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 America ban personal firearms

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 08:37 PM
link   
Holy Bejesus I love this debate..
It always seem to make my working day fly by.

Where to begin.

First, fair enough you dont drink enough to be in that state.
But im sure there ARE gun owners out there whom doo.
Just last night i woke up after a nightmare... and swear i had someone standing over me.
Had I had a gun under the bed... in a safe place .. i would of surely pulled it out... and atleast aimed it... simply because at that moment, when the adrenalin kicked in felt i was in danger.

Im happy you have that ability, but i remmeber reading about a guy in bed... the phone rang.. he picked up what he thought was the phone only to have his gun discharge and kill him.

Without equal, I woudl ask you refrain from calling me a 'pr1ck and a w@nker ' breach of t'cs there mate..
And it shows class when you abuse someone in that means, when they from the begining have been civil in a mature and just debate.

Why do I have to be young, and immature to beleive guns arent good?
Mankind is evil your right.. but we have more chance of controlling that evil if we dont allow everyone to load themselves up to the teeth.
If your hell bent on killing someone, then nothing will stop you.
But in the case of the highschool massacers, how many people would of been alive today, had these guys not been so easily able to access firearms?

Glad do see you label people in the army as in compitent, least they get training, and are taught the rules and proper handling.

But thanks for turning this into a racist, jihadist striving thread.
But back on topic.

Why complain im sure they'll see this post started as a logical and just debate... and ur use of profanity was the first instance.

Mayb the thought of an accidental discharge killing loved ones should spark a feeling of vulernability?... the fact ur guns COULD do this cause so much pain inside of u, u lashed out at the person suggesting it, instead of removing the danger.

I never peronsally attacked you and I ask you return to a civilised debate.


Xmotex granted.. but ive had this debate with various people whom take there GUNS to church, and as mentioned earlier they stock major aresenals..
surely this must make someone nervious?
next time your at churhc look around..
imagine those guys hiding a piece in there trunks because ' they can '
Church doesnt feel so comfy ne more does it .

Armed protection from a tyranous government granted..
But theres to many safe guards already in place for that, as well as natioan guard and other various stances.

Im happy to continue debating but if members are going to personally attack me simply because I do not agree with there stance whats the point?




posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeusEx
EDIT: WithoutEqual, if I had a way above left, I'd give it you mate. I support your states, and the bastard had it coming.


Great, because i stir up a debate with a emotional poking statement you all find it nessecary to abuse people rather than posts.

THey are fictional scneario's, but they are possible scenarios

Pools, knives and so forth arent murdering devices.. they are leasure means.
people dont stock pools on there property to ensure they drown as many people as need be in the circumstance arrived.



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 08:47 PM
link   
But DuesEx and without equal thankyou for showing your class and character when debating.

Simply because someone wont fold and agree with you.. there wankers.. pricks.. and bastards!

Your right, what a civilised world we live in.
We should give guns to everyone.
We cant even debate in peace.. what chance do we have with firearms



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 08:50 PM
link   
"I hope a member of your family has an accidental discharge and is maimed or dies" doesn't qualify as civilized debate. That's like saying, "I hope someone breaks into your house, rapes your wife and kids."

I used to be anti gun. That's because I didn't know anything about them. Now, I learned, and most people who open carry only solicit a glance to see what they're packing. I realized that most people who carry are honest, at least semi-competent folk. I'd rather take my chances with a church full of armed men and women who are law-abiding, than a schoolful of law-abiding ones, save the armed one who isn't.

The fact that people carry, open or concealed, doesn't bother me. The fact that I might be at a huge disadvantage the instant my life is in danger from another human being does.

DE



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 08:53 PM
link   
Well, being people have noted about my SCENARIO's.. I dont see that my 'theoretical' unforunate accident is CAPABLE when someone stocks arsenals of weapons in tehre house.

Regardless of what you think of me, I had respect for you in previous posts.
But going out and attacking people just doesnt sit right mate.



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Pools, knives and so forth arent murdering devices.. they are leasure means.
people dont stock pools on there property to ensure they drown as many people as need be in the circumstance arrived.


See, now you're arguing against function when function is determined by user. As for my comments, trying to rile up someone by wishing harm on their family sure is civilized, huh?

I can use a knife to murder someone. I can use a plastic bag, a car, a pool, whatever. Their original intent is irrelevant. However, if you purchase a firearm to hunt moose or defend your family, does that make it a tool of murder? No, it makes it a tool of moose hunting or self defence UNTIL it is used for murder.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. They don't leap up and pull their own triggers.

You say that guns encourage shooting sprees and mass murder, and that banning them would have prevented Columbine and the like. I'm sure they could have simply lobbed home-made explosives, or gasoline bombs, or used a knife or an axe to carry out their plans.

But it's GUNS that turned them evil, right?

DE



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 08:59 PM
link   
And thankyou for changing my post, arent you meant to quote people word for wor dinstead of CHANGING there words?

I didnt say I HOPED..
I said Id THANK him if such a tragic event happens WHEN it convinces a hanful of people to see the light.

but thanks for changing it none the less, again you simply show the lengths you'll go to.

Regardless, if he didnt liek my situation he should of replied with an equally uspetting situation in which i would of felt the emotional side of his debate ...

but some people chose to attack poster rather than the debate.

Does nothing but lower quality here on ATS



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeusEx

See, now you're arguing against function when function is determined by user. As for my comments, trying to rile up someone by wishing harm on their family sure is civilized, huh?

I can use a knife to murder someone. I can use a plastic bag, a car, a pool, whatever. Their original intent is irrelevant. However, if you purchase a firearm to hunt moose or defend your family, does that make it a tool of murder? No, it makes it a tool of moose hunting or self defence UNTIL it is used for murder.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. They don't leap up and pull their own triggers.

You say that guns encourage shooting sprees and mass murder, and that banning them would have prevented Columbine and the like. I'm sure they could have simply lobbed home-made explosives, or gasoline bombs, or used a knife or an axe to carry out their plans.

But it's GUNS that turned them evil, right?

DE


But A plastic bag was made for carrying shopping.
A gun is made to KILL.

If its a hunting gun, fine... hunt.. but why do u need ak's? automatics? hand guns?
they dont have to REMOVE The law... but restrict it.
if you want a gun, use the clubs guns.
if u want to hunt, have a very specific and limited HUNTING rifle.
u dont need handguns, semis and autos.

There is just no need for GUNS in civilised society.

And If the columbine people had petrol bombs or so forth I could say there wuoldnt of been as much death...

lobbing home made devices is much cruder and more difficult than firering a semi at a human as they run away.

and again I never wished anything on ANYONE.
Im here debating guns, so why would I wish murder by a gun.

The only positive out of a family man accidently discharging a weapon and severly hurting his own family is that it might .. MIGHT make him thnk twice.



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Holy Bejesus I love this debate..
It always seem to make my working day fly by.


I'm enjoying the debate as well



Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Where to begin.

First, fair enough you dont drink enough to be in that state.
But im sure there ARE gun owners out there whom doo.
Just last night i woke up after a nightmare... and swear i had someone standing over me.
Had I had a gun under the bed... in a safe place .. i would of surely pulled it out... and atleast aimed it... simply because at that moment, when the adrenalin kicked in felt i was in danger.

Im happy you have that ability, but i remmeber reading about a guy in bed... the phone rang.. he picked up what he thought was the phone only to have his gun discharge and kill him.



I consider this scenario the same as drinking and driving. I've said it before and shall repeat myself abuse starts with the person not with the equipment they abuse.

Accidents happen, if a person is responcible and educated no matter what he is doing then they should be fine however when you don't have respect for your car or your gun then you drink and drive or put a gun to your head because you didn't put it in a safe, and why would that man have one in the chamber to begin with? Banning guns won't get rid of stupid people sorry.


Originally posted by Agit8dChop

Without equal, I woudl ask you refrain from calling me a 'pr1ck and a w@nker ' breach of t'cs there mate..
And it shows class when you abuse someone in that means, when they from the begining have been civil in a mature and just debate.



I don't agree with the name calling but your previous post could be construed as you hoping someone's family member is harmed, never a good idea to post that.


Originally posted by Agit8dChop

Why do I have to be young, and immature to beleive guns arent good?
Mankind is evil your right.. but we have more chance of controlling that evil if we dont allow everyone to load themselves up to the teeth.
If your hell bent on killing someone, then nothing will stop you.
But in the case of the highschool massacers, how many people would of been alive today, had these guys not been so easily able to access firearms?



Those guys could just as easily made pipe bombs with daily household cleaners, getting rid of the guns wouldn't of stopped what happened.


Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Glad do see you label people in the army as in compitent, least they get training, and are taught the rules and proper handling.

Xmotex granted.. but ive had this debate with various people whom take there GUNS to church, and as mentioned earlier they stock major aresenals..
surely this must make someone nervious?
next time your at churhc look around..
imagine those guys hiding a piece in there trunks because ' they can '
Church doesnt feel so comfy ne more does it .

Armed protection from a tyranous government granted..
But theres to many safe guards already in place for that, as well as natioan guard and other various stances.

Im happy to continue debating but if members are going to personally attack me simply because I do not agree with there stance whats the point?


Everyone i've met who has went through the trouble of getting their carry and conceal permit has been completely responcible with their guns, infact i've known cops to trust these type of people more than any regular person off the street turning their backs to them with loaded firearms. Its the people that don't follow the law that you have to worry about, and gun restrictions won't stop those people.

A nation can NEVER have enough checks and balances against it's government from taking absolute power.



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
But A plastic bag was made for carrying shopping.
A gun is made to KILL.


You're failing to see the point. And also fairly massively ignorant when it comes to firearms. Target firearms aren't meant to kill. Hunting weapons are, surprisingly enough, meant for hunting. A CAR isn't made for killing, but they kill how many times more people than firearms do a year?


If its a hunting gun, fine... hunt.. but why do u need ak's? automatics? hand guns?u dont need handguns, semis and autos.


Yes, we do. Because the people out there that WANT to hurt us don't obey those laws. The Second Ammendment in the United States is meant as a protection to the people from tyranny. Slingshots and 'restricted' firearms won't protect the people from an army now, will it? And an armed criminal in my house isn't going to wait for me to find something to knock him over the head with. Hell, even if I have something, guess what? If he has a gun, he kills me. Game over, all the baseball bats in the world won't help me.


And If the columbine people had petrol bombs or so forth I could say there wuoldnt of been as much death...

lobbing home made devices is much cruder and more difficult than firering a semi at a human as they run away.


There would have still been death, no? Maimings? Suffering? All those things you claim to be against when you want to take away guns. You taking away guns would have made it more primitive, but no less horrifying. All you're doing is taking away the ability of a person to defend themselves.


The only positive out of a family man accidently discharging a weapon and severly hurting his own family is that it might .. MIGHT make him thnk twice.


So, let me get this straight: you hope that someone dies or is grievously injured to promote your agenda. Gotcha. Because that's SO much mroe moralistic!

DE



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 09:31 PM
link   
It is estimated that there are approximately 80 million gun owners in the United States. According to the BATF in 1999 there were approximately 215 million guns in the United States with an increase of about 4.5 million each year.

www.nraila.org...



And what do you think an ARMY is for? you think when war breaks out all these masses of citizens are going to be racing across the ocean with there assortment of guns? No, the military/army will.
The guys whom have been TRAINED, and recruited for the job would ideally be the ones worht THANKING.



The right to bear arms was giving the US citizens as a protection from ANY standing army. Including the "government" if it were taken over by a dictator. Its one of the government checks installed in this form of government.


Having guns as reason to keep the government honest isnt a reason, its an excuse.


No its most defiantly a reason thats why it was written into the constitution as such.


The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to posses arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so. Adolph Hitler 1938



But, I will thank you when you accidently discharge your gun, either killing maiming yourself or your family because maybe.. just maybe.. that will convince a handful of people to make there home ' gun free '


Do you even realize what you are saying?? You are hoping someone kills or maims another person so that your idea of "gun free" can be accepted by a handful of other people?? If you mean what you say then your defiantly one sick individual.

There are approximately 80 million legal gun owners in the US that don't accidentally discharge their guns killing people every year.

#1 The world isn't perfect.

#2 People aren't always nice.

#3 Criminals will always have guns.

#4 A safe law abiding citizen with a gun is simply a safe law abiding citizen with a gun. Not some evil mass murdering drunken redneck that will go around accidentally discharging firearms.


There are means for defense that dont nessecarily mean a bullet.


Unless your defending yourself from someone that does have a gun!!!

And yes criminals will always have guns because of their ability to project psychological control over a greater distance than knives / chains / clubs ...

Time and time again its is proven that in the end gun control only serves criminals and dictators.



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heckman

Unless your defending yourself from someone that does have a gun!!!

And yes criminals will always have guns because of their ability to project psychological control over a greater distance than knives / chains / clubs ...

Time and time again its is proven that in the end gun control only serves criminals and dictators.





Seems to be working just fine in Australia and NZ.
The criminals and dictators arent running free, and since the port aurthur massacre in which the gun ban was passed, we're since to have a repeat.

But your saying, because he has a gun, u should have a gun.
How about gun laws tighten so he doesnt have a gun. Then when he breaks in he's armed with a bat, or a knife.. and simply appearing will scare him off.
9/10 times they are there for the TV or what ever to get money.
When you apear with a gun, it turns to self defense.
When you appear with a bat... they will flee.. theyd rather get done for robbery, then murder...

and again I never said I HOPE IT HAPPENS. I HATE THAT BS.
I hope no one dies.

But eveantually if u stock guns in the house an accident will happen.
and when your in hospital grieving, as sorry as I am.. i will still say the only positive to emerge is that guns will be though of VERY DIFFERENTLY in many circles as a result.



[edit on 21-9-2006 by Agit8dChop]
Mod Note: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 21-9-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 09:39 PM
link   
Again I never said I HOPE.
I dont get it, people can easily check your 'quotes' and see your editing them for your own side of the debate.

There would of still been death in those cases yes...

But maybe if 1 life, 2 lives or even 3 lives had of been saved.. isnt that enough ?

But now yours saying those kids in the school should of had guns to defend themselves??



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 09:50 PM
link   
The government will never get guns out of americans hands.

Even if they called for our guns, we would lie, hide them, and do anything to keep them.

Guns are the American peoples equalizer, whether against the government or criminals.

I found that most people that own guns are generally more peaceful citizens. There is a responsibility that goes with the power of the weapon.

Many carry concealed guns legally. These people are very aware of the consequences of even exposing their guns. They avoid trouble, not go looking for it.

Our guns are never going to be taken away. PERIOD>



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 09:55 PM
link   
Granted, they will be there for ever.
and your right, good citizens whom train effecitvley and carry the right licences are more than likely good citizens.

But semi automatics?
Automatics?

carrying them around in the street? in church?

If u feel the need to have a gun, keep it in your home, for protection.
USe a hand gun...

ITs an infatuation that will backfire long before it becomes useful.



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Seems to be working just fine in Australia and NZ.
The criminals and dictators arent running free, and since the port aurthur massacre in which the gun ban was passed, we're since to have a repeat.


In Australia armed robbery crime rate went up 44% from 2004 to 2005.



Again I never said I HOPE.
I dont get it, people can easily check your 'quotes' and see your editing them for your own side of the debate.


Umm you said I WILL THANK YOU ... That clearly means you will be happy or you would not be thanking someone. People hope for something that will make them happy. I shouldn't have to spell this out for you.

You cant even see the flaws in your mentality / statement can you? Rather than changing your mind you simply try to accuse others of twisting what you said.


[edit on 21-9-2006 by Heckman]



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Seems to be working just fine in Australia and NZ.
The criminals and dictators arent running free, and since the port aurthur massacre in which the gun ban was passed, we're since to have a repeat.


Nawp.

Forgotten about the Monash University shootings so soon? Behold, the power of WIKIPEDIA!


Historically Australia has had relatively low levels of violent crime. Overall levels of homicide and suicide have remained relatively static for several decades, while the proportion of these crimes that involved firearms has consistently declined since the early 1980s. For example, between 1991 and 2001, the number of firearm related deaths in Australia has declined 47% [3]. The Sporting Shooters Association of Australia argues that there is no evidence that major advances in gun control in 1987, 1996 and 2002 had any impact on this already established trend[4][5]. A similar interpretation of the statistics has been made by the head of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn[6], who also notes that the level of legal gun ownership in New South Wales has increased in recent years.

In the year 2002/2003, over 85% of firearms used to commit murder were unregistered.[7] In 1997-1999, more than 80% of the handguns confiscated were never legally purchased or registered in Australia[8]. Knives are used up to 3 times as often as firearms in robberies[9]. The majority of firearm related deaths are committed with hunting rifles[3].

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics [2], in 1985-2000, 78% of firearm deaths in Australia were suicides, yet only 5% of suicides involved firearms. The suicide rate has only fluctuated, not statistically changed, from 1993-2003.


From: en.wikipedia.org...

Emphasis me. Obviously, you barely even know about the firearms history of your own country. How can you tell us about ours? Hell, the very statistics are against you.

DE



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 09:59 PM
link   
urm no, re-read it mate.
Id be greiving next to him............. But i would be trying to show a lighter side of the situation when he realises this unfortunate event can in turn have a positive outcome... all be it a minimal one comapred to the loss.

And think about that crime rate, if the people in the shops had guns them selves.

Imagine the death rate?
the innocent bystander maimed rate?

why not remove guns all together to STOP armed robbery, instead of arming more people to the teeth


[edit on 21-9-2006 by Agit8dChop]



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
urm no, re-read it mate.
Id be greiving next to him............. But i would be trying to show a lighter side of the situation when he realises this unfortunate event can in turn have a positive outcome... all be it a minimal one comapred to the loss.

And think about that crime rate, if the people in the shops had guns them selves.

Imagine the death rate?
the innocent bystander maimed rate?

why not remove guns all together to STOP armed robbery, instead of arming more people to the teeth


[edit on 21-9-2006 by Agit8dChop]


I'm beginning to think this "Civilized world" you keep talking about doesn't exhist nor ever will, there's nothing wrong with dreaming but lets not be naive.



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 10:07 PM
link   
For starters it isnt my country.

Using facts and figures from gun lovers doesnt mean much.
Its like the celeb superstar who paraded NRA speaches in columbine AFTER the shottings...

that was tasteless, but there they were americans gloating there guns in the face of greiving families.

Less guns on the street in no way is a BAD THING.
If you want gun control, go join a club and use there guns.


Stocking aks and semi's and auto's in your house is absurd.

Id like to know how exactly GUN control laws DIDNT effect an outcome, where guns were used SIGNIFICANTLY less?
Its like me stopping water flowers, then saying there death had nothing to do with ym lack of water.

take guns of the streets, armed robbery will decrease.
Its simple as that.

That man that robs u with a knife... isnt going to kill you simply for finding him. He will run away.
When you appear with a gun, he is going to defend himself.. and more than likely someone will die.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join