Doesn't ANYONE here have an issue with unmonitored gun ownership?

Originally posted by Donnie Darko

I have a question though: do you CARE about those poor people who are shot by these crazies because YOU want your rights?

I care and would have not told those people they werent allowed to defend themselves in my business/school.

How sick is it to demand people roll over and die should they be confronted with a violent variable? Gun-free zones are nothing but pens to hold sheep for slaughter.

reply to post by Donnie Darko


You said, "I have a question though: do you CARE about those poor people who are shot by these crazies because YOU want your rights?"

Surely you are not suggesting that a little thing like a gun law is going to keep the "crazies" from getting guns?

Mexico has gun laws, yet the drug lords are better armed than the Federales. I am sure that you are going to say, "they get their guns from us". I know that has been reported in the MSM but it simply isn't true. The Drug Lords have AKs, grenade launchers, and RPGs. You cannot buy these items in the US. They got them by breaking into armouries in Mexico and the US.

If some is bent on breaking the law, there is no law that is going to stop them.

All your gun laws do is keep law abiding citizens from arming themselves.

I would point out that Klebold and Harris, obtained their guns illegally. Also, the administrators at the school knew that they were unstable and they were in counciling. A better solution would have been to allow the school to expel them, but that would be unfair to the "crazies". So we offer our children up to the killers in the interest of being fair to the killers.

By the way, if you have a disturbed individual with a gun and you take away the gun, you are left with a disturbed individual. These types of individuals will find some other outlet to satisfy their murderous cravings. Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, Jefferey Dahmer, none of these guys used a gun. Also, the 9/11 attack was carried out with box cutters. Guns or no guns the "crazies" will find a way to kill.

Originally posted by lunarminer
reply to post by Donnie Darko

 

You said, "I have a question though: do you CARE about those poor people who are shot by these crazies because YOU want your rights?"

Surely you are not suggesting that a little thing like a gun law is going to keep the "crazies" from getting guns?

Mexico has gun laws, yet the drug lords are better armed than the Federales. I am sure that you are going to say, "they get their guns from us". I know that has been reported in the MSM but it simply isn't true. The Drug Lords have AKs, grenade launchers, and RPGs. You cannot buy these items in the US. They got them by breaking into armouries in Mexico and the US.

If some is bent on breaking the law, there is no law that is going to stop them.

All your gun laws do is keep law abiding citizens from arming themselves.

I would point out that Klebold and Harris, obtained their guns illegally. Also, the administrators at the school knew that they were unstable and they were in counciling. A better solution would have been to allow the school to expel them, but that would be unfair to the "crazies". So we offer our children up to the killers in the interest of being fair to the killers.

By the way, if you have a disturbed individual with a gun and you take away the gun, you are left with a disturbed individual. These types of individuals will find some other outlet to satisfy their murderous cravings. Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, Jefferey Dahmer, none of these guys used a gun. Also, the 9/11 attack was carried out with box cutters. Guns or no guns the "crazies" will find a way to kill.

First of all: then why does America have so many more gun murders than Canada? Canada has TONS of guns and gun control laws.

Second, there's a difference between people who commit murder-suicide and serial killers. So the comparison doesn't work.

Originally posted by Donnie Darko

First of all: then why does America have so many more gun murders than Canada? Canada has TONS of guns and gun control laws.

You ask that like there's just some 'matter of fact' one-line answer.

People have been spending countless amounts of time and money trying to figure it out.

Population density, glorification of 'ghetto' culture, single parents, violent entertainment media, drug market, fluoride in the water, government education, political correctness, welfare, etc...

The factors are as relative to the individual as they are infinite in variable.

You figure it out and we'll make you emperor of Earth.

reply to post by Donnie Darko


Hey I can do that too! States like Wyoming and Alaska have the highest per capita gun ownership, the fewest laws, and the lowest gun violence per capita! See how that works?

Your statement is meaningless. I could also point out that Great Britiain has seen an increase in gun related murders since they banned the ownership of handguns. Oops!

Those who have no respect for the law are not detered by laws.

Last of all you said, "Second, there's a difference between people who commit murder-suicide and serial killers. So the comparison doesn't work"

What evidence do you have that there is a difference between a guy who shoots up his school and a serial killer? Klebold and Harris had the classic psychological markers of serial killers. They just chose a different way to express themselves. Troubled homelife, torture of animals, need for attention, desire to kill, etc. There have been a numer of articles on this subject.

Also, I gave examples of other situations, like terrorism and the Mexican Drug Lords. What is your response to those examples?

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by Donnie Darko

First of all: then why does America have so many more gun murders than Canada? Canada has TONS of guns and gun control laws.

You ask that like there's just some 'matter of fact' one-line answer.

People have been spending countless amounts of time and money trying to figure it out.

Population density, glorification of 'ghetto' culture, single parents, violent entertainment media, drug market, fluoride in the water, government education, political correctness, welfare, etc...

The factors are as relative to the individual as they are infinite in variable.

You figure it out and we'll make you emperor of Earth.

True, America is just a violent society. Canada is not.

Originally posted by Donnie Darko

True, America is just a violent society. Canada is not.

Human beings are violent. Canada has it's violent areas but comparing two nations is stupid. New Hampshire is less violent than Canada. What's that info worth? Nothing really unless you're looking to move.

Crime US v. Canada (PDF)

Canadas metro population is 30 million. The U.S.'s is 280 million. Move to where there are no people and things get pretty damn peaceful.

[edit on 9-4-2009 by thisguyrighthere]

First, here's map I've posted several times on these gun-o-phobia threads that shows the truth about so-called "gun free zones".

map

Second, here's another article and poll showing that support for stricter gun laws in the U.S. has dropped dramatically in the last year.

article and poll

Last, the solution to this question is very simple. If you are a gun-o-phobe, by all means stay away from them and pray that no criminals ever cast their greedy eyes on you or your family.

At the same time, do not attempt to deny my the right and opportunity to legally protect myself and my family as I see fit.

Originally posted by lunarminer
reply to post by Donnie Darko

 

Hey I can do that too! States like Wyoming and Alaska have the highest per capita gun ownership, the fewest laws, and the lowest gun violence per capita! See how that works?

Your statement is meaningless. I could also point out that Great Britiain has seen an increase in gun related murders since they banned the ownership of handguns. Oops!

Those who have no respect for the law are not detered by laws.

Last of all you said, "Second, there's a difference between people who commit murder-suicide and serial killers. So the comparison doesn't work"

What evidence do you have that there is a difference between a guy who shoots up his school and a serial killer? Klebold and Harris had the classic psychological markers of serial killers. They just chose a different way to express themselves. Troubled homelife, torture of animals, need for attention, desire to kill, etc. There have been a numer of articles on this subject.

Also, I gave examples of other situations, like terrorism and the Mexican Drug Lords. What is your response to those examples?

Still, there is no evidence that guns have any effect on crime.

As for the serial killer/shooting relationship - sure, maybe Eric and Dylan had the serial killer mindset, but that doesn't mean all of them did. I don't think Chris Benoit did, though I could be wrong.

reply to post by Donnie Darko


You said, "Still, there is no evidence that guns have any effect on crime."

I thought that the point of your whole thread was that the availability of guns caused more crime? I would call that an effect, wouldn't you?

If this is not what you are saying, then please clarify your position.

My position is that we have a right to bear arms based on our history. We need a populace who can arm itself to deter the abuses of power that our Founders feared.

I know that you don't share that view, since you are a Canadian and your ancestors sat out the Revolution. (Most of them, some actually fought for the Brits) So, it took you guys an extra 150 years to become a semi-independent nation. Where we have been 100% independent for a much longer time.

From my perspective, criminals will use whatever tool is on hand. If they can get an A-bomb they will use it, if not they will use an aircraft, a gun, a knife, a bomb, a stick, or their bare hands.

Disarming the populace simply means more opportunity for the criminals. That is why many criminals seek out areas where they know the victims are unarmed, like airliners, airports, schools, campuses, work places, etc.

In short reducing guns does not reduce the number of criminals and it also does not affect the availability of weapons to those who do not obey the law.

reply to post by lunarminer


A note, I checked Donnie Darko's Avatar and see that he lists Western Oregon as his home. So, if he is not actually a Canadian then I apologize. I don't want to insult the guy needlessly, not that being from Canada is an insult either.

I vote in favor of no control or monitoring what so ever.

My opinion is that it doesn't matter whether allowing the populace to own guns increases or decreases crime. The reason the right to bear arms is in the Constitution is so we can protect ourselves from the government if they abuse their power. Its the ultimate check and balance, and it shows amazing forethought by our founding fathers.

Now it doesnt mean we go and start shooting politicians we disagree with. But if the government starts to push us around with force then the founding fathers made it so we could return the favor.

I dont own guns, but I know the directions to my friends houses that do. Someday if the SHTF then I will be headed straight to their houses to borrow one.

[edit on 9-4-2009 by justsomeboreddude]

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude
I vote in favor of no control or monitoring what so ever.

The reason the right to bear arms is in the Constitution is so we can protect ourselves from the government if they abuse their power.
[edit on 9-4-2009 by justsomeboreddude]

THIS explains why ATS is pro-gun! Still, I think guns need to be regulated.

reply to post by Donnie Darko


Well if you let them regulate them then you are giving them the strategic advantage. Dont you think the CIA or DOD would love to know where all the guns are in Iran or N. Korea. So as soon as you are for regulation you are for giving up your freedom if the government ever turns against the people. I understand though, some people love their security more than they love their freedom.





[edit on 9-4-2009 by justsomeboreddude]

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude
reply to post by Donnie Darko

 

Well if you let them regulate them then you are giving them the strategic advantage. Dont you think the CIA or DOD would love to know where all the guns are in Iran or N. Korea. So as soon as you are for regulation you are for giving up your freedom if the government ever turns against the people. I understand though, some people love their security more than they love their freedom.





[edit on 9-4-2009 by justsomeboreddude]

Are guns the only way to fight a treacherous government though?

Originally posted by Donnie Darko
Are guns the only way to fight a treacherous government though?

No. You can use missles, grenade launchers, biological agents, nuclear bombs etc.., if you can get your hands on them. The only way you can fight a treacherous government that is going to use force against you is to use more effective force. I guess, unless you know another way?

In my thinking if I was on the government side and I was using force to get control and a bunch of people did a sit in. I would just drive over them with a tank. End of discussion.

[edit on 9-4-2009 by justsomeboreddude]

Are guns the only way to fight a treacherous government though?

Not the only way, but they certainly have immediate and lasting effects. But that's true of anything that can be used as a weapon.

In my thinking if I was on the government side and I was using force to get control and a bunch of people did a sit in. I would just drive over them with a tank.

And how would you control a bunch of soon to be hungry people? Control the food supply. Which they're ignorantly legislating right now.

[edit on 9-4-2009 by djzombie]

Originally posted by Donnie Darko

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude
I vote in favor of no control or monitoring what so ever.

The reason the right to bear arms is in the Constitution is so we can protect ourselves from the government if they abuse their power.
[edit on 9-4-2009 by justsomeboreddude]

THIS explains why ATS is pro-gun! Still, I think guns need to be regulated.

And, AGAIN ...

After I take my classes, fill out all my forms, have my background checked and pay all my fees - I feel that I am quite "well regulated" already. No more regulation is required.

reply to post by KarlG
And while felons may not abide by the law, it certainly will help things if they have obstructions in the way that prevent them from getting to firearms MORE EASILY.

this is where you miss the point.There are obstrutions in thier way now.NY state requires you to have a pistol permit to own one.That is an obstruction as is the background check to get it.Yet only one person had pistols at the immigrent center in Binghamton NY.My question is how many would have died that day had the 14 that did also had firearms.I do not have a pistol permit nor a gun for that matter but I can have either a pistol or a fully automatic weapon in my hands tonight if I so wish.All I need is the money and to contact the criminal element.Your obstructions only obstruct people who obey the law.Just common sence.

reply to post by Donnie Darko

Are guns the only way to fight a treacherous government though?

Do we really fight the government when we attack with weapons?

Aren't we just fighting people who have been cajoled, duped or trapped into doing their bidding?

Since everyone has their price this kind of warfare would continue to play out until all are slaughtered and the government still wins.

If you are going to fight the government you would have to hit them were it hurts them the most but you would have to give up something that seems to be more valued then your lives.

You would have to give up your pride and your toys.