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.

 

The Gun Control Myth!

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 07:29 AM
link   
According to the data from the CDC, found here, the leading cause of death in the US is heart disease. This vastly outranks suicides, homicides, and even accidents (and the "accidental" number includes more than just gun-related deaths).
In short, before everyone starts using gun-related deaths as a reason to try to take away gun RIGHTS in the US, you had better start attacking that heart disease issue.
Basically, what I'm saying is this: when you say you want to take away guns to save lives, you're going to sound pretty stupid unless you first outlaw fast food and mandate adequate amounts of exercise in an effort to save peoples lives who are on the path to heart disease.


So get over it, hippie.

[edit on 8-2-2009 by endless_observer]

[edit on 8-2-2009 by endless_observer]




posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by 5thElement
In the country where most manufacturers are OBLIGATED to put "This is not a toy" warning on many products because of the stupidity of some, one wonders is the gun really for everyone, and how one decides who is to carry a gun ?

There are lots of individuals out there which do feel empowered if they own the weapon, which would not (most likely) engage in conflicts with others if they did not have a gun...

It is a great responsibility, not everyone is made out to have a gun, just like not everyone is made out to be a parent, despite the fact that they wish to be one.

So, yeah, how we decide who is responsible enough to have it ???


It was decided when the nation was founded that the right to bear arms was one shared by ALL citizens. Other than convicted criminals or the mentally ill, that right is for everyone, and we don't get to "decide" that gun ownership isn't suited for a particular person.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by whoswatchinwho
Not coming from a country with a gun culture I find it difficult to understand the mentality behind owning guns.

my understanding though is that the majority of gun owners have them for protection and will probably never be used, with this in mind would it be better to put a tax on the bullets (heard this on an american comics show).

for the ordinary gun owner with no direct intention of using the gun it would be a one off purchase, it would cost the others a fortune so might make them think twice.


Regulating ammunition is no different than restricting guns, and is a measure that would be used the same way; to prevent honest people from being able to use their guns. People use them on firing ranges, and for hunting, and have the right to stockpile ammunition if they want to do so. When a government takes away the guns, people start dying. That is historical fact.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 02:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by 5thElement
reply to post by semperfortis
 


Perhaps, 6 mandatory months in National Guard followed with a free license for life, would be a better approach. Bet those anti-government gun lovers would like that


That's how I learned how to use many weapons (including katyusha's,
)

Seriously, though, I always wondered what is the actual connection between so many guns owned and one of the worst crime rates in the world in this country ?

It could be a mentality thing, but I really cannot point it out for sure


[edit on 7-2-2009 by 5thElement]


If you look at the statistics, they prove that places with more control on guns have more crime, not less. The issue has never been, is not now, and never will be legal guns, but those bought illegally, and no amount of regulation will fix that problem. The criminals do not want their targets able to shoot back.

Mandatory service is no answer, either. Our citizens have the right to carry guns now, and are not required to serve in the military to do so. Available training, ranges, and common sense are the answer, not more regulations. Some cannot serve; should they lose the right to bear arms?



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 02:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
Yep gun control is a myth but not the one you are talking about.

The myth is that liberals and/or Democrats are trying to take away your right to bear arms.

Its article of the constituition and it would take an amendment to the constituition to take away that right... and that is simply not about to happen.

There is nothing wrong with a waiting period nor is there anything wrong with back ground checks...the idea that you need an assult rifle is absurd...

any society that thinks it needs to be armed to the teeth to be safe is a seriously ill society.


You are quite mistaken. First, many liberals are very socialistic/communistic, and want a citizenry that is easily controlled, which means they want people that cannot defend themselves against an unreasonable government run amok. You know, the way the country was made in the first place.

Second, the joke in the White House now has already publicly stated that the Constitution needs to be "changed", along with claiming we need a civilian "force" since we "can't depend on the military". How much clearer does it need to get??

In places where the people are unarmed and defenseless, you have what we can see in many places in Africa, Europe, etc., where people cannot protect themselves, and die by the thousands.

As for what kind of weapon I decide I need, that is MY decision, and unless I use it in a criminal fashion, no one's business but my own.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 02:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Make Speed Limit 45

Originally posted by skoalman88
enacting tougher gun control laws only hurt those who legally obtain firearms since, after all, the criminal, by definition, does not comply with laws.


That's a silly thing to say. That's like saying laws against burglary are useless since criminals won't obey those laws .

And BTW - everyone is a criminal since everyone speeds and drives drunk on the highways.


You are missing the point. Imagine if, to combat burglary, laws were passed to make it illegal to enter the home of anyone else, for any reason, invited or not. This would do nothing to prevent more break-ins, and would sere only to penalize innocent people doing what they have every right to do.

BTW, everyone does NOT speed or drive drunk, and I see no point in such a blanket statement here, since it has zero bearing on the issue.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
First, many liberals are very socialistic/communistic, and want a citizenry that is easily controlled, which means they want people that cannot defend themselves against an unreasonable government run amok.


You might as well say that many conservatives are fascistic, and want a citizenry that is easily controlled through ignorance and propaganda.

Both statements are inaccurate over-generalizations that do nothing to promote an intelligent discussion of the merits, and instead shut down communication.

I know whereof I speak. I for many years was the sole pro-firearm member of a family of hard core anti-gunners (I do not say 'liberals', because, like most real people, they are not so easily pigeonholed).

The real issue is more one of being ill-informed. The anti-gunners with whom I've spoken honestly believe that gun control laws will help. That is, until we talk, with no condescension or dismissal, about the reality. That a well-armed law-abiding citizenry, which makes up the huge vast majority of firearm owners in the US, is the best guarantee of freedom, both from the criminal element and governmental oppression, external or internal.

After substantial extended discussions over many Christmas and other family gatherings, they are now of the position that they do not like 'guns', which is their right of course, and they no longer have a desire to interfere with my, or anyone's right of ownership. They recognize that to address the criminal element, one needs to in the long term modify the culture, and in the short term, communicate in ways the criminal element understands.

The argument is similar to the Free Choice argument... if you don't like guns (abortions), don't get one. But keep your nose out of my decision to do so.

edit for spelling


[edit on 9-2-2009 by Open_Minded Skeptic]



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
It was decided when the nation was founded that the right to bear arms was one shared by ALL citizens. Other than convicted criminals or the mentally ill, that right is for everyone, and we don't get to "decide" that gun ownership isn't suited for a particular person.


Lol, sorry, when it comes to mentally ill, you have no ground here...think about it.

How many crazies are out there that are not officially classified as mentally ill and they really are ? If you think that one of your neighbors is plain nuts, but he is not in the database, how safe your neighborhood really is ? When and if he goes postal, it's lil' bit too late



Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by 5thElement
Seriously, though, I always wondered what is the actual connection between so many guns owned and one of the worst crime rates in the world in this country ?

It could be a mentality thing, but I really cannot point it out for sure



If you look at the statistics, they prove that places with more control on guns have more crime, not less. The issue has never been, is not now, and never will be legal guns, but those bought illegally, and no amount of regulation will fix that problem. The criminals do not want their targets able to shoot back.

Mandatory service is no answer, either. Our citizens have the right to carry guns now, and are not required to serve in the military to do so. Available training, ranges, and common sense are the answer, not more regulations. Some cannot serve; should they lose the right to bear arms?


In many other countries in the world crime rates are much lower then here and guns are much less available to the general public. So, question why we have a lots of violence and crime here then anywhere else in the world is still open and without any clear answer...

When it comes to national guard, I was more like suggesting that people who go there should get a license free for life, versus those who do not who would get it as they were always getting it before (no more regulations, just less for those who served)



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by 5thElement
In many other countries in the world crime rates are much lower then here and guns are much less available to the general public. So, question why we have a lots of violence and crime here then anywhere else in the world is still open and without any clear answer...


There are also countries in the world, for example Finland, where firearm ownership is very high and violence is low. The problem is not one of firearm availability creating violence, it is one of a violent society using firearms as tools of violence. The mainline culture of the United States worships violence. Violence is used as the ultimate threat at all levels, from the federal government to individual households: "Obey 'authority' or get your ass kicked". Such a culture will have episodes of violence, without regard to the tools of choice.



When it comes to national guard, I was more like suggesting that people who go there should get a license free for life, versus those who do not who would get it as they were always getting it before (no more regulations, just less for those who served)


A period of service in the military is not an indication that a person is fit to own firearms in civilian life. Military service implies training in use of firearms, not suitability for ownership. Military personnel, upon transition to civilian life, should get no more or less rights than full-time civilians.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 11:39 AM
link   
Despite the many misinformed comments, I think the debate has gone well. We, the citizenry of the US, have a right to own and operate a firearm. Any law aimed at curbing gun violence only limits the rights of those who legally exercise that right. Owning a gun is not a sickness or illogical. Nor is saying something many may disagree with (freedom of speech), belonging to a particular church or group (freedom of association) etc.

As ladygreeneyes said, in exercising my right to bear arms, I am under no obligation to justify myself to anyone unless I commit a crime.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
Yep gun control is a myth but not the one you are talking about.

The myth is that liberals and/or Democrats are trying to take away your right to bear arms.

Its article of the constituition and it would take an amendment to the constituition to take away that right... and that is simply not about to happen.

There is nothing wrong with a waiting period nor is there anything wrong with back ground checks...the idea that you need an assult rifle is absurd...

any society that thinks it needs to be armed to the teeth to be safe is a seriously ill society.


What constitutes being "armed to the teeth?" More than one gun? More than five? Who has the authority to determine how many is too many? Why should a limit be placed on a right? Should you only be allowed freedom of speech 5 times a year?

Few people have an issue with the background check or the waiting period. However, an issue develops when things such as the aforementioned interfere with one's right to bear arms.

As for why there is so much crime in the US, buy a criminal law book. Take a look at how many things have been made illegal (mainly to take down the Mafia). There is so much crime because we have so many lawyers trying to make money. There is so much crime because lawyers run the country. There is so much crime because the prison industry relies on inmates to make money.

If every crime in the US was a gun crime (shooting someone not a stick-up because a knife could be used there too) then maybe the crime stats would be more relevant.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 02:30 AM
link   
reply to post by 5thElement
 


Well, in the case of the mentally ill, certainly those that have been diagnosed as such, and unable because of it to be responsible with a weapon, could be restricted. For the untreated crazies, nothing we can do.

A lifetime license for military would be a GREAT thing, in most cases. Barring, of course, the normal restrictions, which should still apply.




top topics



 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join