Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 8
8
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by zeropistons
 


That's the best way in the world to do it. Make it fun for them, and informative.







posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   
Here is the problem with registration:

Nearly every country that has imposed registration of arms has ended in total confiscation. The UK, Australia, Turkey, Nazi Germany, Cambodia, Russia, and so on. In many cases it also lead to the large scale murder of people, the Genocide in Cambodia, the Jewish Holocaust in Germany, the political murders in Russia, the Armenian genocide in Turkey, or higher crime rates, including homicides, in the UK and Australia.

Gun control only hurts those who do not wish to harm others.

As far as limiting ammunition, I shoot thousands of rounds of ammunition a year. I own several "assault weapons" and they are a hungry weapon to own. I feel bad when someone snaps and starts killing people, but it isn't my fault that they did it so why should I be punished for their crime?

I hear a lot about how if "more people carry guns it will be like the wild west". Well in the "wild west" if some nut busted into a salloon and started shooting up the place there were 30 other people equally armed to shoot back. Checks and balances, equal and opposite reaction. The "wild west" really wasn't wild. Most people were armed, yet polite.

One final note, cars kill more people in this country than all gun deaths, including suicides and accidents. The same goes with doctors and medical malpractice. I don't hear anyone screaming to ban cars or doctors.

[edit on 13-4-2009 by killswitch1982]



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by KarlG
 


Because if you ban guns, psychotics, the most common mass murderers with guns, seek bigger things that go boom, thus causing more deaths. No guns? Use that perfectly good fertilizer at the nearest store. No guns? Use those perfectly idle pressurized oxygen tanks at the nearest hospital... grandma could really use some help to kick those death sticks, yea...

I can think of more than enough ways to mass murder people if I didn't have a gun. Allow me to tell you how I, the common American, could make something that kills a lot of people. Read them, please. Then ask yourself if your rather that, or a simple bullet.

Mod note: please don;t ban me for this, but merely delete the section bellow if it breaks any Tos rules I may not know about. I need to write this to prove my point.

You could make little balls of soldered lead rope (couple bucks to buy), and pack them into a canister. Drop them off is a barrel of oil, light in on fire, and you have your own big grenade.

You could buy a paintball gun (no legislation, and cheap to buy on any online store) and load it with marbles or metal balls instead of paintball.

You could get your computer, fill the tower with oil, and set it to overclock when it turns on. boom.

You could do countless other lethal things.

The point I'm trying to make here is that if your psychotic and want to kill people, you WILL find a way, because you WANT to kill someone. banning guns will only naturally select the worst of the crim della crap of murderers. You, by banning or monitoring guns, naturally select only the most determined and horrid people



SO the question is, would you rather get pellets of metal in you from an explosive oxygen tank in a canister of little soldered lead balls at your nearest hospital, or would you rather a single bullet that you have a better chance of surviving from?

You can't stop crazy... for now. But you can stop from having higher causalities. And bullets kill less from high explosives and shrapnel. You think as if an assault rifle is the highest on the pillar of killing machines. You are wrong. It is merely on a higher pillar than knives and rope. The pillars, however, keep going. They keep going higher and higher, with more lethality to each height. So you can monitor all you want, but it will only make psychotic people seek worse ways to do their evil deeds. You need to curve this herd if insanity to the least lethal farm. Hopefully one day, the herd can be disposed of entirely, but that day is not yet here.

[edit on 13-4-2009 by Gorman91]



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by KarlG
reply to post by Mason mike
 


What would a rational person need so many bullets for? Recreation?

[edit on 9-4-2009 by KarlG]


This part I had to respond to. I can see your standpoint, but I don't know if you can see the other. The fact is, that when I go shooting (Target or 'sport' shooting, I rarely hunt), me and my friends can burn through 3-400 rounds of ammunition in an afternoon. You have to understand how fast you can go through it in a short ammount of time. If bullet sales were limited, you'd get so much, and half an hour to an hour after we got to the place where we shoot, we'd pretty much have to turn around and go home. Considering that we have to drive an hour or so to get to an area where the firing of guns is legal in the first place, it sort of defeats the purpose of the trip altogether.

What has been pointed out many a time is, criminals aren't going to go to the local store most of the time to get their ammo, they are going to get it from the same place they get their guns, on the street. The only people that get harmed by 'gun-control' laws are law-abiding citizens. Always has been, always will be. Simply 'cause the criminals don't jump through the same hoops we do. If anything, gun-control laws actually encourage this practice. If things get too bad for us legal gun buyers, we might just be going the same route as the criminals, after all, no overpriced background check, no 15 day waiting period (more like 15 minutes), and with cash on the barrel-head, no questions asked. I wonder if that isn't the point of it all? To turn normal law-abiding citizens into criminals by forcing them to buy guns illegally...

Chrono

EDIT - For spelling

[edit on 13-4-2009 by Chronogoblin]



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 03:26 PM
link   
I have an issue with it and I've been saying it in every gun-related thread on ATS that I have participated in.




posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ravenshadow13
 


I don't recall running across your opinion prior to this. If you wouldn't mind putting it out there again?

Rifles and pistols are just things, no more dangerous then a candy bar in and of themselves...it's the people behind the sights. Always remember that folks.

Taking them away, or in this case *ahem* moderating them, will not solve any of society's ills, it won't make us appriciably safer. I fear as a result of this sort of control, that certain types of crimes will escalate, those being of the home invasion sort; burglary, assaults of all sorts, etc... The criminal will assume that there is a better than even chance that there won't be a gun in the hands of someone who knows how to use it. It should always be the other way around. They should be scared of us, not us of them...

MHO.



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 04:39 PM
link   
I've no business in the US firearms laws etc, but i do have a general opinion with regards any use of firearms by civilians Anywhere on the darn planet.

Most will cite reasoning of civil defence as purpose to own a firearm or arms.

Well as far as i am concerned, nobody outside military and national security and such should be allowed ballistic projectile weaponry outside of sports where arms are kept at a secure vault at whatever ranges they use etc.

There are enough non lethal alternatives for civilian defence which are being improved and tweaked all the time and i'm also pro advocate to use of non lethal energy weapons from taser tech' upwards but non lethal frequencies, as a right for civilians passing psych' testing, even in countries where firearms are not permitted because these are changing times for every society of every nation.

Guns, ballistic projectile weapons, in society should be outright banned, full stop, period, no exceptions, non lethal weaponry and defences or nothing, end of!


The future is already happening and in my most humble opinion, this is one global change that needs to happen yesterday!


Paxus.



[edit on 13-4-2009 by DeltaPan]



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 04:49 PM
link   
read what I said a few posts up. That's a bad idea and you don;t want that to happen. People simply move on to more larger means of destruction.



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
read what I said a few posts up. That's a bad idea and you don;t want that to happen. People simply move on to more larger means of destruction.


I couldn't disagree more.

You need to address the psycho's, not permit firearms simply because a minority behave violently and pathologically.

Anyway, initial post and this response is all i've to say on the matter.

That's my opinion and nothing will ever change that.

And man, i've been through enough violence in my life to understandably think otherwise, but i don't.

Firearms in society, globally, should be eradicated and people should use non lethal, ultrasonic and low power energy weapons, period.

Immobilised with non lethal weaponry is better than dead by the bullet!



Paxus.




[edit on 13-4-2009 by DeltaPan]



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 05:43 PM
link   
If I wanted to kill someone or a big crowd of someones, and you didn't let me get an assault rifle, I would just Google search bomb techniques and make something else.

You think guns are on some pedestal that if you take them away, you have to find a lower pedestal. Not true, there's plenty more pedestals just as high with just as much lethality.

Why would I not kill some one just because I can't get an assault rifle? That, by my very nature, would make me look for a way to make bigger booms.

[edit on 13-4-2009 by Gorman91]



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 06:53 PM
link   
To KarlG: It's going to be difficult to keep this from being a one line response, but I'll attempt to do so. I have two questions I'd like to know your answer to: 1- Why is it that the Founders debated if Freedom of Speech or the Right to own firearms should be the first right?

2- Why did they believe that "The People" owning guns was so important?

Answer me those things and we can continue the discussion.



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 07:02 PM
link   
I have said it before and will put it out again... (Though the anti-2nd amendment crowd like to pretend they don't see the post, reply to about 5 previous posts and continue on... and change the subject)

Serialized ammo and ammo limits are sh it and would do nothing to deter crime as

#1 CRIMINALS & LUNATICS do not follow the law!

#2 CRIMINALS & LUNATICS do not follow the law!

And #3 CRIMINALS & LUNATICS do not follow the law!

TONS of dope flow into this country every day.... Every criminal or loon who wants drugs (AND GUNS & Unserialized ammo) will get it.

For those who didn't see the word... TONS TONS TONS of dope, illegal cargo, 1000's of people flood over the border EVERY DAY. By the Ton.

Question: Anyone NOT get that?

ANYONE with half a brain knows this. If you can get coc aine freely, you can get illegal guns and ammo freely.

Question: Anyone NOT get that?

Until then, I say IMPRESS us and Prove that criminals and lunatics can no longer get smuggled guns and drugs!

Let's not even talk about "Gun Control and Ammo Control" until that day that we have guaranteed that it is IMPOSSIBLE to smuggle drugs, people, and guns into the U.S. and proven over a period of years that our security works.

(Right here is the part where they go.. oh crap, he's right, change the subject)

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. To Regulate the access to self-defense of the citizen as the criminal will not care.



(This should end the thread unless they try to skip over it like it didn't exist because logic and fact are hard to argue with... LOL)


I welcome debate.

[edit on 13-4-2009 by infolurker]



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeltaPan
I've no business in the US firearms laws etc, but i do have a general opinion with regards any use of firearms by civilians Anywhere on the darn planet.

Most will cite reasoning of civil defence as purpose to own a firearm or arms.

Well as far as i am concerned, nobody outside military and national security and such should be allowed ballistic projectile weaponry outside of sports where arms are kept at a secure vault at whatever ranges they use etc.

There are enough non lethal alternatives for civilian defence which are being improved and tweaked all the time and i'm also pro advocate to use of non lethal energy weapons from taser tech' upwards but non lethal frequencies, as a right for civilians passing psych' testing, even in countries where firearms are not permitted because these are changing times for every society of every nation.

Guns, ballistic projectile weapons, in society should be outright banned, full stop, period, no exceptions, non lethal weaponry and defences or nothing, end of!


The future is already happening and in my most humble opinion, this is one global change that needs to happen yesterday!


Paxus.



[edit on 13-4-2009 by DeltaPan]


Yeah, I suppose you're right if some nut wanted to kill me with a gun and all he could get was a taser, theres no way he would ever think to tase me and then smash my skull with a rock would he? But then again we can always ban rocks right?

As far as the future happening yes it is, but its only your naive dream that firearms will be eliminated before we are all driving flying cars (read NEVER)

But hey, best of luck!



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarkStormCrow
All guns purchased at licensed dealers require that a form 4473 be filled out and a background check is made on each form that is filled out. At minimum a proof of address via drivers license or state id is required. some states have waiting periods and some states have limits on amount of firearms purchased per month.

If a firearm is used in a crime the serial number is traced from Manufacturer.. to distributor.. to licensed dealer.. to the purchaser via the 4473. The last 4473 is considered the owner as far as tracing is concerned so even if the gun is sold to another party without a 4473 the last 4473 can be held responsible if it is determined the seller was negligent.

In my state in order to carry a weapon concealed , I must take a class, qualify with the weapon on the permit , submit to a very thorough background check about and beyond the instant check at the point of sale and then I must pay a hefty and unconstitutional fee for said check. Then I must wait around for 4-5 months for the permit to finally show up. Also since I live in a certain county all of my handguns are required to be registered with the county which is pointless as the 4473 that I filled out when I purchased the weapon is always on file. even if the licensed dealer closes shop all the 4473s are sent to the BATFE for storage.

So what exactly else do you want to do to restrict my rights?

[edit on 4/9/2009 by DarkStormCrow]

Paul Revere rode to Lexington and Concord because the government knew where the firearms were and wanted to confiscate them.

Execute criminals. Don't make criminals out of people who take the Constitution seriously. If you remove the Second Amendment through extra-Constitutional means (other than Article V), you are an insurrectionist. Judges who think they can legislate from the bench are no better than John Brown and should get the same sentence.



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by DeltaPan
 


Your first thought is right. You have no business commenting on something, you know nothing about. We have the right to bear arms because of your country and what they tried unsuccessfully to do at Lexington and Concord.



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 10:54 PM
link   
I think you better read the US Constitution again and again.

Specifically in regard to the 2nd Amendment, It doesn't give Americans the Right to do anything. It merely acknowledges that owning firearms is a Natural Person's GOD given unalienable right, and spells it out formally.

That is the whole point.

In Australia and England where arms have been denied to the public, crime has increased 70%.

Without our right to defend ourselves, America would be a Military Dictatorship right now, which is why Ammunition has suddenly become very scarce.

If you want to live in Orwell's nightmare, go ahead... just leave this country ASAP.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 02:33 AM
link   
Guns Are Legal
- Criminals have guns
- Psychos do crazy stuff
- Law abiding citizens have guns

Guns Are Illegal
- Criminals have guns
- Psychos do crazy stuff



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 04:10 AM
link   
close this thread down because your opinion just cannot win. Because fact is. The more power to the masses the better. Back in the day the government had nothing over the people. They had the same guns and a smaller military. Now the government has technology we don't even know about and we can't force them to share it with us. I'll be damned if people start agreeing with the weak-minded thread starter. It is your mentality that opens up America's laws to sabotage. Every single right that was taken away from us since 911 is because enough people thought they needed it. It's false. What America and apparently you need is some better education. Did you see the G20 summit riot police murder innocent non-violent protesters? did you? would you do something with your mind so that you can be aware of enough things at once to understand that more power to the people have the safer we are. "1 person with a gun can control 100 ppl who do not."-Hitler
"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."-Chinese "Communist" dictator



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 05:09 AM
link   
reply to post by C0mmonen5e
 


Why would you possibly want this thread closed down? KarlG has let everyone who vehemently disagreed with him have their say without getting too upset over it. Of course, he might not even be reading it any more. Regardless, it gives everyone a chance to get their opinion out. For every rabid pro gun/anti gun out there, there are ten who are reasonable and can be swayed into the pro-gun, pro 2nd camp by people who reasonably state facts and opinions. (note: I have no idea what the actual rabid/reasonable ration is. It may be more, it may be less.)

So far, the most reasonable solution to gun crime and gun control was made in another thread by LucidDreamer85:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Originally posted by LucidDreamer85
Good parenting would negate the need for gun control. However, real good parenting does not exist in many areas and parents blame everything wrong on some other thing rather than taking the time to show and teach their kids right from wrong.

Some kids take longer to accept this and believe it and value it.

Some parents dont' try hard enough.


Some parents leave their family and leave a single parent home where there is not the the supervision that is needed at such a young age to teach right and wrong.


If we better educated our kids and in school with stuff that is actually useful and important than more people would understand the stupidity of using a gun against somebody.

Less people would have to carry guns to protect themselves because more people would be responsible, but people could still carry guns and it would not be an issue because it would be a known thing that gun carriers are very aware and informed about the gun they carry and when and when not to use it.

That is just some of what would help.


See, less crime, less gun violence, no need for draconian gun control. Rainbows and unicorns for everybody if we all just commit to being better parents. Yeah, I know it won't happen, but I'll try to do my part.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 12:09 PM
link   
I wish the anti-gunners would come and live in my state for a while. It's so peaceful, so quiet - people respect one another to a degree almost unheard of in other parts of America. I believe that's due in large part to the fact that so many people carry a concealed weapon.

There simply is no correlation between unrestricted gun ownership and soaring crime rates - if anything there appears to be anecdotal evidence that more guns equals less crime.

Instead of just assuming you know what's up, why not look at places where guns are ubiquitous and unrestricted, and see how peaceful and quiet they can be?

There are case studies, a number of them, that can be studied to find out what impact, if any, unrestricted gun ownership has on crime.

I tell ya, I consider myself a New Yorker, and I love the city, always will, but I simply will not live there anymore - not since 9/11 when I found myself looking down the business end of an automatic rifle wielded by a National Guardsman on the corner of 34th and Lex, meanwhile I can't legally get a gun.



So up here it's different - it feels more like America ought to feel. People are safe and happy.

Don't fix it if it aint broken...





new topics




 
8
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join