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.
posted by Ghost01
posted by donwhite
" . . the unnecessary deaths of up to 10,000 people a year to be a significant social problem.
I agree, 10,000 deaths a year is a problem. My point was that people are very unlikely to give up a basic right granted by the Constitution.
Tim
posted by Kacen
“ . . (1) It would be wrong to ban guns from people who have never hurt anyone with them. (2) It’s just that things [crimes, not “things”] involving guns get more attention than cases that involve a knife or other type of weapon, so it seems they [guns] are the predominant murder weapon in the US but they are not . . (3) is it right to take guns away from EVERYONE when a lot of the gun owners never shot ANY innocent people? [Edited by Don W]
posted by Ghost01
Maybe I was wrong about people not wanting to give up their rights! Well, I still want to get up tomorrow and know MY rights are still there! Tim [Edited by Don W]
Originally posted by donwhite
2.) Wrong. We are talking about homicides. The unlawful taking of a human life. Without having the numbers before me, I’ve been around long enough to sense that 80% of all US homicide victims die by gunshot.
[edit on 11/19/2006 by donwhite]
posted by Ghost01
“ . . the key word in homicide is UNLAWFUL . . people committing murder are breaking the law by taking another person's life. What make you think they will obey the law on the ownership of a gun, if they can't even fallow the law that says they don't have the right to kill another person? Sorry, but the argument that gun control will prevent murders is fundamentally flawed. Tim [Edited by Don W]
Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
We need to put guns behind lock and key if there are children residing in the house and have good locks in our house so nobody can break in and steal them.
On Aug. 23, 2000, Jessica Lynne Carpenter was 14 years old. At that young age, she knew how to shoot; her father taught her. There were firearms in the Carpenter home. Her law abiding parents John and Tephanie Carpenter did just whate the new ?safe storage? law in California required them to do, lock up their guns when their children are home alone.
Jessica?s siblings ? Anna, 13; Vanessa, 11; Ashley, 9; and John William, 7 ? were still in bed when 27 year old Jonathon David Bruce broke into the farmhouse about 9 a.m. that morning.
Bruce armed himself with a pitchfork. He cut the phone lines. When he entered the house and began stabbing the younger children in their beds, Jessica tried to dial 911. It didn?t do any good. She ran to where the family guns were. They were locked up.
?When the 14-year old girl ran to a nearby house to escape the pitchfork-wielding man attacking her siblings, she didn?t ask her neighbor to call 911. She begged him to grab his rifle and ?take care of this guy?? writes Kimi Yoshino in the Fresno Bee. He didn?t, and Jessica ended up on the phone with the police.
When Merced County sheriff?s deputies finally arrived, 7-year old John William was dead. 9-year old Ashley Danielle was dead. Ashley had clung to the leg of the assailent long enough for her older sister to escape. 13-year old Anna was wounded, but she survived.
?Once the deputies arrived, Bruce rushed them with his bloody pitchfork. So they shot him dead. They shot him more than a dozen times. With their guns. Get it?? writes Vin Suprynowicz of the Las Vegas Review Journal.
Do you have the intestinal fortitude to walk up to walk up to the graves of John William and Ashley Danielle and place a trigger lock on the their head stones? Would you have it in you to hand a trigger lock to John and Tephanie Carpenter, or debate reasonable gun control with them?
posted by cavscout
"I swear to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America" - Offer void where prohibited by law, see local statutes for eligibility and constitutional right permit requirements. Offer may be voided at the discretion of local law enforcement.
Originally posted by donwhite
" . . the unnecessary deaths of up to 10,000 people a year to be a significant social problem.
“ . . a basic right . . granted . . the Constitution?“ Isn't it strange? Look at the Patriot Act. We have enthusiastically given up our 1) Right of Privacy - no eavesdropping; 2) Right not to be illegally searched or property seized; 3) Right to know the charges against you, to confront the witnesses against you, to have a speedy trial in the place where the crime was allege to have been committed; 4) Right not to be indefinitely detained in secret after a secret designation as an “enemy combatant;” 5) Right to counsel which must of necessity include the right of the lawyer to see all the evidence to be used against you; 6) No Ex Post Facto laws. If it ain’t a crime when it happened, you cannot make it one after the fact.
1) Banning guns has not been proposed. That false claim is an NRA strategy to de-fang the legitimate concerns about firearms. A diversion.
2) Wrong. We are talking about homicides. The unlawful taking of a human life.
Yes, make them easier to get. As I have shown, the easier it is to get guns, the less murders you have.
Can we possibly have a suggestion on how to deal with those guns?
Originally posted by JamesMcMahn
To quote Eddie Izzard "guns dont kill people, people kill people, and monkeys do tooo if they have a gun."
Originally posted by donwhite
I believe the claim - “lawbreakers will not be deterred by gun control” - is called “intuitive.” That is, the claim is not based on any scientific study, but it “seems” to be correct. It sounds good. This is another NRA diversion to avoid the real issues related to guns and death.
2) Some estimate there are 80 million Americans owning 280 million guns. Every year, several 10s of 1000s of guns are stolen from houses, cars and places of business. These enter the “street” market of illicit sales from one wrong-doer to another wrong-doer. All too often otherwise innocent people are the victims of these illicit guns. It seems intuitive to me that if we had the legal guns under stricter controls, there would be fewer guns in the illicit market for crooks and wanna be crooks to buy.
Illicit (adj.) : not permitted; unlawful; unlicenced
First, we should keep in mind that firearms kill between 5,000 and 10,000 people in our society every year. We are already giving up that many dead people for the privilege of possessing 280 million guns. That is not an insubstantial number. It deserves some of our attention.
Before there were guns, there was knives, before knives, there were stones. Throughout the history of humankind murder has existed in one form or another and even if you remove all items from this planet people still would find a way.
Competent studies on this general theme have demonstrated it is not true. Sure, it is akin to proving a negative, but you are allowed to use your intuition when it is appropriately limited and consciously acknowledged.
Why don’t we require that as part of the privilege of gun ownership?
Let’s assume most people are law abiding and will register their guns if the Congress enacts a law asking them to do so. Once upon a time, Congress asked people to turn in their gold, and they did. Almost to a man. That was because the people saw it was a way to make economic progress. (And the new turn-in price of $35 an ounce was nearly double the former prices of $20.)
The American prison system is abominable. A disgrace to any nation that even claims to be a Christian nation, which I don't. The system is over crowded, under staffed, and has no objective but confinement. Americans themselves are hateful toward prisoners and ignore or condone harsh and inhumane conditions and treatment. Which sometimes backfires on them when one gets out and vents his pent up rage on them. Short sighted. Try getting a job if you are an ex-con. You never get a second chance in America.
Prisoners are like children, they are totally dependant on their keepers. The state ought to have to pay the heirs of a person killed in prison $10 million. No questions asked. He dies, they pay. That would get the public’s attention. I don’t think anything less will.
No. Gun control is not about ending evil. This is about dealing responsibly with 280 million firearms on the loose in one country. If we can get a handle on that, then maybe we’ll take on the Adam and Eve and Original Sin thing and so on. One job at a time.
I'm glad you're sad the Supreme Court does not regard the 2nd Amendment as immune to laws both state and Federal. That's an urban myth.
The Republicans have passed a law shielding the gun manufacturers from legal liability in cases of mis-use of firearms. What does that tell you? What kind of “moral value” is that?