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.
Originally posted by Kaytagg
reply to post by Snisha
If guns protected you from violence, cops and soldiers wouldn't wear bullet proof vests. They could just block the enemy bullets with their guns, right?
Originally posted by Kaytagg
Nothing is going to protect you from being assassinated, or shot in the back of the head by some gangsters out having fun. That would be what I call a "random act of violence."
Originally posted by Kaytagg
If somebody drives by your house and unloads 1000 rounds from a couple semi automatic weapons, a gun is not going to do anything to protect you. Maybe if you fortify your walls and windows, you'll be safe.
Originally posted by Kaytagg
White collar crimes are non-violent, and therefore the need for protection never even enters the debate. Bernie Madoff used financial manipulation and scheming to steal his money. How is a gun going to protect you from that kind of crime?
Originally posted by Kaytagg
Money isn't at the center of all crime, that's for sure. But it does cause a hell of a lot of it. Often times the poorest of the poor resort to violent crimes to make money, while the super rich hire lobbyists to write legislative loopholes or use black box marketing to fudge the figures.
Originally posted by Kaytagg
When it comes to violent crimes, IE shooting somebody, poverty is the leading cause.
Morality has nothing to do with it.
Originally posted by Kaytagg
Guns don't protect you from random acts of violence. Nor do they promote crime, or murder.
I think both sides on the gun debate are wrong.
Poverty creates crime.
Guns shoot things.
Nothing more really needs to be said.