It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Survey: Should we be allowed to have guns?

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 05:44 AM
I don't think the problem is in the guns. If that where the case Canada, Norway, Sweden and Finland, all countries that have an higher per capita gun ratio then the USA, would have thousands of killings every year, and they don't. Me and my companion have 300+ guns in our home and have never shot anyone or any living thing. I guess I could shout a person as a last resort (armed burglary or threat against me), but I would never shoot an animal, since with them there is no last resort (if you don't arras them, or make stupid mistakes, even great predators, like bears and wolves, rarely attack humans).

I do think hunting should be outlawed, I shoot animals with my Nikon cameras, sorry for the free publicity. As for guns I am completely satisfied with the shooting range I usually go to...

posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 05:58 AM
If we had guns we (in england) would have to have a police force to enforce laws which is simpley impossible.

However why arn't people allowed to carry guns when some governments are allowed to use nukes?

We trust governments to use an acceptable use of force to ensure our lives are protected and usually at the cost of other lives.

Who can really say who has the right to take another human beings life away.

It's an unfortunate fact that human beings last resort to get people listening to your point of view is at the end of a 9mm.

So no I don't belive we should have guns the fewer people with them the better

posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 05:58 AM
reply to post by SaviorComplex

Must disagree with you on this one. The US Constitution is Federal, no State has the right to have any laws that in any way violate the Federal US Constitution.

posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 06:18 AM
reply to post by theendisnear69

Guns aren't only good for killing, I am a gun collector and have never killed anything...yet. I hope I will never have to shoot a gun against any living being, that is the reason I am an NRA associate and frequently go to the gigantic firing range of which I am a member...I shoot at targets, static and moving.

I was born in northern Canada, brought up near Toronto, lived in three US states. I have always been near, or in, wilderness regions and ever there, with huge bears, wolves and the likes, have never had the need to shoot at anything. As I see it guns are like airbags, maybe one day you will need one and when that day comes you better be ready.

On another note, in my club I usually shoot at ballistic gel and, or dead pigs. I do this to test the amount of damage some very old guns can do to flesh. I guarantee you that if everybody went to the shooting range regularly and saw the damage that guns can cause there would be far less shootings.

Gun education is also very important, since many deaths and wounds caused by guns are due to accidents resulting from the lack of information many gun owners have about the guns they own. I have seen families destroyed because "daddy left a loaded gun an the house and the little kid thought it was a toy and shot himself or his sister or the babysitter".
Gun education should be mandatory and should start early.

posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 09:31 AM
The Supreme Court just said the the right of citizens to bear arms shall not be infringed upon. What a blow to you all's "NWO".

All you anti-gun whiners---- Na Na Boo Boo!!!

[edit on 23-3-2008 by ibgrimme]

posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 11:10 AM

Originally posted by sumperson
What do you think, should we? Do you think we should have hand guns? What are your general views on the subject?

Personally, I like guns, but with a curious, autistic 10-year old boy in the house and my generally irresponsible/forgetful nature, I choose not to own one. But count me on the side of those who believe it is a right secured and protected (not granted) by the Bill of Rights in the Constitution for these united States.

It seems to me that disarming Americans "for their own protection" and for the protection of "peace officers" was one of the first steps on the slippery slope we now find ourselves hurtling down in this country. It seems to me that a person has a right to protect him or her self from any aggressor, regardless of their intent or uniform, and guns, swords, knives, sharp sticks, blunt sticks, pebbles in a sling, or nuclear weapons are all part of the technological arsenal we have dreamed up for that very purpose. Nuclear weapons in particular are very effective in a deterrent sense, and I would think that if I had one, everyone would want to be my friend!

posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 11:13 AM
The 1st & 2nd Amendments are the 2 that keeps us free. The 2nd Amendment is a doomsday clause for when gov't fails us. Giving up the right to bear arms is a mistake you only make once. All stats show that crime goes up when you restrict guns. The right to self defense should've been the 1st Amendment. Good storyline on this at

posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 12:41 PM

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar

I understand your point. Your making the assumption that whomever you might engage in a "dialogue" with is interested in talking in the first place. You are also assuming that diplomacy solves everything. How did diplomacy work out for Europe before WWI & WWII? Appeasers get overrun. That's a history lesson, IMO, not open to wishful thinking.

Also, why do you make the assumption that a gun owner wants to kill anyone? Again, with that logic, anyone who owns a car is just waiting to have a few drinks and have a nice, drunken killing spree.

Finally, your insinuation that those who own guns are less intelligent is noted, and rejected.

ok, in terms of ww2, i think that was a military/govermental problem, but could have been avoided, if the people would have realised what was happening a littler earlier, but not through guns and shooting the people responsible up. but it was almost impossible due to many factors. especially because of the easy manipulation of the media, and the very bad economical situation in germany these days. i believe there were over 60% of the people unemployed before ww2 started, and hitlers party was elected.

anyway, you're right, this was the point of no return, and diplomacy wasn't a solution anymore, but only because we've failed of scrutinizin and critizising in the first place. but again, this problem could only be solved through govermental cooperation, and even then the nazis gave them a hard time. so civilians wouldn't have had much of an effect in this situation, only if they had acted early enough before these people came into power.

Your argument of "self-justice" leaves out the checks and balances our legal system holds. If someone kills someone else in so-called self defense and it's later proven they did not, they are charged with murder and prosecuted.

ok, just one example, so maybe you get an idea of what i'm talking about:

this is not an exception, this is self-justice and plain wrong, in my opinion. he shot to poor people, who where forced in that kind of life style through a not working govermental system (which is proven over and over again). they only stole something, that's wrong, but they don't deserve to get shot for it.

As far as contradiction to the rest of the world: that's a straw man and irrelevant. Europe may be self-content (as history has shown for the last couple hundred years) to subject itself to an elite ruling class and that the government should supply you with everything you could possibly need (including personal security and safety!) but we reject that thinking.

i was refering to the iraq/afghanistan-war with that statement, which is in my eyes also a act of self-justice on a govermental-scale. this is not opinion, this is fact.

About the police being there to protect you; you're flat-out wrong. At least in this country. This is decided Supreme Court precedence. The police, in this country, are employed to enforce the laws, they are not operating as personal security details. The Supreme Court has ruled - more than once - that the responsibility for security and safety resides with the individual.

see, and for this you pay the price of many innocents getting shot. of course the police and only the police is there to serve and protect the people. at least they get paid by them. this happens through enforcing the law upon those ones who tend to ignore it, you're right, but with the purpose of protecting the rights of the innocents, not just to enforce law (law is only a tool).

[edit on 23-3-2008 by hackbart]

posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 12:46 PM
reply to post by sumperson

I don't own a gun, but if the Supreme Court rules against gun ownership, I will buy one (or more).

posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 01:07 PM

Again, that's European thinking. Nothing wrong with it, per se. But, it's not our thinking and we are not barbarians for having our own beliefs. In this country - as established by law when someone forcefully enters your home, they forfeit certain rights and the homeowner is granted with certain liberties. Specifically, in most states, if someone is stupid enough to break and enter my home and I feel my life, or anyone else within the premises, is in jeopardy I can, in fact, use deadly force to protect my life and property.

The fault isn't my guns, it's with the idiot who thought it wise to break into my home. And that, my friend, is the difference between European thinking and typically American thinking.

There is a really simple solution to the violence. Don't break into my house.

why do you think there's no death-penality for robbers? right, because it's not an adequate punishment for those people. if someone breaks into your house, he's is risking his life. do think someone is risking his life for fun, or do you think there must be a good reason for it? unequalitiy is the answer. just try to solve the problem at the root, not by killing his excrescences. your govermental system is unstabel and doesn't give all people the right medical and social support they need. that's the root, and you won't change a damn thing by shooting innocent victims of this mess up.

Your position is criminals carry guns to protect themselves from law abiding citizens who might prevent them from killing a loved one or stealing property that isn't theirs?! Again, don't rob me, don't break into my home and you wont get shot.

Criminals use/carry guns as tools in which to force themselves upon us. They are not operating under the same sense of right and wrong you and I do. To think if we only gave up our guns so would they is preposterous, IMO.

your assuming you're gonna protect your loved ones some day by owning guns, but ignore that you're loved ones also are in danger or might get killed exactly because of this. not directly because you own a gun, but because everyone owns a gun, and therefore the least not owning and using guns are criminals.

maybe it's a bit naive to think that but, imagine no one owns a gun, and for owning a gun you get, let's say, 5 years prison. do you think a criminal who chose to break into your house would still take the risk of carry a firearm with him to protect them from....yeah, from what? it might not work out in each case. there would still be some individuals who refuse to that, but i think the majority of criminals would start to think twice. next step would be to ensure that nobody has to become a criminal, and everybody gets healthcare and education for FREE, instead of paying billions over billions of tax-money for wars and weapons.

But, it's not for me. I refuse to give in. I am not going to allow some thug to jeopardize my family’s safety, liberty and pursuit of happiness because he might be misunderstood.

so, if it was your family, which is poor and hungry, what would you do?

[edit on 23-3-2008 by hackbart]

posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 03:05 PM
reply to post by hackbart

Robbery is stealing the fruits of someone else's labor, effectively making them your slave. Death to all tyrants!

posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 03:16 PM

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
The second amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting. The Second Amendment was specifically designed to provide a means for the people to oppose the government.. It’s not about hunting, it’s not about target shooting, it’s not about gun and rod clubs. It’s about the right of the people to resist an oppressive government. Period.


Put my check mark in the 'should be able to' column. A citizen can no longer rely absolutely on organized law enforcement protection, not to mention the fact that law enforcement is part of the government at some level.

posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 08:57 PM
The problem isn't with the guns. The problem is with american people, the media's american people. We are fed fear every second of every day. Just watch the news. Would you be upset if the government wanted to destroy all guns? Any gun lovers?


posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 10:45 PM

Originally posted by jackinthebox

Let me share a little story with you. I was working at a gas station one night, when I was still in my teens. A guy walked in just before closing time with his pistol already drawn. This wasn't the first time I had been robbed at gun-point, so I was able to maintain my composure and not add any emotional outburst to the volatile situtation.

After I had handed over a few thousand dollars in cash, the robber said, "What, you think you're better than me 'cause you got a job?!" and fired at me. The first round missed, but I was hit in the arm as I turned to run. Just then, my coworker burst out of the back room with a pistol in his hand, and shot the robber dead with one shot to the head.

There were a few problems though. It seemed a clear case of justifiable homicide, but it was not. My coworker was only 17 at the time. The pistol he used was not registered. His father (the store owner) had left the tiny Kurz backup pistol in the store ever since being robbed less than a year earlier.

So there you have it. Because of idiotic gun laws, my friend went to prison for saving my life.

This complete and total B**L S**T. Your friend IS A HERO. The jury that sent him to jail for this should have to go to jail themselves.

I had a friend that was robbed at a station one night with a 12 gauge shotgun. He got into a scuffle with the guy and got the shells out of the gun then threw the gun down and ran.

I thought I was going to get robbed late one night while I was working at a gas station. When I put the pistol in the face of my friend, he decided it was not very funny to try to scare somebody that late at night. The gun was not loaded because the bullets that were left with me were the wrong size for the gun.

[edit on 23-3-2008 by MBF]

posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 12:47 AM
reply to post by NorthWolfe CND

I do not believe hunting should be banned. Such a measure would be ecologically unsound, and I happen to know several people who still hunt as their primary food source.

However, I am glad that you posted to offer a non-stereotypical perspective on the issue.

[edit on 3/24/0808 by jackinthebox]

posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 01:20 AM
reply to post by MBF

I got a semi-funny one too. I was working at a video store one afternoon when this sixteen year-old comes strolling in with a dumb grin on his face, and tells me to hand over the money. I got the vibe right away that he was only half-kidding. Probably not sure himself. But then again I'm thinking he probably is kidding, since I have seen him in the store before. I handed another cutomer his movies, who was then on his way.

That left me in the store with this kid, and a high school girl who was working the other register in the kiosk. He slaps down the gun on the counter, and said something else. I can't remember what now. Something along the lines of he wasn't kidding. But I remember the gun anyway. Little nickel-plated snub-nosed revolver. Charter Arms if I remember correct. So anyway, the counter is kind of low for my height, and the barrel was not pointed straight at me, so I lean over full palm and weight on the cylinder. As the kid starts to stuggle, I look over and the girl had tears rolling out of her eyes and was frozen in place trembling. She hadn't noticed right away, but she knew what was happening now.

Anyway, the kid starts yanking on the gun and trying to pull the trigger. Thank god the hammer wasn't cocked.

"Let go," he's saying, "gimme da gun."

Now I have the poop-eatin' grin. "No," I chuckled.

"I'm tellin' you man give it up."

"Make me."

Finally the kid manages to pull his finger out, and walks out of the store. The girl starts screaming and I can smell that she peed. I try to calm her down while I'm calling the police, and while waiting for them to arrive.

Now I didn't make a big deal about it on the phone, but I did clearly state that I had just had an attempted armed-robbery. Ten minutes later a cruiser meanders into the parking lot and one cop comes strolling up. This guy actually had the gumption to start interrogating me, and even suggested that I might get arrested for being in posession of an unregistered firearm. To this day I really don't know how serious he was about that, but I finally rewound the surveillance tape to show him.

After that, I went into the back to get the tape for two days prior when I had last seen this kid in the store. He wasn't in there often enough to remember more than his face, but I was able to match the time stamp on the tape, to the transaction in the computer system. That gave me all his account info.

They picked the kid up a half-hour later, but I don't know what they ever did with him. That was the last I heard about it, and the last I saw him.

That was my most amusing hold up I would say.

[edit on 3/24/0808 by jackinthebox]

posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 01:21 AM
reply to post by jackinthebox

Hey jackinthebox, Our founding fathers would have hailed your friend a hero for shooting the robber, I understand we have laws (some are really insane) but it really sucks that in our country when a man breaks into my house wearing a ski mask and holding a gun I have to think about if im gonna get sued first before I think about defending my family, and by the time im done thinking were all dead. Not to mention these scumbag lawyers who play these scumbag criminals out to be victims....Im getting too excited over here....anywase YES I think we should be allowed to have guns, and besides its not up for debate in my mind, its not up too some fat judge to decide, it was allready decided for us 232 years ago, and that still stands now and always.

posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 01:27 AM
reply to post by MBF

The jury that sent him to jail for this should have to go to jail themselves.

This was years ago, but it might have had something to do with his being a fairly dark-skinned Muslim from India.

posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 01:34 AM
reply to post by tac109

Not to mention these scumbag lawyers who play these scumbag criminals out to be victims....

I dunno, I have a certain empathy for the criminals (not the lawyers lol). Desperate times call for desperate measures and all. And I think the corporate states of America has done more than their fair share of causing that desperation.

But by the same token, don't muzzle me in this dog-eat-dog world.

posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 10:12 AM

Originally posted by hackbart

maybe it's a bit naive to think that but, imagine no one owns a gun, and for owning a gun you get, let's say, 5 years prison. do you think a criminal who chose to break into your house would still take the risk of carry a firearm with him to protect them from....yeah, from what? it might not work out in each case. there would still be some individuals who refuse to that, but i think the majority of criminals would start to think twice. next step would be to ensure that nobody has to become a criminal, and everybody gets healthcare and education for FREE, instead of paying billions over billions of tax-money for wars and weapons.

[edit on 23-3-2008 by hackbart]

Yes, IMO very naive. The real world is not the fairy-tale place you believe or hope it to be.

But to answer your questions anyway, yes, there is proof every day that criminals ignore the laws that give much stiffer panalties for using a gun while committing a crime. They do not "think twice" and if they do they choose the gun because the think it does give them an advantage. And just because you think it might work that way, hardly makes it so.

And as for your statement that "it might not work out in each case". That's very little comfort to a victim. What if it was you or your family? Are you just going to lay down? Of course, there is a history of Europeans doing just that (see earlier post).

And "imagine no one owns a gun". Just look at the UK to see what happens when law-abiding people have their guns taken away. The criminals don't top attacking others, they simply choose another weapon. The UK is now trying to ban knives and swords. Take everything way and criminals will still be using sticks and clubs. Imagine no one owns a stick ...

"Ensure that nobody kas to become a criminal". That is the most naive of all your statments. First, if education and healthcare is provided by the government, it is hardly free. You will be taxed (to death?) for the government to provide those services. And the government supplied services aren't that great. Look at Canada for an example. Sure they can get right in for something minor, but go on long waiting list for major medical issues. That's why our border cities are full of canadians seeking major medical procedures. Americans from the beinning of our country generally feel that being heavily taxed is the same thing as being robbed - just the government that is doing the robbing, instead of a crook - so bottom line, what's the difference. Our revolution started as a response to oppressive taxation from England.

And last on this point, you wrongly assume that being a criminal is solely due to a lack of education and healthcare. But clearly, no correlation can be drawn to rapists, child molestors and murderers, doing their crimes because they lack free educations and free health care. They have a "criminal mind" that lets them believe it is OK to commit these acts. Your solution to that would be what, the government going into everyone's brain to program "bad thoughts" out of people like in the book Brave New World? Understand that not everyone wants to end up nothing more than a biological machine under the control of the government.

The best label that can be put on your arguments are that they are naively idealistic for today's world. Last, if you really want to educate yourself on this subject in the U.S., do a Google search and you will see FBI and other statistics that violent crime is reduced whenever a state allows the carrying of concealed weapons. Here's a sample of what you will find:


In a comprehensive study that may reshape the gun control debate, researchers have found that letting people carry concealed guns appears to sharply reduce killings, rapes and other violent crimes.

The nationwide study found that violent crime fell after states made it legal to carry concealed handguns:

Homicide, down 8.5%.
Rape, down 5%.
Aggravated assault, down 7%.

The University of Chicago study, obtained by USA TODAY, is set to be released next Thursday. But its impending release has already sent shock waves through the gun-control debate because of the effect it may have on one of the most controversial areas of gun law.

Why did crime fall in CCW states. Simple. This law finally was the thing that made criminals think twice, or the criminals moved on to places like D.C., California, or college campuses where they knew their victims would be defenseless.

[edit on 3/24/2008 by centurion1211]

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in