It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by kettlebellysmith
reply to post by bigfoot1212
You missed my point. When you are in possession of a firearm, in order to protect yourself, you still have to be aware of your surroundings, you have to have some sort of plan about what you going to do.
If I walk into a conveinence store, I immediately scan the place, the customers, the workers, everything. I look for exits. And while I'm making looking for the item I want to purchase, I try to stay aware of any movement around me. If someone decides to hold up the place while I'm 30 feet away, I'm not going to try and close on him. I'm going to pull my 9 mil out and shoot him. I will be able to do that because I had a plan.
That was my point.
I believe Chuck Norris proved in court that a man could close from 30' and disarm someone before they could fire the weapon. I don't recall which side he was testifying for. The episode was recorded in his first book.
Originally posted by TheOracle
Sadly I think America has come to a point where there is no point to even talk about banning weapons.
Back then it was mostly used for hunting and for protection in a almost lawless era. Now it doesn't matter that the police is here for protection and that meat can be found in the supermarket, americans use guns for fun (at shooting range) and most worryingly as a "status" symbol and confidence booster.
Sure many sleep better at night when they can feel the barrel under their pillow but in fact it only reveal how they have grown in fear of others.
When too many people have this fear/hate and too many available guns, then gun criminality rises sky high, violence only brings more violence. People buy more weapons and criminals get more of those guns, from the unrest brought after each shooting on the news.
And just the idea of a automatic firearm ban gets people rushing for guns and ammo. No matter how much rationale is put forward, americans will never give up their firearms and we should leave it as it is and let the problem fix itself.
Todd Palin's half sister is arrested for burglary
Todd Palin's half-sister was arrested Thursday after police say she broke into a Wasilla home to steal money for the second time this week but ended up getting caught by the armed homeowner. The woman's 4-year-old daughter was nearby, police said.
Todd Palin is Gov. Sarah Palin's husband. He referred questions to a spokeswoman for the governor, who said the family would have no comment.
Police arrested 35-year-old Diana Palin at a house on West Mill Site Circle near Wasilla's Multi-Use Sports Complex.
Homeowner Theodore Turcott told police an unfamiliar gray 1993 Toyota Camry pulled into his driveway Thursday morning, according to a affidavit filed Friday at the Palmer courthouse. Turcott told police he'd been burglarized twice recently: Someone stole $2,200 on March 26, leaving $400 behind, and after another apparent break-in Tuesday, all but $9 was gone.
So, Turcott told police, when he didn't recognize the woman getting out of the Camry, he grabbed a gun and hid in the bathroom to see what would happen, said Wasilla police Deputy Chief Greg Wood.
Palin made straight for the bedroom cabinet where Turcott kept his cash, Wood said.
Turcott confronted her, detaining her until police arrived, he said.
Originally posted by MrAnonUK
It is beyond me why so many Americans look to state a gun is for self defence, arguing the point 'if I had a gun at that moment.' It is true, a gun could prevent a shooting from happening, but that is merely a draconian approach and excuse to keep hold of a deadly weapon.
How is it that so many pose that scenario, yet fail to note that if a gun was not so easily accessible through your laws that 90% of these shootings would not occur (simply check many other 'fully developed' national statistics on gun crime.) It would be extremely hard to unilaterally withdraw guns from all persons, which of course makes it an incredibly difficult problem to resolve.
It amazes me however that I see so many state others are "sheeple," yet I can so often see the same people condoning the possession of items perfected with only only the soul purpose being to kill another human being. The majority of the world find it not so hard knowing you do not hold a tool for murder based on the claim it can defend themselves, why? beacuse the majority of the world does not ignore the higher probability of damages resulting from a populace readily possessing guns.
These are weapons designed to kill people for purposes of war, perfected for that very 'art,' the producers of these weapons are not considering perfecting them for domesticated use. So ultimately, guns should be banned anywhere and everywhere outside a war-zone, or developers should enter into a pursuit of perfection for domesticated use (which would provide the answer for both parties, yes... even those that act as if they must have weapons of murder otherwise they are being ruled by "the" NWO.)
And please, no our 'constitution' this, our 'constitution' that, doesn't change anything but show a nations inability to progress past popular interests for the greater good of man. It shows adherence to popular draconian writings, many of which need great revision, but many a man cannot, or will not, acknowledge that in the United States an almost ancient document is no longer suitable for a progressive mankind.
Originally posted by secretagent woooman
reply to post by centurion1211
The only problem is, as any cop, medic or gun safety expert will tell you, is that the opposite usually happens. You are far more likely to injure yourself or enrage an offender to the point of murdering you by firing a weapon than you are to defend yourself. Point blank, people panic in those situations and it is not as easy to play Steven Seagal as it looks on tv, I say this as someone who has been in this situation. I'm all for self defense but please be realistic about it, you would have to see them coming to catch them off guard before they pull a weapon and then it can't even be called self defense in court. As desperate as a lot of people are now they are losing inhibitions about seriously injuring or killing someone else while robbing them so fighting back probably is not the best option in all cases.
Originally posted by pooty
perhaps someone should ask Ms. Sawyer if she had been in Binghamton a few weeks ago if she would have prefered to have had a gun or not.I myself have no guns at all however I know I could have one tomorrow by connecting with the criminal element.New York requires handgun permits which I do not posess however I can buy a handgun from the criminal element and the same goes for fully automatic weapons.I think we can all figure out what would have taken place in Binghamton had everyone of the fourteen people now dead had firearms when that nut job started shooting.
"About one-third of the gun-homicide decline since 1993 is explained by the fall in gun ownership." ...
But in More Guns, More Crime (NBER Working Paper No.7967), Duggan uses a new proxy for gun ownership -- state and county-level sales rates for the nation's largest handgun magazine -- to show that guns foster rather than deter criminal activity.