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.

 

Would you say that there are more/less/the same amount of gun laws than 10/20/30 years ago?

page: 5
5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 20 2018 @ 03:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: introvert

I wish it were different as well. Those that position themselves as anti-2nd need to step back and take a clear, non-emotional look at this issue. It is easy to knee jerk after a shooting takes place and call for certain measures to be enacted, but that knee-jerk reaction does not necessarily facilitate the "right" responses.

Also, the pro-2nd folks need to do more than just scream "shall not be infringed".

Both sides are doing a horrible job of communicating and are not showing a willingness to discuss this like adults.


Making schools have one entry and exit point with alarms on other doors and locked from inside. make the visitors have a holding area so if a shooter wanted to come in, the staff would have a chance to keep him out. Metal detectors in all schools.


I love the people who shoot suggestions like this down because "our schools would be like prisons" and "it will traumatize the kids". First of all, it's nothing like a prison. You could make those changes over the weekend without announcing it and most of the students wouldn't notice the difference for days, maybe weeks. Not to mention people already take their kids places that have such precautions, banks, airports, even liquor stores in some places. Is it traumatizing? And what's more traumatizing, having locked doors at your school or getting shot?

But no guns or accessories are banned by these measures, so some people simply aren't interested in them.
edit on 20 3 18 by face23785 because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 20 2018 @ 04:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785


Not only that but there's no reason to think any of the people who are killed with guns wouldn't simply be killed by other means. Nobody makes the decision to commit murder because they have or can get a gun. They make that decision for other reasons, then they decide which weapon to use. Nobody in their right mind would seriously believe that someone decides to commit murder, can't get a gun, and then would change their mind and be like "well, I guess I don't really want to kill that person anymore".



i think plenty of people decide to commit murder because they can get their hands on a gun. for sure.
impersonal. easy. distance.

i absolutely believe that a person would be ready to murder and then when they cant a gun and time starts moving and they have to put effort into another means then yes, they might cool off(isnt there a cool down period in some states) and the murder might not happen.

i think nobody in their right mind would think the opposite.

sometimes people see red and snap like right now in that moment and if even a little time goes by then they just might be swayed.

i 100% believe that



posted on Mar, 20 2018 @ 04:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinySickTears

originally posted by: face23785


Not only that but there's no reason to think any of the people who are killed with guns wouldn't simply be killed by other means. Nobody makes the decision to commit murder because they have or can get a gun. They make that decision for other reasons, then they decide which weapon to use. Nobody in their right mind would seriously believe that someone decides to commit murder, can't get a gun, and then would change their mind and be like "well, I guess I don't really want to kill that person anymore".



i think plenty of people decide to commit murder because they can get their hands on a gun. for sure.
impersonal. easy. distance.

i absolutely believe that a person would be ready to murder and then when they cant a gun and time starts moving and they have to put effort into another means then yes, they might cool off(isnt there a cool down period in some states) and the murder might not happen.

i think nobody in their right mind would think the opposite.

sometimes people see red and snap like right now in that moment and if even a little time goes by then they just might be swayed.

i 100% believe that


So sometimes people see red and snap enough to grab a gun and commit felony murder, but they wouldn't kill them with anything else? I think you need to talk to some criminologists.



posted on Mar, 20 2018 @ 04:53 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

correct.
sometimes.



posted on Mar, 20 2018 @ 05:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: TinySickTears

originally posted by: face23785


Not only that but there's no reason to think any of the people who are killed with guns wouldn't simply be killed by other means. Nobody makes the decision to commit murder because they have or can get a gun. They make that decision for other reasons, then they decide which weapon to use. Nobody in their right mind would seriously believe that someone decides to commit murder, can't get a gun, and then would change their mind and be like "well, I guess I don't really want to kill that person anymore".



i think plenty of people decide to commit murder because they can get their hands on a gun. for sure.
impersonal. easy. distance.

i absolutely believe that a person would be ready to murder and then when they cant a gun and time starts moving and they have to put effort into another means then yes, they might cool off(isnt there a cool down period in some states) and the murder might not happen.

i think nobody in their right mind would think the opposite.

sometimes people see red and snap like right now in that moment and if even a little time goes by then they just might be swayed.

i 100% believe that


So sometimes people see red and snap enough to grab a gun and commit felony murder, but they wouldn't kill them with anything else? I think you need to talk to some criminologists.


The majority of murders aren't preplanned, but the result of an escalation from a fight or other crime.

When a gun is present these escalations are far more likely to result in a death.



posted on Mar, 20 2018 @ 05:18 PM
link   
a reply to: TinySickTears

I doubt many criminologists or criminal psychologists would agree with you. What weapons are available doesn't factor in to someone's decision to commit murder. And once that line is crossed where you're willing to end someone's life maliciously, the lack of availability of your weapon of choice isn't going to stop you. Also, guns are not the only "impersonal, easy, distant" way to kill someone. For example, it's been noted that female killers are more likely to use things like poison precisely for that reason. You're also conflating two different types of murder. An impulse killer in a fit of rage is unlikely to be concerned with distance or detachment, they just want the victim dead ASAP, hence why they will just use whatever is available. If a gun is available, sure they'll use that, but if one isn't there are plenty of other ways to kill someone. Someone who has thought about their method to any degree, you're getting more into the premeditated type, and again this person has made a conscious decision to kill. The method is going to vary but the lack of one option isn't going to change their mind.

Thousands of people commit murder in the US every year without a gun. Guns account for about 2/3rds of US murders. That's a lot, but I'd expect it to be much higher if people were less likely to kill when a gun isn't available. As "easy" as it is to get a gun in the US, why would anyone kill without one? Because the method isn't that big of a concern to most murderers, except in the case of some serial killers.



posted on Mar, 20 2018 @ 05:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: TinySickTears

originally posted by: face23785


Not only that but there's no reason to think any of the people who are killed with guns wouldn't simply be killed by other means. Nobody makes the decision to commit murder because they have or can get a gun. They make that decision for other reasons, then they decide which weapon to use. Nobody in their right mind would seriously believe that someone decides to commit murder, can't get a gun, and then would change their mind and be like "well, I guess I don't really want to kill that person anymore".



i think plenty of people decide to commit murder because they can get their hands on a gun. for sure.
impersonal. easy. distance.

i absolutely believe that a person would be ready to murder and then when they cant a gun and time starts moving and they have to put effort into another means then yes, they might cool off(isnt there a cool down period in some states) and the murder might not happen.

i think nobody in their right mind would think the opposite.

sometimes people see red and snap like right now in that moment and if even a little time goes by then they just might be swayed.

i 100% believe that


So sometimes people see red and snap enough to grab a gun and commit felony murder, but they wouldn't kill them with anything else? I think you need to talk to some criminologists.


The majority of murders aren't preplanned, but the result of an escalation from a fight or other crime.

When a gun is present these escalations are far more likely to result in a death.


See my response to TinySickTears. As far as how many murders are premeditated, that is something I'd like to read about if you've got a source.



posted on Mar, 20 2018 @ 05:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: TinySickTears

I doubt many criminologists or criminal psychologists would agree with you. What weapons are available doesn't factor in to someone's decision to commit murder. And once that line is crossed where you're willing to end someone's life maliciously, the lack of availability of your weapon of choice isn't going to stop you.


A) what are you basing these claims on?
B) i disagree with all the above

lawshelf.com...


Third, the period of time between the provocation and the actual killing cannot be long enough for a reasonable person to have calmed down and


people do see red. people do calm down. i could totally see a person being in a fit of rage and picking up a gun if it is right there and doing something stupid.

people get amped up pretty fast. people can calm down fast too.

this specific article was talking about murder vs manslaughter but hopefully you get the drift.

that took all of 1 second of googling. no need to go see a criminologist for that one

come on man. use your noodle



posted on Mar, 20 2018 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

most females kill themselves in the bathtub by slitting their wrists or by pill overdose.
men will hang themselves or shoot themselves in the head

what is your point on this one?

are disagreeing on principle?



posted on Mar, 20 2018 @ 05:47 PM
link   
a reply to: SocratesJohnson

Straw man ... muchly
/



posted on Mar, 20 2018 @ 06:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinySickTears

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: TinySickTears

I doubt many criminologists or criminal psychologists would agree with you. What weapons are available doesn't factor in to someone's decision to commit murder. And once that line is crossed where you're willing to end someone's life maliciously, the lack of availability of your weapon of choice isn't going to stop you.


A) what are you basing these claims on?
B) i disagree with all the above


I base it on literally everything I've seen, heard, and read about criminal behavior since, well, ever. I've been reading about 2A issues for a while, and criminal behavior in general long before that. I'm not saying people don't "see red". What I'm saying is, when they do, they will use whatever is available. If you're in the kitchen and you get mad enough to kill your wife and there's no gun in the house you will just grab a knife or kill her with your bare hands. If we believe in this idea that you can be worked up to murder and then change your mind, if you did have a gun in the house, wanting to use a gun in this kitchen case would make you less likely to kill her by your reasoning because you're unlikely to keep a gun in the kitchen. Having to go to another room to get the gun increases the time, making it more likely you would calm down. If there's no gun in the bedroom or wherever, you're not even going to think about that you're just going to think about the closest thing that you can do violence with. As I said, thousands of people in the US commit murder this way every year.


lawshelf.com...


Third, the period of time between the provocation and the actual killing cannot be long enough for a reasonable person to have calmed down and

this specific article was talking about murder vs manslaughter but hopefully you get the drift.


I do, but I don't think you do. I did some legal work in the Air Force, I'm pretty good at reading legalese. I'm talking about criminal psychology. This is merely a legal definition, and it doesn't say what you think it does. It's just saying if you meet these 4 conditions it can be considered manslaughter instead of murder. The condition you cited is simply saying if you're still within that red rage window when you kill them, and you meet the other 3 conditions as well, it can be considered manslaughter. If enough time passed before you kill them that a jury wouldn't believe you were still in a rage, it's gonna be considered murder. It's not establishing as fact that people decide to kill sometimes and then calm down, it's actually establishing a legal difference between people that go into a rage and kill (manslaughter) and people that go into a rage, calm down, and then still kill (murder).


people do see red. people do calm down. i could totally see a person being in a fit of rage and picking up a gun if it is right there and doing something stupid.


But you can't see them picking up a knife or a bat or just beating someone to death or strangling them in that rage? The way you're describing this, the proximity of any available weapon is going to be a much bigger factor than what particular weapons are available. Someone in a red rage isn't concerned with how easy this is going to bed. It can take a while to actually beat someone to death and it can cause substantial injuries to the attacker, yet people still do it in that rage because they're not concerned with ease and that kind of rage lasts longer than you think.


originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: face23785

most females kill themselves in the bathtub by slitting their wrists or by pill overdose.
men will hang themselves or shoot themselves in the head

what is your point on this one?

are disagreeing on principle?



As I made very clear, the point was that there are other impersonal, easy and detached ways to kill someone besides a gun. In fact, a gun isn't very impersonal because the vast majority of gun murders are committed at a close distance. You could poison someone's food in their refrigerator or cupboard and literally not even have to be in the house when they die. I don't know where you got to girls slitting their wrist suicides, we're talking about murder here. I plainly said female killers not females that commit suicide.



posted on Mar, 20 2018 @ 06:43 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

i can see them picking up a bat or a knife. for sure that happens

i also see them calming down and not doing #

i think even in a fit of rage there is a big difference between shooting someone and strangling them to death with your bare hands.
a person could be capable of one and not the other.
murder is murder insofar as the end result is a person is dead but its not all equal man.

just cause you could shoot a person does not mean you could choke the life out of them.

you disagree?



posted on Mar, 20 2018 @ 07:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: face23785

i can see them picking up a bat or a knife. for sure that happens

i also see them calming down and not doing #

i think even in a fit of rage there is a big difference between shooting someone and strangling them to death with your bare hands.
a person could be capable of one and not the other.
murder is murder insofar as the end result is a person is dead but its not all equal man.

just cause you could shoot a person does not mean you could choke the life out of them.

you disagree?


It's a good (or bad) thing those aren't the only two ways to kill someone then. No matter how big the other person is you can kill them with a knife or a blunt object, especially if you just ambush them from behind. Then you're getting into hypothetical scenarios of well this person is dead because they were shot but if the murderer used another weapon would they till be alive? There's no way to quantify that until we develop time travel or the ability to analyze alternate timelines.

We're also forgetting the other side of the coin, which is defensive gun use. If guns were exclusively used for murder, simply from a pragmatic standpoint, it would be logical to just completely ban them or severely restrict access to them.



posted on Mar, 20 2018 @ 08:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: notsure1
its because there is an agenda. The 100 mass shooting before these last 3 only 4 or 5 used an ar-15.

Now the last 3 in a row used an AR-15. Coincidence? could be.. But hmmm



I was just thinking that.

Too many moving parts for me tho.

We should be focusing on the failures.





posted on Mar, 21 2018 @ 09:22 AM
link   
Right on cue:

Boy allegedly beats friend to death with baseball bat.

Now this is obviously premeditated. Why didn't he go get a gun? The 17-year old school shooter in Maryland yesterday was able to get a gun, despite living in a heavily gun-controlled state.




top topics



 
5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join