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.

 

At least 4 shot, 1 dead after shooting at Christian retreat in Calif.

page: 3
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
That being said...
Take away the EASIEST means to kill and the killing will surely decrease.


Then we're right back to magically making all firearms and tools and knowledge to create such arms disappear. Keep in mind the U.S. isnt some island next to another smaller island full of sheep. We have the pleasure of bordering South America and all of those war torn/cartel run countries.

So what was the point of going on post after post?
We went in one pointless circle.




posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Ridhya
 


Umm no you shouldn't, at least not here in America. You see here in America citizens have an innate right to bear arms for the defense of themselves, their state, and their country, also for killing game, and we take that right very seriously. It'd be pretty hard to protect our country from people with ak's, etc when all we have are handguns.

A law abiding citizen wouldn't steal your high powered weapon now would they
. And if you allow a citizen to steal your high powered weapon then maybe you shouldn't have them either, because if you aloww them to be stolen you are creating a risk to the general public.

No, law abiding citizens aren't going to use your high powered weapons against you, because they abide by the law. Kind of like handguns are unconstitutionally banned here in Chicago, so i don't have one, and i have family members, and friends that own them but keep them in the next county where they are not banned, which would make us law abiding citizens. I think the only time a law abiding citizen would take up arms against leo's would be in defence of their country, which it is every citizens right and duty to protect their country.

Citizens have EVERY reason to own more than shotguns and rifles, as they have a right to protect their families, state, and country.

How can they possibly be being bought legally by "law abiding citizens" if they are in turn selling them to criminals??? Do you understand what a law abiding citizen is? If a person is a law abiding citizen , they would not legally purchase a gun and then turn around and sell it to a criminal as that would be against the law.

If the main problem is assualt weapons, then why should we be limited to only shotguns and rifles, what's wrong with handguns ? And a pump may not be compact but it is easy to take apart and reassemble if someone wants to conceal it.

Well that's why i have other weapons also because using a gun would be my last resort and used only if absolutely neccessary. If i can spray someone with my pepper spray and whack em upside the head with something to keep em down until the police arrive that's what i'd do, but if someone's got a gun pointed at me that's not gonna work now is it ? I seriously doubt that there are too may leo's that are going to use pepper spray, or a taser when a suspect has a gun
.

No my first thought is not to shoot someone breaking into my house, my first thought is that if they see that i also have a gun they may just leave.

Would i really kill them ? You damn well better believe it !!! If someone broke into my home and was about to kill one of my sons, my grandchildren, my dogs, myself and left me no choice, i'd rather injure them, but damn straight i'd kill them if need be ! If that's disturbing to you, sorry for ya, i don't know anybody that would just stand idle while someone killed their family. Are you saying that if someone broke into your house and was intent on killing, or raping your family, that you would just sit there and let them do it ?



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 10:12 PM
link   
Another one of these I see.

Oh well... here we go again.

Gun Control is BS and would do nothing to deter crime as CRIMINALS & LUNATICS do not follow the law! MURDER is illegal already, so is armed assault, home invasion, armed robbery, all with "stiff penalties" what good is ANY regulation going to do when criminals and lunatics have "free access" to any weapon they want?

Do any of you understand that TONS and TONS and TONS of dope flow freely into this country every day.... Every criminal or loon who wants drugs (AND GUNS & Unserialized ammo) will get it as easily as they can get marijuana.

ANYONE with half a brain knows this. If you can get coc aine trucked in from Colombia freely, you can get guns and ammo freely.

Until then, I say IMPRESS Me and Prove that criminals and lunatics can no longer get smuggled guns and drugs! Prove it! Because until then your arguments hold NO relevance. (IF THE CRIMINALS AND LUNATICS CAN GET GUNS, NO AMOUNT OF CONTROL WILL DO A BIT OF GOOD but it will greatly increase the crime rate and aggression of the criminals as seen in the UK where you can pack your stuff in boxes for the criminals to make it easier for them to carry... LOL

Let's talk about "Gun Control and Ammo Control" once we have guaranteed that it is IMPOSSIBLE to smuggle drugs, people, and guns into the U.S.

Until then, Please stop trying to disarm, regulate, and "take away" the rights of Law Abiding American Citizens. Because THAT is the only thing these freeking control & limitation "SCHEMES" are for and we all know it.


I am not being politically correct here but right to the point.






[edit on 9-4-2009 by infolurker]



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by InfaRedMan
 


You're correct. The ease with which Americans can get a gun is an issue.

An American issue.

Other cultures, other countries can do what they damn well please.

We'll do the same.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 11:38 PM
link   
First of all, I was assuming that the "godfather" had conceded his point being wrong about knifing rampages after the above poster gave the examples of mulitple knife killings...
Then I was surprised to see that the "godfather" had actually decided just to ignore that tidbit and instead continue spewing the same circular logic that is prevalent in every one of these pointless threads.

Look, here's the scoop. Americans are always going to have their weapons. We were endowed these unalienable rights by our creator.

If they try to take them all away, it will be a fight. I can promise you this.
So, this entire debate is entirely pointless.

Also, so what if they take my guns. If I want to kill a bunch of people in a large crowd unsuspecting, two molotov cocktails would do just fine.

Yes, it is true. You make guns illegal and only criminals will keep them.
Pointless and IDIOTIC reasoning at its finest. As "thisguyrighthere" has said at least twice now, even if you argue that guns shouldn't be anywhere - period, you still have the problem of removing the ability to manufacture them at all!
If you say only the Government should have guns, god help those of us who disagree!


[edit on 9-4-2009 by Jay-in-AR]



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by chise61
 

How DARE you insult me like that! I never implied such things and you are dispicable for saying it, you would never say that to my face because you know you would get slugged for it! Insults rather than points, really, try responding without it.

Second, who's invading your country with AK's?! No one, so your argument is useless. IF a country did Im sure your military would be arming citizens left and right. Until then you dont need assault weapons.

Third, I didnt say steal police weapons, I said some criminal would steal YOUR assault weapons. You are so concerned about them breaking in, right? They could easily take them and use them for a violent crime.

Whats wrong with handguns? Almost all the killings I see are done with handguns. Obviously there is a problem. Easy to use easy to get easy to conceal and walk into a populated area. No one even knows its coming. There's a reason criminals favour them.

Besides I clearly said there should not be a ban on 'all' guns, so dont act like im infringing on your constitutional rights, you talk like its okay to own an atom bomb for crying out loud. Well, it is an arm, and you have the right to bear it...



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 12:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Ridhya
 


NOBODY has the right to own atomic bombs. Not the American Government, the Canadian Government, NOBODY.

You cannot use an atomic bomb and not infringe on international law. It cannot be done.

Therefore, nobody has that right.
Any more senseless arguments?



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 02:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Ridhya
 


First i sincerly apologize for my comments about allowing your weapons to be stolen, i had misread your reply, completely missed the word your, and thought you were saying they may steal the guns from the police.

As far as insulting you, you may want to quote the part where i insulted you as i am unsure as to which part of my reply you are referring to. Other than that i can not respond to your accusation of insulting you since you were so busy with your righteous indignation that you neglected to tell me how i insulted you. You may notice that i didn't get all bent out of shape when you made the accusation against me that my first thought would be to shoot an intruder, don't take everything so personally.

Now as far as you "slugging" me, it's nice to know that an leo is advocating physical violence as a reaction to something that someone said to them, i'd hate to see how you treat the people that you arrest if they say something that offends you. You don't believe in gun violence, but physicallly attacking someone for what they say is ok huh. Aren't you supposed to arrest people for doing what you just threatened to do to me ? Gee wonder why so many have a bad opinion of leo's


I am also assuming that you are a man, perhaps because from what i see most leo's are male. If you are a man it's nice to know that you advocate physical violence against women. But hey i wouldn't say anything to you here that i wouldn't say to your face, and if you feel the need to "slug" me by all means if you're ever in my neck of the woods let me know.

My arguement is very valid. If we were to be invaded our military wouldn't have time to arm the citizens. Which is one of the reasons that we have a second amendment right to bear arms and have a well regulated militia, and since a militia consists of citizens yes we do have a need for the same weaponry as the military. And who's to say that we would be attacked by a foriegn enemy and not a domestic one ?

First you say that everything you see is small and semi auto like modified assualt rifles, semi auto rifles, mac 10's, etc, now your saying almost all the killings you see are done with handguns, make up your mind which one is it ?

Second amendment; "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. No laws shall be passed for disarming the people, or any of them except for crimes commited. So yes technically by banning any form of guns you are infringing on my constitutional rights. An atom bomb, are you actually comparing an atom bomb to a gun ??? Now who's using useless arguements ? IMO absolutely no one should have access to an atom bomb, but that's just my opinion.


Edited for spelling error

[edit on 4/10/2009 by chise61]



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 02:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by purplemonkey
then why don't these shootings occur as frequently in other western countries that have strict gun laws? are Americans just stupider? or is it the guns?

Do you really care to know the answer to those questions? Or Would you like to continue insulting Americans, who live in 1 of the "freest countries" & act as if all of them are dumb for having the right to own guns?

You either serve your government or they've convinced you that they're right to take guns from free people.

[edit on 10-4-2009 by News And History]



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 03:18 AM
link   
40,000 americans die each year in gun deaths. something like half of those are murders. don't put too much stock in the particular incidents the media chooses to make you aware of. most media outlets give their viewers identical narratives. the dow dropped x points because of y. it's meaningless. 4,000 americans die in 5 years of fighting in iraq and it's a travesty. 20,000 americans die every year from gun violence and its... what? normal? the us isn't a war zone? 40,000 americans die every year in car accidents and it's the cost of doing business. mass transit is anti-freedom, anti-individualist, and anti-american (i've been told as much in so many words). but we have to save detroit. this country's priorities are all mixed up.

[edit on 10-4-2009 by N987SA]



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 03:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by chise61
reply to post by Ridhya
 



Second amendment; "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. No laws shall be passed for disarming the people, or any of them except for crimes commited.

[edit on 4/10/2009 by chise61]



today there's something like three guns per man woman and child. in 1776 there was fewer than one gun per landowning man, and only half of those guns actually worked. guns were valuable handmade items, passed on as heirlooms regardless of whether they worked or not. it was a form of property rights. the second amendment meant something very different then than it does now.



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 03:58 AM
link   
i dont think theres a solution to the gun problems in america. The genies out the bottle. Millions of guns in circulation already + its big business.

perhaps the best answer is to allow everyone to carry a concealed weapon. Then folks might stand a chance against these spree killers.

[edit on 10-4-2009 by yeti101]



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 05:58 AM
link   
reply to post by turbokid
 


I hate to dredge this back up but I couldn't resist:


killing seven people



came on the seventh anniversary of a horrific massacre at a Japanese primary, when a knife-wielding former mental patient killed eight



A spokeswoman for the Tokyo Metropolitan Police confirmed that at least six people had been killed



they've charged a man with attempted murder after he allegedly went on a rampage, randomly stabbing two women and running two men down in his four-wheel drive.



the man allegedly stabbed both of them in the neck with a knife



where a woman was stabbed to death early yesterday morning was only the first step in a trail of violence that wounded four more victims


Nowhere in these figures you brought up do I see anywhere near the level of mass-murder committed by firearm-welding maniacs.

7 killed, 8 killed, 6 killed, 2 killed, 1 killed....

Figures don't lie, but liars do figure.

Attempting to use the obviously, proportionally far lower potential for high fatalities with knives to discredit the argument that guns can kill people far more easily, is nothing but circular logic.

When has a knife-wielding maniac killed 30 students in the space of a few hours?

When has a deranged individual at the helm of a truck killed dozens of people in crowded shopping malls?

It's incredibly easy to bring up figures of knife/vehicular-crime to discredit restricting firearms but they have to be PROPORTIONAL.

Okay, so knives can be used to killed on average less than ten people at the one time by a spree killer.

The bottom line here is, nothing kills people faster or more easily than firearms.

You have to prioritise your attention and scrutiny. Saying knives should be restricted if we banned firearms is ridiculous because knives can never cause the level of mass murder than guns can.

The most damaging weapons (and guns are solely offensive weapons unlike knives) need the harshest restriction placed upon them.

It's that simple.

[edit on 10/4/09 by The Godfather of Conspira]



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 06:59 AM
link   
Reply to: The Godfather of Conspira

Still that brings us all right back to the magic disappearance of guns and all gun knowledge. You've beaten this horse to a pulp already.


Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira

Saying knives should be restricted if we banned firearms is ridiculous because knives can never cause the level of mass murder than guns can.


Havent been paying much attention to the goings on in the UK I guess? They banned decorative swords for some ridiculous reason and banned carrying all sorts of knives. Even carrying a pen-knife or multi-tool will get you detained and questioned. You might want to notify the UK politicians of just how ridiculous their knife restrictions are. I dont thi think they are aware.



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by The Godfather of Conspira




ok lets put it to the test. lets see, where have they heavily restricted firearms..?? well lets start with the UK..


THE government was accused yesterday of covering up the full extent of the gun crime epidemic sweeping Britain, after official figures showed that gun-related killings and injuries had risen more than fourfold since 1998.

The Home Office figures - which exclude crimes involving air weapons - show the number of deaths and injuries caused by gun attacks in England and Wales soared from 864 in 1998-99 to 3,821 in 2005-06. That means that more than 10 people are injured or killed in a gun attack every day


well, it didnt work there.. shall we look elsewhere? how about australia??


After Australian lawmakers passed widespread gun bans, owners were forced to surrender about 650,000 weapons, which were later slated for destruction, according to statistics from the Australian Sporting Shooters Association.

The bans were not limited to so-called "assault" weapons or military-type firearms, but also to .22 rifles and shotguns. The effort cost the Australian government about $500 million, said association representative Keith Tidswell.

Though lawmakers responsible for passing the ban promised a safer country, the nation's crime statistics tell a different story:

Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent

Assaults are up 8.6 percent

Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent

In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent

In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily

There has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly.


current.com...

that sucks, well maybe washington DC.. nope, according to the US Bureau of Justice Statistics washington DC ranks number 1 in crime rates. hmmm

how about jamaica??
first lets look at the laws in Jamaica, MANDATORY LIFE sentance, read that again, have an unregistered gun? a bullet? life in prison.


The Gun Court Act was intended to expedite and improve enforcement of the 1967 Firearms Act, which imposed licensing requirements on ownership and possession of guns and ammunition, and prohibited automatic weapons. Firearm licences require a background check, inspection and payment of a yearly fee; and can make gun ownership difficult for ordinary citizens.[4][5] The Gun Court Act established a new court system, the Gun Court, to ensure that firearms violations would be tried quickly and harshly punished. Together, the Suppression of Crime Act and the Gun Court Act allowed law enforcement to disarm entire neighbourhoods.



The Gun Court Act and the Suppression of Crime Act were passed in special simultaneous sessions of the Senate and House of Representatives, and immediately signed into law by Governor-General Florizel Glasspole on April 1.[2] The new court was given several extraordinary features. Most trials were to be conducted in camera, without a jury and closed to the public and the press, in order to avoid problems of intimidation of witnesses and jurors. There was no provision for bail, either pre-trial or during appeal, since all defendants were considered dangerous. Strikingly, conviction for most offences carried a uniform, mandatory sentence: indefinite imprisonment with hard labour.

en.wikipedia.org...

does it work..??? NO


More than 1,100 people have been murdered in Jamaica during the past year - an increase of nearly 30% on the previous year and the highest number ever recorded in a single year.

news.bbc.co.uk...


Jamaica's government is convinced that the country's progress, including
the prosperity of its economy and social welfare of its citizens, will be
permanently stymied if the rising trend of crime and violence is not curbed
soon.


www.highbeam.com...


Shall i continue? i've left out the fact that, obviusly the US has the highest gun ownership rate in the WORLD by a huge margin yet dont even rank in the top 20 countries for gun crimes per capita... we are #24

www.nationmaster.com...

have a good day.



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 



Still that brings us all right back to the magic disappearance of guns and all gun knowledge. You've beaten this horse to a pulp already.


Lol, we have indeed wandering into ad nauseum territory.

Just wanted to let you know though, I appreciate your arguments and surprisingly high level of patience.


It's quite different from the rest of the pro-gun "nuts", if you will, I encounter on here who are nothing short of fanatically opposed to any limitations.

Thanks for listening.



posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by chise61
 

First off reread the last thing you said to me, I gave no indication I would do nothing, and saying otherwise is an insult to me and my family. I happen to take that very personally, I'm basically unoffendable but you managed to find one of my buttons.

I dont know what 'righteous indignation' you are talking about because I never said ban all guns, you seem to have me confused with some hippie or something. Really. Because I want to restrict extremely dangerous arms (you know, assault rifles whose only purpose is to kill people..) makes me think Im so great huh...

Its nice to see I advocate physical violence against women eh, wherever did I say this show me. If you mean because you are a woman, then why is it okay for you to assume that I am a man but not okay for me to assume you are one?!


First you say that everything you see is small and semi auto like modified assualt rifles, semi auto rifles, mac 10's, etc, now your saying almost all the killings you see are done with handguns, make up your mind which one is it ?

I never flipflopped, I said almost all the killings I see are with handguns, all the criminals (ie drug dealers who we bust crackhouses we take down storming gangster slums) they always have MAC-10s AK-47s semi-auto shotguns and the wonderful like... until you are shot at by one I dont think you can truly understand why I dislike the populace owning them.


So yes technically by banning any form of guns you are infringing on my constitutional rights. An atom bomb, are you actually comparing an atom bomb to a gun ??? Now who's using useless arguements ? IMO absolutely no one should have access to an atom bomb, but that's just my opinion.

You have a constitutional right to bear arms, is not an atom bomb an armament? An artillery cannon? A modified howitzer? Why stop at small arms. You either argue you have the right to ARMS or none. I agree no one should have nuclear weapons, no country, no group, no individual.

Read what N987SA said, it is very informational:
post by N987SA

Do you really think that they had assault rifles and submachine guns and high capacity magazines and the like when the constitution was written?! Not like they knew these things would be invented. I bet you they would disagree with people being able to own them.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join