It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.