.

Who does that if they don't want to be stopped!

Many people 'called in their concerns' to the FBI, etc.

And let's not discount the what - 39 times law inforcemant went to this kids home?

He was SCREAMING OUT TO BE STOPPED.

What does that have to do with gun control?

Had someone taken his guns - but not 'stopped him' (by addressing his needs)?

Do I believe he would have run over people with a car?

Used a knife?

You bet I do.

It was a FAIL all the way around between the teachers, social workers, law enforcement, eyc.

They KNEW.

They. Did. Not. Care.

So why is that the guns fault?

It isn't.


Good points made with common sense, which is one thing that is severely missing in a lot of people these days and disappearing more and more all the time.



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 08:15 PM
link   
Here's a WILD idea, that might be worth discussing.

In order for a school to declare itself a "Gun Free Zone" they must be certified as such by proving that they can and will protect the lives of all those attending or working for that organization. Because, by declaring it a gun free zone, and not allowing anyone to protect themselves, they are in effect taking on that very important responsibility.

Will it cost money, likely so. But, how much is a child's life worth to them? Is it worth less than the cost to protect them en-masse? If not, then they should be forced to allow folks to be able to protect themselves while on their property. Also, they need to carry indemnity insurance to cover the cost if something does happen to these people. Enough to pay out to each and every family the cost of the life that as lost.


That preserves the 2nd amendment for everyone, because it transfers the responsibility of protection from the individual to the organization tha has prevented the individual form protecting themselves while there.

Thoughts?


edit on 2/24/2018 by Krakatoa because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 08:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

You realize that you are just passing the responsibility on to the tax payer ? The school being a government organisation are funded with taxes, so anyone that sues the school would be payed in tax money.



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 08:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: Krakatoa

You realize that you are just passing the responsibility on to the tax payer ? The school being a government organisation are funded with taxes, so anyone that sues the school would be payed in tax money.


So, it is their decision to make that place gun free. So, they need to be responsible for that decision.

ETA: So, if a school is classified as a government organization, and they are preventing a U.S. citizen the right to protect themselves under the 2nd amendment, isn't that a government infringing upon that right and unconstitutional?

Hmmmmm, gotta check on that one now..





edit on 2/24/2018 by Krakatoa because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 08:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: Krakatoa

You realize that you are just passing the responsibility on to the tax payer ? The school being a government organisation are funded with taxes, so anyone that sues the school would be payed in tax money.


So, it is their decision to make that place gun free. So, they need to be responsible for that decision.






I'm not sure I understand what you propose, are you saying the headmaster should pay out of pocket if sued and or should go to jail.

What's the punishment and to whom ?
edit on 24-2-2018 by hopenotfeariswhatweneed because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 08:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa
Here's a WILD idea, that might be worth discussing.

In order for a school to declare itself a "Gun Free Zone" they must be certified as such



But, isn't declaring a school "Gun Free Zone" just announcing to the world "We are Sitting Ducks" ?



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 08:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: Krakatoa

You realize that you are just passing the responsibility on to the tax payer ? The school being a government organisation are funded with taxes, so anyone that sues the school would be payed in tax money.


So, it is their decision to make that place gun free. So, they need to be responsible for that decision.






I'm not sure I understand what you propose, are you saying the headmaster should pay out of pocket if sued and or should go to jail.

What's the punishment and to whom ?


The school in question not only gets to be branded a killing field, but the school administration or school board (whomever makes the decision to declare it a gun free zone) will be responsible for the death and injury to everyone involved. In addition, the insurance that gets paid out to the families comes from that same board/organization. Pretty good chance if it does happen, each of those elected members will be fired, and never be hired in a school district ever again (the MSM will make sure everyone know who they are, it would sell ad revenue). The local taxpayer would be footing the bill, and their taxes will need to increase to cover the cost of the payout as well as the cost of the rise in insurance rate for another policy (if that school stays open).

So, in effect everyone involved in that decision would be paying a price. At the moment, there is no downside to declaring it a gun free zone. None.



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 08:53 PM
link   
I also find it suspicious that these things are happening to
a nation of people who seem blind to the wickedness that
is revealed often by powerful people.

A nation that has kicked God and prayer out of the class room.

It should certainly be obvious to everyone by now that
that the world is in no way what certain forces have
made it possible for the masses to believe it is.

Guns certainly aren't the reason White kids on pharma drugs
keep using guns to shoot up schools. No laws against pharma
but more against guns?

WTF is really going on ?



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 10:11 PM
link   
Exactly that is why we need to ban semi automatic weapons to minimize the amount of people these whack jobs can kill. a reply to: starwarsisreal



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 10:36 PM
link   
Sigh, let's make it too hard for everyone else to protect themselves or enjoy a hobby just to possibly stop a few demented folks from shooting at perceived / actual tormentors or some other imagined grievance rather than address the bullying or mental health cause.

What's a budding psychopath supposed to do to punish the perceived evil doers?

Bombs?

Get the flu and spread it? Maybe a lot of anti vaxxers are near.

How about annoying them? Measles? Venomous Snakes? Spiders? Fleas? Bed Bugs? Rats?

Move on to thousands and millions.

Maybe a demented microbiologist cooks up or let loose something nasty. Infect a patsy or two and have them start to unknowingly spread it. Bus, train or subway at rush hour.

Maybe a demented Chemical Engineer. Where there are chemical plants and refineries there are pipelines with precursors and essential chemicals running through them not to mention railroad tank cars and trucks let alone bulk, intermediate and finished products.

Bullying or mental health are the donkeys and elephants in the room that no one really wants to address. If they are determined to kill folks they will find a way and one day it will be so spectacularly horrible that you can't look away.

That's not even taking into account terrorist that could bring stuff in across unprotected boarders.

You can't depend on the government to protect you and your family. You have to be prepared to help yourself or at least die trying.


Holding up EU, Japan or other nations as holier than thou seems to be asking to be messed with.

Maybe some nearby country drops off a few guns and ammo in alleys (like supposedly happens in U.S.) and refugee areas to be found by bad actors. Maybe even flood the EU with guns for spite. What are they going to do? Write a nasty letter, impose sanctions, complain to the U.N.?

I'm sure everyone that finds one will dutifully turn it in to the proper authorities.

Someone could do the same with Japan.



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 10:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
A nation that has kicked God and prayer out of the class room.


Yeah...they kicked out God, then they brought in homosexuals, and called them "the good people".

Now you know God will be pissed, it's like giving the Almighty a "double dare".

"I forbid you and your teaching to enter my school, and I take in the ones you call abominations and treat them like angels."



God is laughing.




It's so funny, when God removes his protective hand, and the devil runs amok in the Schools, and everybody says, we need more laws.

God gave you the only laws you needed. What other laws do you think can give greater protection?





But ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof: -- KJV, Proverbs 1:25

I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh; -- KJV, Proverbs 1:26


God is a really fun guy, when you get to know him well.

edit on 24-2-2018 by AMPTAH because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 10:57 PM
link   
"Gun Control" has never and will never be about saving lives, its about control and it has its roots in racism from the very founding of the country. If it was truly about saving lives it would target the causes behind the incidents not the items used. Were it purely about protecting children there would be funding to identify early warning signs of those at risk of committing violence and disrupting the patterns that build like waves until it ends up on the evening headlines. We are told we need to give up guns "for the children" and rely upon the so-called trained professionals who it has been decided don't have to protect us and instead cower outside of a school for minutes while someone kills indiscriminately.



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 11:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: soundguy
Exactly that is why we need to ban semi automatic weapons to minimize the amount of people these whack jobs can kill. a reply to: starwarsisreal



Exactly!


Look, the whole point is to try, to the best of our abilities, to keep kids (and by extension, other innocent people) as safe as possible.

Perhaps we can’t keep Everyone safe from Everything, but we can agree that scores of murdered school kids is not something we Want to deal with on a regular basis.

Right?

Or do we care if more kids get killed?

Maybe we don’t?

But if we do, then, logically, we need to start making the effort to eliminate the causes and the means for these horrific tragedies.

The causes are, as yet, numerous, nebulous, difficult to exactly quantify, and, so far, even more difficult to proactively treat with any certainty of positive effect.

The means, if anything, are even more numerous; apparently limited only by man’s deranged creativity to find ways to kill.

But, where causes are concepts, difficult to destroy, the means are objects; identifiable, quantifiable, controllable.

Why do civilians NEED automatic, or even semi-automatic weapons? Or weapon that can be converted from one to the other?

Note that I did not ask why they would WANT such weapons, or whether they should be forced to surrender such weapons if they have them. Just why are they “needed” by the average citizen?

Suppose we stopped making them?

That’s all. Just no more; enough is enough. Wouldn’t impact those now in circulation (except to make them more valuable, as collectors items: like real ivory carvings). And those that are used in the commission of a crime would be confiscated and destroyed; never to be replaced.

The 2nd amendment does not specify the type of arm you’re allowed to bear, just that you are allowed to bear. So if the only handgun available to bear is a six-shooter, how is that right abridged?

And since it takes a bit longer to kill a classroom full of kids with a six-shooter,

Maybe a few less kids will die in the next tragedy.

No, this will do nothing to stop the bombers, the knife-wielders, the poisoners, or the mad bus drivers, it won’t even stop the school shooters.

But it might just give us more time to save a few more lives.

If that’s what we really want to do.

Or we can just continue to argue about what “won’t work”.



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 11:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Bhadhidar

And it is this type of willful ignorance of the topic that makes knowledgeable people not want to have folks like you making laws that affect them. You do not even know what a semi-automatic firearm IS, let alone why they are used.

If YOU don't need one, fine, great, don't buy one. But who are you to make that decision for everyone in the country?

Your needs do not reflect everyone's needs.

SMH




edit on 2/24/2018 by Krakatoa because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 11:16 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Because their goal is not to stop the crimes. Their goal is to take away the arms of the people. Period.

Jaden



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 11:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

That may work for private schools, public ones however I'm not so sure.



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 11:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: Bhadhidar

If YOU don't need one, fine, great, don't buy one. But who are you to make that decision for everyone in the country?



The problem is with the design of the gun.

You see, the bullet leaves the barrel of the gun, and travels "away" from the holder of that gun, and "towards" the other direction, where I might be standing.

That's the problem. That's why it concerns me, when other people have the guns.

Of course, when I have the gun, there's no problem, because the bullets always travel away from me.

But, I don't want to be the passer's by that catches that stray bullet.



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 11:49 PM
link   
a reply to: AMPTAH




The problem is with the design of the gun.


How come no one has a problem with the design of
california looking like a high capacity magizine?



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join