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.

 

Guns, what good are they....?

page: 12
6
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Voxel
 



Hoooah!! Now that's preparedness
. Let's see your average garden variety mugger mug those three younguns. Must say, I approve whole heartedly.




posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 11:36 PM
link   
Good point. Guns are just a tool like fire extinquishers. Guns happen to be the single best tool against predatory humans (and animals, for that matter).

Three times in my life I have faced attempted robbery. The first 2 were in Chicago, where handguns are banned. I was attacked once by a bigger, stronger guy, and another time by multiple guys. In both cases I was beaten and lost my money.

The third time was in Seattle, WA, where gun permits are readily available. When a guy tried to rob me, I was armed. I advised him to buzz off, and that's just what he did. I wasn't touched, and I lost no money.



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 05:18 PM
link   
Since the 1997 UK hand gun ban, gun crime hasn't fallen.


But anyway, why have a gun or a knife to defend yourself? Why not a stun gun, pepper spray, or even a baton?


Oh wait, they're all considered 'Offensive weapons' and are banned too....



Well, you'll always have one of the oldest most trusted weapons, the mighty sword!


Oh wait, in April this year those are being banned too...




Taking away one freedom only leads to more freedoms being taken away. It's a slippery slope from there. Infact, the only way to protect yourself in this country is to cry out loud and hope the rest of the flock hear you in order to alert the farmer (Who happens to carry an 'offensive weapon' you will be relying on to protect you).







[edit on 3-2-2008 by Spreadthetruth]



posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 04:17 AM
link   
And the main point gets lost behind the rhetoric yet again.

The sole purpose of a gun is to kill. It emits a pellet of metal whose function is to penetrate flesh and cause damage to humans and animals. It has no other function. It is not a tool that can be put to other uses. A knife, and axe and even a sword can be used to cut many things, but there isn't much point in shooting anything other than a living creature.

People choose to use guns to defend themselves because if you point a gun at someone, that someone will instantly appreciate the deadliness of the object that's aimed at them, if not necessarily of the person aiming it. They know it isn't likely to tickle them or nudge them or speak harshly to them, it's probably going to kill them. There are, sadly, a great many people who feel they cannot protect themselves without killing someone else. Their lives are, of course, of far more value than their victims'. As is their property, naturally.

So, it comes down to mindset. The willingness to take a life demands the possession of the wherewithal to do it. But the annoying thing is that you can only rarely accidentally kill a person with anything other than a gun - or a car, but a car has other functions, too. Add to that the complexities involved in choosing to kill a person with anything other than a gun and you will quickly see why it is the weapon of choice of so many imbalanced folk around the world.

If the frontier paranoia that justified the possession of firearms throughout the colonisation era in the USA were taken out of the American psyche, I have no doubt that even Chuck Heston would see how ludicrously excessive a means of personal defence a gun represents.



posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by hidatsa
 



The sole purpose of a gun is to kill. It emits a pellet of metal whose function is to penetrate flesh and cause damage to humans and animals. It has no other function


You need to seriously think this through and carefully. I will help you by reminding you that governments have the most number of military style firearms in any country. I will also remind you that governments are the entity most responsible for disarming their people. Ironically it is also governments who make such pompous speeches and so often about Peace Peace Peace for purposes of re election.

I will also remind you that it was a "Governing Body" like the United Nations, Backed by the Clinton Administration. which removed the mercinay force "Executive Outcomes " from Serria Leonne after Executive Outcomes had instituted a level of stability and security in areas of the country for which the UN could not. When the UN entered Serria Leone they instituted gun control removing guns from the posession of many of the people, and when the rebels re entered after re arming even the UN could not protect the people...much less thier own military. What a farce the UN is as a governing body.

It is the same situation in the Sudan today. UN ineffectiveness.

The UN has alot of egg on its face in addition to the lives of millions of peoples while promoting gun control world wide. The UN is ineffective at governing anything but effective only in self promotion. Sound familiar..it is pure politics/self promotion on the backs/lives of others.

I will also remind you Hidasta...that sport shooting is very popular ..target shooting...no one is killed or shot. What on this earth are you thinking??
Ever heard of shooting clays??

The most brutal killing instrument in this country is the automobile. This knowlege and history are easily discernable in any source of records.
Please think carefully before posting such concepts as you are wont to do.
The automobile is a huge moving pellet of metal. They are moving everywhere...all day and night long in this country. You can also add to the automobile busses and tractor trailers.

I will be taking my gun on my moped to the shooting range today with my reloaded ammunition and shooting at paper targets.

One more thing..Hidatsa...you might want to find informations and statistics on how often a gun of some type is used in this country to defend and protced persons and private property and often without a shot being fired. Ironically this is not a piece of informations you will find in most of the everyday news media here...or elsewhere. This concept is clearly noted in most positions for gun control by its very abscence....that is ...for those of us who can even think this far.
I find it very ironic ...the abscence of this concept in the body politic and the new media who shill for them. The media too are pure politics.

Thanks,
Orangetom

[edit on 4-2-2008 by orangetom1999]



posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by andre18

you would also see a drastic uptick in crime rates involving knives, bats,


Yeah, there actually is a lot of that kind of stuff in Australia, gangs going around with knives and bats and stuff......but can you honestly tell me you'd rather guns in the hands of gangs then bats and knives.....?

For one......you get shot, you're basically dead.....you get stabbed, a few weeks in hospital should heal you up, a bat causes a few broken bones and a few months in hospital.....but that's better then death...is it not.....?

You’re far more likely to die from a gun, then you are from a knife or bat...



Andre 18,

I cannot believe you post such nonsense and have it pass for excellence or morality. The above quote from back on page 4 of this thread. I apparently missed this the first time around.

YOu are making the very point I am about in expendability and disposability of others to put ointment on your feelings. People are not expendable or disposable for your sentiments or needs. This is exactly the mindset of criminal elements in breaking into people homes, causing injury to them, and taking their hard earned propertys.

You cannot possibly believe you claim moral high ground when you are justifying injury to people in such a manner. YOur mindset here in justifying injury to others rather than the ability to defend is exactly that of a criminal. Self justification. It is also exactly the justification of many in the body politc..which is the same as the justification of the criminal element. It often doesnt look that way because of window dressing but thinking people know the truth of this.

Ordinary peoples are not expendable and disposable for yours or others sentiments in such a way as to justify injury to them for your feelings. People who can still think for themselves know this does not make good nonsense.

Do you even know what the death and life long injury rates were in times when edged tools or weapons were used in Ancient wars. It was much higher than in times of firearms. You do know this correct???

Be very careful before you attempt to sacrafice the lives, safety, and futures of others on the emotional altar of your sentiments. It is clearly immoral.

YOu know...Andre18...some group years back came out with a sticker to be placed on the glass of homes. It said...something to the effect that this home was protected by Arms. Or the owners of this property are armed. Nothing inside is worth riskng your life for. Something to that effect.

And you know Andre18...even anti gun people are not stupid enought to come out with a opposing sticker that says.... There are no firearms in this home. Why do you suppose that is??

Nonetheless ..please think before you post such nonsense as injury to others in place of your justification and dred against gun violence. It clearly shows you no better than the criminal element or even a politician doing the same. I will say it again..only public education can dumb people down this far. Ordinary people are not this dumb. And who pays for public education...politicians...got the connection yet??
You will lose a great deal of respect even from anti gun peoples with this kind of very poor justification.

Thanks,
Orangetom

[edit on 4-2-2008 by orangetom1999]



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 06:16 AM
link   
reply to post by orangetom1999
 


Hi, orangetom. May I quote you ... ?


"You need to seriously think this through and carefully. I will help you by reminding you that governments have the most number of military style firearms in any country."

Thank you very much for your kind and generous help. I am quite the moron you appear to think me and hadn't thought to include a discussion on military armaments as the op hadn't mentioned it. Silly me.


"I will also remind you Hidasta...that sport shooting is very popular ..target shooting...no one is killed or shot. What on this earth are you thinking??
Ever heard of shooting clays??"
And to think that by mentioning the killing of animals in my post (in fact the opening paragraph, which you kindly quoted), I must have forgotten that people shoot at them, too, in order to kill them. A laudable entertainment that has only a positive impact on nature.

As for shooting clays, in fact I'm quite partial to shooting inanimate objects myself and have won quite a lot at carnival stalls (seriously, I'm not kidding here), and I'm aware of the irony. However, my original point was that guns are designed by gun designers and manufacturers for the sole and specific purpose of killing, and the BB guns designed for fairground sport are watered-down versions of these and not the objects under current discussion. Otherwise, I'd have included a para on spud-guns and catapults.


"The most brutal killing instrument in this country is the automobile. This knowlege and history are easily discernable in any source of records."

I gave a passing mention to this fact, myself. Glad to see we're on the same wavelength, here.


"Please think carefully before posting such concepts as you are wont to do."

I'm flattered that you are even aware of what I'm "wont to do"? This is only like my third post in two years and in none of those am I aware of thinking carefully before posting my concepts - although I do try, I have to confess. I find thinking quite the most important forerunner to conceptualising.


"I will be taking my gun on my moped to the shooting range today with my reloaded ammunition and shooting at paper targets."

I wish you well. Good hunting. Those pesky paper targets!


"One more thing..Hidatsa...you might want to find informations and statistics on how often a gun of some type is used in this country to defend and protced persons and private property"

Which brings us neatly round to the point of my thesis, with which you seem to agree, that it is the mindset of gun-users that I call into question, the need for such weapons in the first place and how poor a society we live in where devices of death and murder are desired and demanded by members of a peaceful public.


Sarcasm aside, you don't seem to be arguing against my argument so much as against what you think my argument ought to have been. Please read my first post again, orangetom, if you have the time, but with a slightly more open mind.



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 07:24 AM
link   
reply to post by And1balla2829

Some people, like myself, like to go hunting. I live in Wisconsin, I go up north during hunting season with my dad. What's wrong with going Duck hunting?

 



Ask the duck.



There must be something seriously wrong with me. I can't think of anything more depressing than enjoying the process of taking lives or, if I fail to do that successfully, causing bodily harm to another living creature. I strongly resist gassing insects in my home, eschew cadavers in my freezer and have only rarely felt murderous intent towards other drivers. And yet, I love a good action-adventure flick with lots of shooting, ripped tee-shirts and blooded noses; I love a rollicking good western with lots of gunfights and shoot-outs. Still, I suppose I do less harm than some folk who have the reverse in-built philosophy.

[edit on 5/2/08 by hidatsa]



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 01:37 PM
link   
MAN is a super predator. Man is an animal, that does not have to run down his prey, and bite it's neck until it dies. Man learned early on, the surest and fastest way to kill something, is to poke a hole deep into it's flesh, because everything dies, when you punch or poke a deep enough hole in it! We used slings,spears,arrows and pits filled with sharpened stakes to kill our prey or enemy. WE found it easier to sneek up and kill something from a distance, rather than up close and personal. Sword and axe fought battles were gruesome. We searched for something better and
and invented newer and improved ways to kill from a distance. The best way to kill is still to put a hole in it. Or just blow it too pieces.
Gun power was the discovery that allowed us to reach out and touch someone from a distance, without putting ourselves in harms way.
A large caliber speeding bullet, will punch a hole through your prey or enemies head, dropping them in their tracks. No more spears, axes, swords, slings or death pits. Bullets work fast, from a long way away, and are very efficient in putting the hole right where you want it to be.
Until we have perfected the lazer gun, we will continue to use the good ole
fashioned copper jacketed bullet.
Man will always be a killer. It is in his nature. You cannot just say," OK everyone, time to stop killing things". It will not work.
MAN, especially males, have the killer gene in them. It is in our DNA. WE hunt, we kill, we eat. We offer our fresh kills to our sexual partner, thus perpetuating the species. "Metro-sexualism" is a perversion of what a real man is about. He is the TOP male breeder of his pride. He selects the female/s from the best ones he can find and conquer, and then kills things to keep them fed and assure that his offspring survives.
MAN will always have other males who will want his female, his domain, and his hunting ground. ( i.e.-jobs=money )
A man who does not keep his eyes on his empire, will lose it too another man who is stalking, circling and sniffing the air at every moment. Life is a constant struggle, and it requires you too bare your fangs, and keep your claws toughened. And for the Human, if the need arises, a big bang followed by a massive hole in the chest of the aggressor, is what keeps things peaceful and in check. This is the way it is, and it will always be thus. Large, deep, traumatic holes punched into people works best. It is quick, and usually only requires one hole to do the job.
Of all the ways to kill off another living thing, the bullet reigns supreme!
I LOVE IT! Learn to shoot accurately, and fear nothing. Chose to live defenseless, your life is up for grabs. This is the Animal Kingdom, welcome too it!
NOW! go and urine mark your territory.

UFOBH



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by hidatsa
 


The next time I run across a duck capable of carrying on a conversation, I'll be sure to get his/her opinion on gun control.
.

As I stated in my last post, however many pages ago, handguns are what level the playing field in a life or death situation, physically you may be overwhelmed by a larger, faster opponant. With a handgun, however, and the proper training, suddenly the odds become a little less overwhelming, even if the bad guy has a weapon of any sort. That's all a handgun is, an equalizer.



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 06:06 AM
link   
reply to post by UFOBountyHunter
 


Gee, I'm glad I don't live in your world



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 03:04 PM
link   
I have never read so much waffle in all my 55 years and 189 days. Two simple questions for those of you who own weapons.

a. Have any of you peered through your iron sights at somebody firing at you or aimed at the muzzle flashes of the enemy weapons?

b. Have any of you recently served your country and by that I mean undertaken combat tours in Greneda, Somalia, Panama, Iraq [Ist world tour] Kosovo, Afghanistan or Iraq [2nd world tour]?

If your answer is a quick and simple 'NO!', what gives you the 'right' to pass judgement on people like me who has and, more importantly, what makes you think you are even qualified to offer an opinion about shooting at another human being or being shot at?

The hardest thing to do for any person, even fledgling gun-toting gang members, is to pull that trigger for the first time.

To know that you have 'probably' taken another human life, is something that will haunt you for the rest of your life! Period! Forget all the Hollywood macho crap. Real life and real events are not like that.

Once you pull that trigger, there's no going back - EVER! You will feel guilt for the rest of your days - even when wearing your country's chosen uniform, safe in the knowledge that you have done your duty, as your country requires you to do.

With soldiers and 'Squibs', they don't get the luxuary of grabbing a few brief moments to think about what they have done. The adrenalin is pumping and the bad guys are shooting at you and your mates and you return fire until they fall dead or you are killed.

The difference with soldiers is, as time goes by and the contacts become more frequent, your mind adjusts to what is happening and makes it easier for you to get the job done.

But when you get back off patrol and are sitting on your bunk, head in your hands sobbing uncontrolably and are shaking like a leaf - THEN and only then, can most of you guys offer an opinion.



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 03:17 PM
link   
Fritz. To answer your question. No, I haven't aimed my handgun at anyone with intent to kill them. I have, however, badly hurt people in my time. It's nothing I'm proud of, and it haunts me to this day. So I have every right to voice an opinion. Even if I hadn't done anything in my life, I'd still have the right to voice an opinion, as does anyone else herein, regardless of whichever side of the issue they reside.

The more opinion, the more insight there is.

Twaddle? Maybe, then again, maybe not. People looking in from the outside, can oftentimes offer insight that those who have been there may lack, just as those who have been there can oftentimes offer insights that we lack.



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by hidatsa
People choose to use guns to defend themselves because if you point a gun at someone, that someone will instantly appreciate the deadliness of the object that's aimed at them, if not necessarily of the person aiming it. They know it isn't likely to tickle them or nudge them or speak harshly to them, it's probably going to kill them. There are, sadly, a great many people who feel they cannot protect themselves without killing someone else. Their lives are, of course, of far more value than their victims'. As is their property, naturally.


Here are Chapters 4 and 8 of the Progressive Gun-Grabber's Bible, abridged edition:

4) Only paranoids believe that they need some sort of protection from "bad" people. These paranoids must be forcibly detained and drugged for their own good, and isolated so not to infect the public with their delusions. Such delusions include ones of judicial corruption and favoritism leading to bad people going unpunished.

8) Since people are all equal, they are all capable of equally settling their differences by physical means. Only cowards need to resort to guns and other weapons. If they feel that their life may be in danger, they are paranoid. If they feel they are physically incapable pf being manly, they need to pump iron at the local gym.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 06:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by seagull I have, however, badly hurt people in my time.


I don't mean to belittle you or pry Mr Seagull but 'badly hurt people'?

If you mean you hurt people by the spoken word or by emotive actions, yes! You most certainly are qualified to talk about emotions but NOT about the physical act of shooting somebody.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 07:43 AM
link   
I hope I'll never be qualified to to talk about the act of shooting someone. I personally think that Fritz has really had the last word on this subject and we should, probably, let it rest there.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by fritz
 


I suppose I have hurt people emotionally...but that isn't what I was refering to. ...and we'll leave it at that. As I said, nothing I'm even remotely proud of, and would just as soon not have repeat that particular event in my life. Suffice it to say, I know what I'm capable of when pushed too far.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by hidatsa
 



No actually he doesn't. He does have a viewpoint that most don't. That doesn't make other views any less valid for all of that. I respect his views. I also respect the view points of people who haven't shot at, or shot, someone.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by seagull reply to post by hidatsa[/url]
 
No actually he doesn't. He does have a viewpoint that most don't. That doesn't make other views any less valid for all of that. I respect his views. I also respect the view points of people who haven't shot at, or shot, someone.


Seagull, I accept what you say and thanx for accepting my point of view.



posted on Feb, 10 2008 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by andre18

I know what you mean about the military being useless and worthless. I agree..we should never have sent the military to the tsunami areas in the Pacific a couple of years back. We should have sent no one or nothing. This is not a job for our military which should be shut down. I am sure private doctors and private institutions would gladly give up their profit and take up the tsunami survivors!!!


Ok...so I basically understand what you're saying......but when it comes to things like the tsunami disaster.....you don't send people with guns to such places.....you send food aid, doctors, builders, etc anyone but people who specializes in the art of killing.......who know how to kill someone like it's second nature.....Just tell me how such people can help such a disaster...



I suppose I should know better than to expect such provincialness being a high moral ground. or a standard of excellence...moral fiber...but such postings from time to time still astonish me. I really should know better.

There are few people of which I know better qualified to know the value of Peace than those who have paid the price in war and conflict. Those who have worn a uniform and sleep/dream with the faces of what they have seen and done. Those who have taken risk with their lives and lives of comrads with no safety net under them..only thier skills and a prayer.
These are people who intimately know the value of Peace.

There are also fewer people qualified to aid humanitarian efforts than the military with thier huge rapid transport capabilities.

Andre 18 it appears that certain facets of history are not your forte. The military has made huge strides in the ability to deliver huge cargos by air and sea since the end of WW2. Large air transport has come of age as well has containerized cargo. My own father flew in the Berlin Airlift. YOu do know what that was...correct?? This history is not missing from your education ...yes?? Aircraft operating from an aircraft carrier has also come of age. The technique used by militarys carrying out humanitarian missions is to strip the aircraft carriers of most of its fixed wing Aircraft and carry rotary winged craft...helicopters...and large ones too. This means heavy lift capacity necessary for immediate humanitarian aid.

One of the reasons these huminatarian aide military folks often carry weapons is that they are in danger of being overun and killed by an unruly public while dispensing the aid. This has been demonstrated and documented by groups like the United Nations in the face of a desperate and unruly populace. Also an unruly populace often turn on each other for the aid if not enough is delivered on trips to and fro a landing site in order to meet demands. YOu should already know this informations.

Most certainly most career politicians are to me not qualified to know Peace verses pompus speechs and finance public education in the same.

Idealism Andre 18 is fine ..and Peace to be eagerly sought. But temper with some common sense and knowlege of reality. Not runaway emotions and glands.

Orangetom




top topics



 
6
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join