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.
I missed DC too LOL.. And the big easy.. and Vegas..
originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: notsure1
You missed...DETROIT!
originally posted by: BigDave-AR
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: chr0naut
~Yawn~
You are comparing apples to candy bars.
If you want to compare apples to apples, if you as an adult spend your entire life in a US Federal prison, your chances of being shot are about 0%.
Care to change where you live again to make the numbers better?
You can still get shot in prison, it's just more likely that it would be with rubber bullets.
But, apparently if you reside inside a nuclear reactor, anywhere in the world, no-one, not even Americans, will shoot at you.
Not really sure how that relates to anything, but if you can throw around irrelevant numbers, why not?
What I was talking about was that the gun laws in the US cannot do what the gun lobby says they do.
And the anti-gun lobby, are their goals practical and achievable? Do you honestly believe that gun control would make a significant difference?
But let's take your argument to the logical conclusion and ban all guns.
Then only criminals would have them.
Should really stop mass shootings, right?
As opposed to a good guy stopping a bad guy because he had a gun.
originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: chr0naut
Statistics are fun.
Portugal, per capita, has 23% more opiate use than the United States.
You also have, per capita, 79% more police officers than the United States.
So you use a lot more drugs and have a lot more policemen.
Standard of living index?
The bottom 10% in the US have better lives than the top 10% in Portugal .
I've visited there, not thinking of moving there anytime soon.
So go shoot some heroin and hide from the cops... you'll be OK.
While I applaud the actions of the "good guy" who apparently stopped this potential massacre, I have to admit that I have had some concerns about a scenario like you propose.
How about this as a possible scenario: Someone discharges a gun in a public place.
Someone else shoots them, preventing a possible massacre.
Then a third person hearing the gunshots and only seeing the second shooter, shoots the second shooter (remember during the Kennedy assassination that no-one was really sure where the gunshots were coming from. It isn't an unreasonable thing to happen).
Unfortunately it's a valid argument in the United States.
The whole "then only criminals would have guns" argument is stupid.
Even if multiple legal firearm carriers don't wind up shooting one another,
there is the very real possibility that law enforcement may shoot the "good guy" as soon as they arrive on the scene because they haven't been apprised of the whole situation.
Calm. ...and for the sake of your continued living in this world, obey their orders!!!!!!!! Now, is not the time to go all "it's my rights"...that'll get you a good chance of getting shot.
originally posted by: DexterRiley
a reply to: chr0naut
While I applaud the actions of the "good guy" who apparently stopped this potential massacre, I have to admit that I have had some concerns about a scenario like you propose.
How about this as a possible scenario: Someone discharges a gun in a public place.
Someone else shoots them, preventing a possible massacre.
Then a third person hearing the gunshots and only seeing the second shooter, shoots the second shooter (remember during the Kennedy assassination that no-one was really sure where the gunshots were coming from. It isn't an unreasonable thing to happen).
Even if multiple legal firearm carriers don't wind up shooting one another, there is the very real possibility that law enforcement may shoot the "good guy" as soon as they arrive on the scene because they haven't been apprised of the whole situation.
I hope this never happens. However we have seen many instances of police shooting first and asking questions later.
Unfortunately it's a valid argument in the United States.
The whole "then only criminals would have guns" argument is stupid.
We have a gun culture in the US that now sees more firearms than residents. Given our view of the right to possess such weapons, it is highly unlikely we will ever enact legislation to significantly reduce that inventory.
So, given this eternal glut of guns, it will always be a reasonably easy task for a criminal to acquire a firearm if he has sufficient motivation. While a normally law-abiding citizen is unlikely to go that route, and will pursue a legal means of acquiring such a weapon.
While I always appreciate the views of our international cousins with respect to domestic US issues, I find it nearly impossible to convey to them how deeply rooted is our gun culture. In fact, I stand in amazement at some nations who have been successful at disarming their populace.
I do not exaggerate when I say that attempting to do this in the US would lead to a major uprising that would cost the lives of countless otherwise law-abiding citizens.
-dex
originally posted by: JameSimon
Portugal, my home country:
Extremely difficult to get guns. Some hardcore criminals have them. Public doesn't. No recorded school shootings, no massacres, violent homicides are a fraction of the ones in the USA (per capita). You only need good guys with guns because you're gun nutters.
OK, so you think that an attempt to disarm the general population in the US would cost the lives of many.
Here's an interesting link: Gun Control in Australia, Updated - FactCheck.org.
But the lives of many are already being lost, at increasing rates over 10,000 per year, and that doesn't include all the non-fatal gun injuries. That's like the full capacity of a mid sized indoor stadium wiped out, every year.
More US citizens have died by shootings inside the US, than all the deaths of US soldiers in all wars. It's like a massive war of attrition invasion was going on, except that it is US citizens killing themselves and each other.
Perhaps if the general public realized the actual and relentless toll of gun deaths, the will of the people (as opposed to gun lobbyists) would drive government policy (hint, in current news there is outcry against the mayor of Chicago because of the rise in shootings there).
At some stage, the people are going to say "enough is enough". It will be the will of the people.
... and if it leads to civil war, then no other country in the world would stand by a US that is destroying itself.
originally posted by: JIMC5499
originally posted by: JameSimon
Portugal, my home country:
Extremely difficult to get guns. Some hardcore criminals have them. Public doesn't. No recorded school shootings, no massacres, violent homicides are a fraction of the ones in the USA (per capita). You only need good guys with guns because you're gun nutters.
I'm glad you are happy in Portugal. I won't make any comments about what goes on there. How about you not making any more about the US?