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.

 

An inconvenient study.

page: 4
38
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2018 @ 06:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: ScepticScot

I still don't think you understand the point.

I find general discussions about gun law banal.

What specifically can be done that will make it less likely for a criminal or a person who is unstable get a gun and use it on innocent civilians?

So far you've talked about licencing and storage boxes. Neither are enforceable as there are hundreds of millions of guns out there already and even if you managed to implement some kind of licensing protocol that a majority agreed to, you'd still have millions and millions of guns readily available. As for storage boxes, well, good luck with enforcing that law with so many guns around.


So what you are saying is that all these good law abiding gun owners keep hearing about won't obey the law?

Specific examples?

Licence required for any type of firearm - standard required varies depending on type of firearm.

Safe storage required for all firearms.

Evaluation required for buying any firearm with periodic reassessment.

The kind of thing pretty much every other developed country requires.


The majority of law-abiding citizens will not keep their guns in a locked storage container regulated by the govt, no. Most responsible gun owners will keep their firearms safe anyway. It's an impractical and totally unenforceable idea. Again, it's not like the UK where the police only have to keep an eye on a few households. We're talking 10's of millions of households.

How is licensing going to stop criminals getting access to the abundant supply of guns? Is a mentally ill person going to head down to the licensing office after purchasing a gun of the street?

You are not addressing the actual issues and are still stuck with the false notion that you can compare the US to the UK (or any other 'developed' nation).




posted on Feb, 28 2018 @ 06:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: ScepticScot

I still don't think you understand the point.

I find general discussions about gun law banal.

What specifically can be done that will make it less likely for a criminal or a person who is unstable get a gun and use it on innocent civilians?

So far you've talked about licencing and storage boxes. Neither are enforceable as there are hundreds of millions of guns out there already and even if you managed to implement some kind of licensing protocol that a majority agreed to, you'd still have millions and millions of guns readily available. As for storage boxes, well, good luck with enforcing that law with so many guns around.


So what you are saying is that all these good law abiding gun owners keep hearing about won't obey the law?

Specific examples?

Licence required for any type of firearm - standard required varies depending on type of firearm.

Safe storage required for all firearms.

Evaluation required for buying any firearm with periodic reassessment.

The kind of thing pretty much every other developed country requires.


The majority of law-abiding citizens will not keep their guns in a locked storage container regulated by the govt, no. Most responsible gun owners will keep their firearms safe anyway. It's an impractical and totally unenforceable idea. Again, it's not like the UK where the police only have to keep an eye on a few households. We're talking 10's of millions of households.

How is licensing going to stop criminals getting access to the abundant supply of guns? Is a mentally ill person going to head down to the licensing office after purchasing a gun of the street?

You are not addressing the actual issues and are still stuck with the false notion that you can compare the US to the UK (or any other 'developed' nation).


So it works in the rest of the developed world but not the US because?

If gun owners can't or won't keep their gun safe then they should be allowed a gun.

If there are less legal guns and those are better secured then it fairly obviously becomes more difficult to get a illegal gun. As illegal guns are removed it is that much harder to replace them.

If a criminal in the UK wants a gun they can get one however it will require tine, effort and money. That is because of right controls on legal guns.



posted on Feb, 28 2018 @ 06:37 AM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

Because I already told you there are 300m plus guns in circulation and they are easily accessible by mental people or criminals. Laws are not going to make a difference to these people.

It's not the law that makes it harder for criminals in the UK to get guns - it's their availability in numbers. You have to search them out and in so doing you bring attention to yourself.

You don't seem to be able to get past the reality that the UK and US are incomparable, and until you do you'll always be making impractical and nonsensical suggestions on this subject.
edit on 28/2/2018 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2018 @ 06:55 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth


There s nothing impractical or nonsense about them. They are measures used across the world that have been shown to reduce gun crime.

The reason there is less availability in the UK and elsewhere is because of stricter gun laws. That is how you reduce the supply of illegal guns.

The only way to reduce that 300 million number is to enact and enforce stricter in control.

The impractical fantasy is believing you can significantly reduce gun violence by any other means than stricter gun laws.

edit on 28-2-2018 by ScepticScot because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2018 @ 08:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: UKTruth


There s nothing impractical or nonsense about them. They are measures used across the world that have been shown to reduce gun crime.

The reason there is less availability in the UK and elsewhere is because of stricter gun laws. That is how you reduce the supply of illegal guns.

The only way to reduce that 300 million number is to enact and enforce stricter in control.

The impractical fantasy is believing you can significantly reduce gun violence by any other means than stricter gun laws.


Sorry mate, you are so off on this one....

The reason there are so many fewer guns in the UK is not because of gun control laws, it's because we have NEVER been really allowed to arm ourselves in the first place (pretty much the reason the right to bear arms exists in the constitution, because subjects of the Crown did not have that right).

Because of this we have never had a gun culture. We have also never had a modern civil war or even a ground war on our own turf, therefore the number of guns in the country is so low because they have not been needed in the past.

Now, the UK is not an attractive place to run guns into, because we are an island and we just don't have a market for it.

The US fought for it's rights to arm itself against tyrannical government. They have had a civil war which left every surviving man armed to the teeth anyway. They are surrounded by places that guns can be readily distributed from.

It's a different ball game.



posted on Feb, 28 2018 @ 08:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dem0nc1eaner

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: UKTruth


There s nothing impractical or nonsense about them. They are measures used across the world that have been shown to reduce gun crime.

The reason there is less availability in the UK and elsewhere is because of stricter gun laws. That is how you reduce the supply of illegal guns.

The only way to reduce that 300 million number is to enact and enforce stricter in control.

The impractical fantasy is believing you can significantly reduce gun violence by any other means than stricter gun laws.


Sorry mate, you are so off on this one....

The reason there are so many fewer guns in the UK is not because of gun control laws, it's because we have NEVER been really allowed to arm ourselves in the first place (pretty much the reason the right to bear arms exists in the constitution, because subjects of the Crown did not have that right).

Because of this we have never had a gun culture. We have also never had a modern civil war or even a ground war on our own turf, therefore the number of guns in the country is so low because they have not been needed in the past.

Now, the UK is not an attractive place to run guns into, because we are an island and we just don't have a market for it.

The US fought for it's rights to arm itself against tyrannical government. They have had a civil war which left every surviving man armed to the teeth anyway. They are surrounded by places that guns can be readily distributed from.

It's a different ball game.


You might want to check your history. The right to bear arms in the UK predates the US constitution. ( At least if you were the 'right' religion).

Last civil war in the UK mainland was only 30 years before the declaration of independence. If you include Ireland a lot more recent than that.

I would take issue with your description of the resin fur the war of independence but thats going way off topic.

Anyway the issue isn't the history of American gun culture but what can be done about the levels of gun violence.



posted on Feb, 28 2018 @ 09:24 AM
link   


Let us know where you live and we'll find you a recent report of some lunatic doing something horrible to somebody there. Then multiply the number of people in your country so that it equals the US, and you'll likely find that it's all just a numbers game. More people, more psychos, more incidents.


Using that logic, what are the numbers like for China? They have more people, correct?
edit on 28-2-2018 by TXRabbit because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2018 @ 10:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: neo96
The 90s!

Tell me again why I should support regulation that's clearly unconstitutional?



The Supreme Court of the United States subsequently held that the Act was an unconstitutional exercise of Congressional authority under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995).


en.wikipedia.org...

And another one:



In its 1997 decision in the case, the Supreme Court ruled that the provision of the Brady Act that compelled state and local law enforcement officials to perform the background checks was unconstitutional on 10th amendment grounds.


en.wikipedia.org...

Kids are safer today.

They don't have a guy named CLinton snipping all over their civil liberty/constitutional rights.


And both acts were amended and the main provisions remain in place. And as a result the kids are safer.


then super, we don't need any more "gun control". Please let all the rest of the gun grabbers know, and everything will be everything.


Still more school shootings and homicides than anywhere else in the developed world, who all have stricter gun laws.

Gun control works. You can argue against it on constitutional or personal right grounds but arguing against its effectiveness is just wrong.


But you just did? In one sentence, you tell us all how great it's working, then the very next one, you claim it's not. You sure don't sound like a person who knows what's going on. I don't think you should be offering advice to anyone. You may want to solidify your position first.



posted on Feb, 28 2018 @ 10:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: neo96
The 90s!

Tell me again why I should support regulation that's clearly unconstitutional?



The Supreme Court of the United States subsequently held that the Act was an unconstitutional exercise of Congressional authority under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995).


en.wikipedia.org...

And another one:



In its 1997 decision in the case, the Supreme Court ruled that the provision of the Brady Act that compelled state and local law enforcement officials to perform the background checks was unconstitutional on 10th amendment grounds.


en.wikipedia.org...

Kids are safer today.

They don't have a guy named CLinton snipping all over their civil liberty/constitutional rights.


And both acts were amended and the main provisions remain in place. And as a result the kids are safer.


then super, we don't need any more "gun control". Please let all the rest of the gun grabbers know, and everything will be everything.


Still more school shootings and homicides than anywhere else in the developed world, who all have stricter gun laws.

Gun control works. You can argue against it on constitutional or personal right grounds but arguing against its effectiveness is just wrong.


But you just did? In one sentence, you tell us all how great it's working, then the very next one, you claim it's not. You sure don't sound like a person who knows what's going on. I don't think you should be offering advice to anyone. You may want to solidify your position first.


The position seems fairly clear. Tighter gun laws result in less deaths.

What part is confusing?



posted on Feb, 28 2018 @ 12:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dem0nc1eaner

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: UKTruth


There s nothing impractical or nonsense about them. They are measures used across the world that have been shown to reduce gun crime.

The reason there is less availability in the UK and elsewhere is because of stricter gun laws. That is how you reduce the supply of illegal guns.

The only way to reduce that 300 million number is to enact and enforce stricter in control.

The impractical fantasy is believing you can significantly reduce gun violence by any other means than stricter gun laws.


Sorry mate, you are so off on this one....

The reason there are so many fewer guns in the UK is not because of gun control laws, it's because we have NEVER been really allowed to arm ourselves in the first place (pretty much the reason the right to bear arms exists in the constitution, because subjects of the Crown did not have that right).

Because of this we have never had a gun culture. We have also never had a modern civil war or even a ground war on our own turf, therefore the number of guns in the country is so low because they have not been needed in the past.

Now, the UK is not an attractive place to run guns into, because we are an island and we just don't have a market for it.

The US fought for it's rights to arm itself against tyrannical government. They have had a civil war which left every surviving man armed to the teeth anyway. They are surrounded by places that guns can be readily distributed from.

It's a different ball game.


What? You just agreed with me and then tell me I am off base?
YES!!!! The UK is different. We've never had anything like the gun ownership as the USA. That is why the issue is manageable.
UK laws simply wouldn't work in the US. There are 300m + guns in circulation.

So yeah - it IS a different ball game which is what I have been saying.




posted on Feb, 28 2018 @ 12:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: neo96
The 90s!

Tell me again why I should support regulation that's clearly unconstitutional?



The Supreme Court of the United States subsequently held that the Act was an unconstitutional exercise of Congressional authority under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995).


en.wikipedia.org...

And another one:



In its 1997 decision in the case, the Supreme Court ruled that the provision of the Brady Act that compelled state and local law enforcement officials to perform the background checks was unconstitutional on 10th amendment grounds.


en.wikipedia.org...

Kids are safer today.

They don't have a guy named CLinton snipping all over their civil liberty/constitutional rights.


And both acts were amended and the main provisions remain in place. And as a result the kids are safer.


then super, we don't need any more "gun control". Please let all the rest of the gun grabbers know, and everything will be everything.


Still more school shootings and homicides than anywhere else in the developed world, who all have stricter gun laws.

Gun control works. You can argue against it on constitutional or personal right grounds but arguing against its effectiveness is just wrong.


But you just did? In one sentence, you tell us all how great it's working, then the very next one, you claim it's not. You sure don't sound like a person who knows what's going on. I don't think you should be offering advice to anyone. You may want to solidify your position first.


The position seems fairly clear. Tighter gun laws result in less deaths.

What part is confusing?


Actually tighter gun laws in the US result in more deaths. You are confused about other countries again.
The vast majority of mass shootings happen in gun free zones in the States.



posted on Feb, 28 2018 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth




Actually tighter gun laws in the US result in more deaths.


See Chicago with some of the toughest gun restrictions in the country.

See California where they let a murder off the hook because he was an illegal immigrant.



posted on Feb, 28 2018 @ 12:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: UKTruth




Actually tighter gun laws in the US result in more deaths.


See Chicago with some of the toughest gun restrictions in the country.

See California where they let a murder off the hook because he was an illegal immigrant.



Does Chicago have border checkpoints?



posted on Feb, 28 2018 @ 12:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: neo96
The 90s!

Tell me again why I should support regulation that's clearly unconstitutional?



The Supreme Court of the United States subsequently held that the Act was an unconstitutional exercise of Congressional authority under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995).


en.wikipedia.org...

And another one:



In its 1997 decision in the case, the Supreme Court ruled that the provision of the Brady Act that compelled state and local law enforcement officials to perform the background checks was unconstitutional on 10th amendment grounds.


en.wikipedia.org...

Kids are safer today.

They don't have a guy named CLinton snipping all over their civil liberty/constitutional rights.


And both acts were amended and the main provisions remain in place. And as a result the kids are safer.


then super, we don't need any more "gun control". Please let all the rest of the gun grabbers know, and everything will be everything.


Still more school shootings and homicides than anywhere else in the developed world, who all have stricter gun laws.

Gun control works. You can argue against it on constitutional or personal right grounds but arguing against its effectiveness is just wrong.


But you just did? In one sentence, you tell us all how great it's working, then the very next one, you claim it's not. You sure don't sound like a person who knows what's going on. I don't think you should be offering advice to anyone. You may want to solidify your position first.


The position seems fairly clear. Tighter gun laws result in less deaths.

What part is confusing?


Actually tighter gun laws in the US result in more deaths. You are confused about other countries again.
The vast majority of mass shootings happen in gun free zones in the States.


See the actual OP. Less school shootings since the introduction of gun free school laws.

What matters is the effect on overall gun deaths, tighter gun laws unequivocally reduce deaths.



posted on Feb, 28 2018 @ 12:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: UKTruth




Actually tighter gun laws in the US result in more deaths.


See Chicago with some of the toughest gun restrictions in the country.

See California where they let a murder off the hook because he was an illegal immigrant.



Does Chicago have border checkpoints?


Move that goal post!

Ask Sisyphus for some hep.



posted on Feb, 28 2018 @ 12:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: UKTruth




Actually tighter gun laws in the US result in more deaths.


See Chicago with some of the toughest gun restrictions in the country.

See California where they let a murder off the hook because he was an illegal immigrant.



Does Chicago have border checkpoints?


Move that goal post!

Ask Sisyphus for some hep.


The discussion is about national gun deaths.

You are the one moving the goal post.



posted on Feb, 28 2018 @ 12:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: UKTruth




Actually tighter gun laws in the US result in more deaths.


See Chicago with some of the toughest gun restrictions in the country.

See California where they let a murder off the hook because he was an illegal immigrant.



Does Chicago have border checkpoints?


Move that goal post!

Ask Sisyphus for some hep.


The discussion is about national gun deaths.

You are the one moving the goal post.


Nope.



posted on Feb, 28 2018 @ 12:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: UKTruth




Actually tighter gun laws in the US result in more deaths.


See Chicago with some of the toughest gun restrictions in the country.

See California where they let a murder off the hook because he was an illegal immigrant.



Does Chicago have border checkpoints?


Move that goal post!

Ask Sisyphus for some hep.


The discussion is about national gun deaths.

You are the one moving the goal post.


Nope.


Yep.



posted on Feb, 28 2018 @ 12:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: UKTruth
The impractical fantasy is believing you can significantly reduce gun violence by any other means than stricter gun laws.


Like how Trumps advocating for teachers to be armed in the classroom... I can't believe how so much seemingly mentality competent people are just accepting it, as if it was somehow an intelligent and well thought out commonsense proposal...

So when a deeply disturbed student just losses it and has a total psychotic meltdown in class (which used to happen quite regularly, when I was at school), instead of throwing a chair though the window, maybe they just decide go for the teachers gun...

Seriously, reading the warped logic certain people have on this issue, sometimes feels like watching a car crash in slow motion... by that I mean, you just know its going to end badly, but you can't stop watching regardless...



posted on Feb, 28 2018 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: UKTruth
The impractical fantasy is believing you can significantly reduce gun violence by any other means than stricter gun laws.


Like how Trumps advocating for teachers to be armed in the classroom... I can't believe how so much seemingly mentality competent people are just accepting it, as if it was somehow an intelligent and well thought out commonsense proposal...

So when a deeply disturbed student just losses it and has a total psychotic meltdown in class (which used to happen quite regularly, when I was at school), instead of throwing a chair though the window, maybe they just decide go for the teachers gun...

Seriously, reading the warped logic certain people have on this issue, sometimes feels like watching a car crash in slow motion... by that I mean, you just know its going to end badly, but you can't stop watching regardless...


Never mind the students.

In the UK as 10% of teachers are on antidepressants for reasons related to there jobs. I doubt the US rate is lower.

Teaching is a fairly high stress occupation.



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join