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 honest unusual discussion about firearms

page: 12
17
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 11 2018 @ 05:49 PM
link   
aus illigal guns vs america

this is the bigest diferance aus dosent have a boarder that flows in guns

if the usa took up the same policys than the millions of illegal gun owners who are criminals would have the equivalent of shooting fish in a barrle

if we cant remove illegal guns first what would be the point of removing legal guns ... it will stop the rather small amount of shootings bye legal gun owners but not one illegal gun owner would give a damm

id be alot more oppen to gun control if we first got rid of that problem tell than i like that no one knows if ill shot back or not




posted on May, 11 2018 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: caterpillage

Really? What Utopian society do you live in?

Given the sorts of low life folks who seem to believe that what is mine, is, by some strange unknown magic, theirs and have the right to come get it whenever they want, locked doors not withstanding, it isn't the same one I live in.

No, my life, and the lives of many others would become rather more dangerous.
edit on 5/11/2018 by seagull because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2018 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Yeah, it is the MUD PIT, but.....



We still insist on a level of decorum and civility. Without pointing at anyone or any post.....remember....

Note that it indicates name-calling, baiting and activity otherwise labeled as political trolling elsewhere on the site. Not generally hateful, bigoted, mean-spirited or gratuitous personal attacks on fellow members. It's also not exempt from the usual forum expectation of remaining on topic.

The Political Mud Pit is not a safe space for trolling for laughs. It's not a place to abuse fellow members. It's not a place to post every inane story you just want to rage about. It's not a place to spam off topic content.

This is simple: The mud pit is not a place where members can personally insult each other. You can rip each other's politics up but you can't get personal just to slag someone you don't like. Additionally, posts must be relevant to the stated thread topic.

Going forward, please be advised that failure to adhere to the stated posting guidelines of this forum will result in staff action against your account, possibly including post-bans and account terminations. Additionally, political trolling outside of the confines of the Political Mud Pit is strictly forbidden and will also be actioned accordingly.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You are responsible for your own posts.....those who ignore that responsibility will face mod actions.


and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!
edit on Fri May 11 2018 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2018 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

But would they have killed more or fewer? That's the question that y'all won't answer, because the answer is obvious.

Scenario 1: Give every potential criminal a bat.

Scenario 2: Give every potential criminal a loaded gun.

Which scenario is likely to produce more deaths? You can replace the phrase "potential criminal" with "abusive spouse", "bully", "poor citizen", "desperate citizen", "mental health patient", "person with anger issues", etc and the answer would remain the same.



posted on May, 11 2018 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

It's a fair point, and I don't know why it's hard to answer the question.

If a criminal has a gun, they're likely to use said gun in the furtherance of their actions. If the same criminal doesn't have a gun but has a knife, they're likely to use the knife in the furtherance of their actions.

It's a lot easier to hit unintended targets with a gun than it is a knife.



posted on May, 11 2018 @ 06:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

It's also much harder to kill multiple targets with a knife than a gun.

Imagine, if only the Mandalay Bay gunman, or the Batman shooter had only a knife instead of access to so many guns.......imagine how many lives would have been saved.



posted on May, 11 2018 @ 07:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: enlightenedservant

It's a fair point, and I don't know why it's hard to answer the question.


Thanks for being honest. It's only "hard" to answer when people take an "all or nothing" approach to this issue.



If a criminal has a gun, they're likely to use said gun in the furtherance of their actions. If the same criminal doesn't have a gun but has a knife, they're likely to use the knife in the furtherance of their actions.


Exactly. And no matter how much people try to deny it, it's obviously much easier to kill multiple people with guns than with knives, bats, etc. It's even easier to kill a single person with a gun than those other weapons, as those stabbing victims who get stabbed 30-40 times can attest to.



It's a lot easier to hit unintended targets with a gun than it is a knife.

And it's a lot easier to hit multiple targets with a gun than it is with a knife.

The irony here is that I'm actually a supporter of gun rights, particularly for hunting and self defense. I'm just not a fanatic about it, which is why I disagree so much with these people and the NRA. I believe guns should be regulated and that gun owners should prove mental health & have strong background checks before and during ownership. I also believe in a lot of the basics that I was taught years ago, like guns and alcohol don't mix, only point a gun at something you intend to kill, etc.

And then there's the common sense that adding more guns to a gun ridden area is only going to increase the shootings. That's why I brought up earlier in the thread (when I was joking) that we should also send more guns to gang members, cartel members, abusers, ex-cons, sex offenders, etc. Obviously doing that would be stupid because it would clearly increase the number of shootings, not decrease them.

But that's my real point: some people clearly don't need access to guns. Because the "more guns and less restrictions" crowd seems to ignore the fact that "less restrictions" also includes less restrictions on gun access for the mentally ill, domestic abusers, sex offenders, suspected members of any crime related group, felons & people with violent histories, suspected terrorists, stalkers, etc.



posted on May, 11 2018 @ 07:17 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Mass shootings have served as a catalyst for gun bans/stricter control laws around the world. It's a tried and tested way of garnering support.

People who desire a gun ban (or other Constitutional protection violations) and have the means and opportunity to create mass-shooting false flags MUST be investigated -- AND with a great amount of transparency -- for me to even consider getting on board with a reactionary gun ban.



edit on 5/11/2018 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2018 @ 08:06 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

You’ll get no argument from me in general principle, though I think we differ on the mental health angle.

As ardent a supporter as I am of the 2nd, I also understand that some people shouldn’t have firearms. Mental defect? Absolutely. But that’s where you and I differ: I think the government should be required to prove, and I mean prove in the legal sense, that a person has a mental deficiency. It shouldn’t be the citizen’s burden to prove they’re not mentally deficient. I also don’t think violent felons should have access to firearms. In another thread, a member stated their belief that if your violent crime didn’t involve a firearm, you shouldn’t lose your 2A rights. That blew my mind. Absolutely blew my mind. I also don’t think any of the above people need to have legal access to an M2 .50-cal.

Those beliefs are enough to get me shunned by the more extreme gun rights advocates, but not enough to appease the gun-grabbers. While an armed society may well be a polite society, in any given society there are outliers that can’t be relied on to be polite, and therefore shouldn’t be relied on to be armed.



posted on May, 11 2018 @ 08:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

Which scenario is likely to produce more deaths? You can replace the phrase "potential criminal" with "abusive spouse", "bully", "poor citizen", "desperate citizen", "mental health patient", "person with anger issues", etc and the answer would remain the same.


OK I'll play...they would have killed more or the same, but not less... So what is your point? Do we lower all speed limits in the country to 35 to "save" 1000s of lives? We can bubble boy the crap out of everyone too to save more, we can force people to eat what we feel is best for them too...saving lives one loss freedom at a time...



posted on May, 11 2018 @ 08:56 PM
link   
and the bunch that says no.....to hiking with your grandkids unarmed.....44 mag w/ Garret Hammerheads dangerous African game ammo......in bear country donchano

edit on 11-5-2018 by GBP/JPY because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2018 @ 09:34 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

That's the crux of it isn't it?

The gun, just like the bow is not just a mere extension of the arm. You no longer need to get in close to do serious damage.

Without training and some serious mental fortitude, people cannot kill other people without reasons that justify such actions in their mind.

Even bullies work their way up to having the balls to hit that thin kid, a piece of knowledge I wish I was taught sooner. As you're alluding to it's basically human psychology.

Just like if I happened to randomly approach you in a street in a menacing manner, you'd have 3 choices. Fight, flight or freeze. The latter is actually the rarer of cases since humans interacting with humans is a fairly normal thing to us.

The gun in essence takes away a very human element in harming another human.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Criminals don't just wake up one day and begin shooting, stabbing and robbing people. It's a learnt trait, this means that ultimately their was every chance for an intervention before the person was capable or resorted to such things.

Who do we blame for criminals?

I'm guessing it's ourselves and our indecency towards other humans. As always it's the proverbial man I'm the mirror we need to question.
edit on 11-5-2018 by RAY1990 because: Spelling errors



posted on May, 11 2018 @ 09:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Will removing firearms lower death rates due to firearms?







Yes, less guns means they are harder to get and therefore makes them more expensive . Those two factors will keep guns out of a certain percentage of hands.



posted on May, 11 2018 @ 10:32 PM
link   
If this was true the drug war would have been won. Fact is making something illegal increases demand and profits. Banning guns just means guns become more expensive and people start making them in thier garage to make money.



posted on May, 11 2018 @ 10:44 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

The discussion is not about banning guns, it's about gun control similar to what has been done in Australia.

ETA the war on drugs has made drugs more expensive and harder to get, in fact has created more crime and violence as criminal gangs sell drugs to run their operations.
edit on 11-5-2018 by hopenotfeariswhatweneed because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2018 @ 11:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: dragonridr

The discussion is not about banning guns, it's about gun control similar to what has been done in Australia.


Forget even trying to explain that. I have explained it multiple times and yet they keep coming back and claiming we "banned" all guns rather than just strictly controlled them. It suits their fantasy to say that we "banned" them, for to admit otherwise detracts significantly from their argument.



posted on May, 12 2018 @ 12:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6



As ardent a supporter as I am of the 2nd, I also understand that some people shouldn’t have firearms. Mental defect? Absolutely. But that’s where you and I differ: I think the government should be required to prove, and I mean prove in the legal sense, that a person has a mental deficiency. It shouldn’t be the citizen’s burden to prove they’re not mentally deficient. I also don’t think violent felons should have access to firearms.

Basically, I just want something like mandatory psychological evaluations and/or mental health testing every 3 to 6 months for gun ownership. The exact details can be up for debate.



posted on May, 12 2018 @ 01:03 AM
link   
a reply to: RAY1990

The thing is, they also know this. It's one of the reasons they obsess over guns so much instead of obsessing over other types of weapons. Because it's even hard to use swords effectively without proper training.

I think a lot of the non-hunting people obsess over guns because they're also prepping for doomsday SHTF catastrophes, a new civil war, a race war (like RaHoWa/Racial Holy War), an armed insurrection against the govt, etc. In those situations, they know full well that having access to guns would be far more effective than having access to bats, crowbars, knives, or brass knuckles.

I'll also throw out another reason I think they're so "all or nothing" about guns. There's a 3 page thread from last month (HERE) that drifted into a discussion of GOP supporters who started supporting MJ production after it became legalized. Well, I pulled up some stats and showed that many GOP-supporting farming states have always been large suppliers of illegally grown MJ, meaning that they'd only been pretending to be against illegal MJ cultivation. In other words, I think a lot (not most) of the gun fanatics are also involved in illegal trades as side jobs. So their aggressive demands against gun regulation may be because their own business dealings would be affected by stricter gun laws.



Just like if I happened to randomly approach you in a street in a menacing manner, you'd have 3 choices. Fight, flight or freeze.

There's also the 4th option of deescalation. Never underestimate the power of words.



posted on May, 12 2018 @ 02:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Kryties

I'm a sucker for punishment...



posted on May, 12 2018 @ 04:22 AM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

It depresses me. I know a few Americans, one or two are gun owners. I don't want to call them weak because the potential of a human is almost infinite but the reasons they own a gun are absolutely weak. As I said it depresses me. If only their reasoning was used positively... Much more can be achieved.

Which ultimately brings me to the point I probably poorly made, that love and understanding can achieve so much more, we're humans and our minds are not always the strongest, our hearts are not always filled with love either.

I mean, I can insist on deescalation via a fair and truthful route, let's have an arm wrestle... I'm left-handed and you're right. Let's flip a coin and call it best of 5. But most won't ever think like that. Most won't even respect their own being and systematically do their best to better you in a "no holds barred" kinda attitude because ultimately they wish to better others.




There's also the 4th option of deescalation. Never underestimate the power of words. 




That's genuinely beautiful, I seldom ever come across people who'd say such things. I suspect it's because when people look at others it's because they may see equals but they're also looking for a way to best them.

Understanding is everything, understanding each other can break down any wall of denial.

Tbh I'm not in my best today, with that said your reply has genuinely awoken me in a way I was least expecting. I fully understand what you're conveying even if my words fail to show my appreciation. I thank you for that.

We need more reasonable people.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join