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.

 

Ha, get a laugh out of this

page: 2
82
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by NatureBoy
 


Guns are tools. Plain and simple. I could use a hammer to kill someone... would it still be the guns fault?

Most people have guns for hunting and protection. A person who thinks that everyone who owns a gun intends to murder someone is rather ignorant. I know many people who have guns who never intended on murdering a person when making their purchase. If someone aims at harming me or my family you better bet I will grab any tool at my disposal to end the situation in my and my family's favor. Last time I checked the average response time for a 911 call is about 4-15 minutes, average time for me to grab a tool and protect what is mine is less than 1 minute. Those 3 minute (at best) could mean life and death for someone and why would you ever argue against a person's right to protect their own?

I will always firmly agree with the right to bear arms and I am not the only one.

Now before you can even say it, criminals get their guns from other criminals. Most of the time they usually do not go to the nearest Cabela's and purchase a gun, wait for the background check and then carry out criminal activities. Taking away the legal right to purchase firearms will not keep them out of criminals' hands.




posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by NatureBoy
 




Are you seriously trying to say a doctor is as deadly as a gun?


They absolutely are. In fact, they are much more deadly. A gun by itself is not dangerous in the slightest bit. It is simply just an inanimate object. It would just sit there. Only when a person handles one does it become dangerous. A gun can only become a weapon when a person is behind it.

On the other hand, a doctor is a person, capable of doing whatever they choose to do. This could involve killing as many people as they please. Any human being is the same. A gun is just a means for them to do so.

Given the choice of being locked in a room for a week with a "deadly doctor" or a "deadly gun" then I know sure as hell that I would take the room with the gun. Because, I know that a week later I would walk out without ever having been threatened. Nobody would have been there to wield the gun, so nothing could have happened.

It is impossible for a gun to commit a crime by itself. But it is very possible for a person to commit a crime while wielding a gun. However, it is also possible for any person to commit a crime without a gun as well. That is what separates the two of them. By itself, a gun is useless. But any person is capable of doing anything, gun or no gun. Those who disregard the law will not be affected by any gun control laws. They will just buy them illegally through the black market, which no laws will stop and where many of the guns ever used in crimes are purchased anyways. So taking them away from citizens will do nothing except disarm them of their protection, their instrument for hunting and for entertainment (target shooting at a gun range, for example), and their rights.

[edit on 17-8-2009 by LetTheTruthBeTold]



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 09:55 PM
link   
Sorry to burst you bubble:


In 2006, there were 30,896 gun deaths in the U.S: 12,791 homicides (41% of total deaths), 16,883 suicides (55% of total deaths), 642 unintentional shootings (2% of total deaths), 360 from legal intervention (1.2% of total deaths) and 220 from undetermined intent (.8% of total deaths).
www.ichv.org...

Still better than the doctors
but not as extreme as the OP claimed.

[edit on 17-8-2009 by finemanm]



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 10:06 PM
link   
ok here's how i see it...

A house which has a near zero chance of having a gun in it, like mine in the uk for example, someone coming to steal my TV (insured) will know that if he carrys a knife he has a massive advantage - often just being a good fighter and swift runner is enough to enure his escape. 3am i come downstairs to make more tea and crumpets, the guy is startled and backs off, i hold up my hands and say 'hey buddy, i don't want any trouble, just get out my house' he scrambled through the window he entered through and i pass him out my DVD player (insured, i want a new blu-ray to replace it)

A House with a 75% chance of having a gun in it, like yours in montana, same thing happens, i'm coming down to get 6 bigmacs when a burglar is startled - this time however he knew that i would most likely have a gun, he of course made sure to get one too. It's dark all he sees is my hand moving 'hey b..' thinking i'm leveling a gun at him he thinks it's life and death - the fight or flight responce kicks in, his only chance is to kill me first. BOOOOOOM..... all for the want of a old DVD player i'm laying bleeding to death on my kitchen counter.

When home owners are definately armed then home invaders are CERTAINLY armed. It's like an arms race between the crims and the heros.

In England someone caught with a gun, even if they never used it, is going away for a long time - longer than doing a simple robbery - as the chance of being shot are almost zero they know they don't really need a gun plus owning one will get them in so much trouble it's not worth it. Thus the criminals don't even want one.

Next the black market falasy...

Most guns sold on the black market are stolen. Those that aren't stolen are brought into the country under a legitimate looking business guide then syphoned off and sold illigally. The few remaining guns that make it to the black market are brought in over international bourders from countries with access to guns.

In england their is one place to steal guns from, one legitimate reason to bring guns into the country - that is of course the police and army. Yes we do still get small amounts of weapons brought into the country (mainly via Ireland, IRA links) but the black market for guns is very small and very exclusive.

If america was as hard on guns as it is on drugs then unlike drugs gun usage would plumet, for a start not many people can cook up a .22 in their basement like they can meth.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by NatureBoy
 


Ok there are a few things I would like to point out.

First of all if I walk in on someone attempting tp steal something out of my house I am not going to take the time to raise my hands and say "hey buddy I don't want no trouble." I will bolt to the nearest room to get a "tool". By the time I return with the tool he may be gone or not but I am not going to stand there and barter with a theif.

The second thing is I am not going to let some lowlife take something that I worked hard for whether it was insured or not. It is the principal of the matter. Why should this loser be able to steal this from me when he could easily work and purchase one for himself. Hey can I get your address cuz apparently you don't mind if someone takes something from you
I kid I kid.

Now for the real meat of your post... The Big Mac comment

I don't just have Big Macs laying around, I have to drive to go get them

Tea and crumpets huh... do you hold your pinkie out when sipping the tea? (Again I kid)



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by NatureBoy
 


I strongly disagree. I can see where you're coming from I guess, but your views don't really apply to the United States. It is different here than it is in the UK. Guns are a part of life, a part of being American. The original intent of the 2nd Amendment was for all citizens to able to bear arms, in order to fight against tyranny and oppression. Granted, times have changed and now-a-days there are far too many that are used in crimes. They are also far more deadly now, compared to the muskets used back then. Which is why they should toughen penalties on gun crimes heavily. They should also make the registration process a little bit more thorough, with a way to identify if a certain gun purchased was used in a crime (i.e. rifling on a fired bullet). Things should be done to prevent them being used for criminal purposes or by criminals, and much harsher penalties would deter a lot of criminals, or at least give them second thoughts. But, no American citizen should be punished because of what criminals elect to do (who are also the minority, since in the US there is a gun for every person in America). Civilians with good intentions should not be denied any rights to bear arms, but instead should be given a little more leeway. Efforts should be made, instead, to prevent and deter criminals and criminal use.

Things are different in Europe than they are in America, no doubt about that. But America was also founded on ideals meant to separate it from all the European empires. So, for somebody who does not live here, it may be difficult to understand. But, there are never good consequences when you try to take away an American's guns. They fight and protest any and all new regulation and gun control laws. And things get real bad if you try to physically take them. Here's a little known fact for you: The Battle of Lexington during the American Revolutionary War, which was the first battle and the start of the whole war, where the "Shot Heard 'round the World" occurred, was a result of the British army attempting to take away American guns.

Here's an interesting chart/graph for you dealing with the number of guns and crimes in America:


It is my personal view that the right for citizens to keep and bear arms should be honored and respected, and not infringed upon. I have been around them for years, and I am accustomed to being around them and seeing them. I know how to handle them safely, and I know that I personally would not ever use one to commit a crime. The same goes for everybody else I know who owns one. It is my personal belief, and I highly doubt I will be persuaded to view otherwise.


[Edit] Haha wow, I guess I missed the Big Mac comment at first
I guess you caught me and all my fellow Americans, because we all secretly have entire refrigerators stocked with them. And we eat them all in one sitting, whenever we get hungry in the middle of the night. Then, when we run out of them, we gotta go to the lazy drive-through and stock up on them real quick. Uh oh, our secret is out! ...


[edit on 17-8-2009 by LetTheTruthBeTold]



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 10:53 PM
link   
Originally posted by Cool Breeze
reply to post by NatureBoy
 




First of all if I walk in on someone attempting tp steal something out of my house I am not going to take the time to raise my hands and say "hey buddy I don't want no trouble." I will bolt to the nearest room BANG to get a "tool". By the time I return BANG BANG BANG with the tool he may be gone or not but I am not going to stand there and barter with a theif.

I took the liberty of adding in the sound effects when he shot you.

Far from being the weed you asume i must be because i'm not a gun addict actually i'm quite an effective fighter - i have a good chance of protecting myself against a knife attack, a great chance hand to hand but i never need to fight because i learnt how stancing and fenching work (body laungage and posture to show people you aren't going to be a push over)...

No rapid movements, calm and collected but definate and certain - the guy in my house for whatever reason (he could be a cop, a robber, CIA or a terrorist - i just don't know yet) isn't going to panic nor is he going to make a rash choice. You on the oher hand just spooked a guy holding a loaded weapon, assuming he didn't manage to get you on the way out the second that door opens again all that panic is going stright to his trigger finger.



The second thing is I am not going to let some lowlife take something that I worked hard for whether it was insured or not. It is the principal of the matter. Why should this loser be able to steal this from me when he could easily work and purchase one for himself. Hey can I get your address cuz apparently you don't mind if someone takes something from you
I kid I kid.

Well whatever; enjoy that TV from your grave, the bike from your wheel chair, etc, etc. I don't WANT to be robbed, no one does, thats why my house is secure and i support government handouts to the lazy (if they don't HAVE to rob my house they won't bother, if he was a worker he would have a job). I will admit that lastime i had something stolen (pick pocket) i chased them through the streets of Barcalona and got my money back at finger point (true story) - however entering a mexican standoff with some gangland home invaders is just plain stupid, someone pulls a gun on you then before you even reach for yours you could be dead.

You gunnuts all go around talking about defending yourselves, there is NO defence against a gun (apart from shielding of course) - some street punk wants your wallet you give it to him, your girl friend hands over her purse and all those years you've been shouting about 'I NEED MA GUN TO DEFEND MA SELF' all add up to make you look stupid in her eyes. I on the oher hand get to step forward infround of her, stancing and focusing - 'get out of here punk' then i can break his wrist when he trys to stab me. haha of course two or three big guys with knives and i'm reduced to your level of having to hand my money over, hehe at least it wasn't to a 5 foot skinny crackhead shaking with fear.... but sure tell me you're quick shot mcgraw and could have drawn and fired before he could squeeze off a shot, just like in the movies lol.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by finemanm
Sorry to burst you bubble:


In 2006, there were 30,896 gun deaths in the U.S: 12,791 homicides (41% of total deaths), 16,883 suicides (55% of total deaths), 642 unintentional shootings (2% of total deaths), 360 from legal intervention (1.2% of total deaths) and 220 from undetermined intent (.8% of total deaths).
www.ichv.org...

Still better than the doctors
but not as extreme as the OP claimed.



Actually the OP's claim was unintentional deaths due to firearms are less than unintentional deaths caused by doctors.

Therefore only the 642 unintentional shootings would apply to this discussion. (With possible inclusion of some of the 220 from undetermined intent because some of those may have been accidental as well.)

Thus the OP's claims are correct.

[edit on 17-8-2009 by Studious]



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by LetTheTruthBeTold
 


HOw silly of me i forgot that you guy are going to rise up and overthrow your government any day now........ refereshed with the blood of.... yeah, yeah....

Here's how it would pan out now,
"Hey bob how big is the revolutionary army?"
'a million men and their pickup trucks'
"and guns?"
'yep we all got hunting rifles and semi automatics'
"and you told the government we're overthrowing them?"
'yep'
"what's that whistling noise bob?"
'sounds like a cruse missile........'
"Oh"

You are not going to win a revolution with guns, thus you might as well drop that stupid old law.

America might not be europe but last time i checked it was on earth and full of humans, pleed special case all you like - simple fact is your nation would be better without guns.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 11:19 PM
link   
Haha that was great

What makes it even better is it links to a Hemi-Sync page. I use Hemi-Sync and Brain Sync cd's on a regular basis. Maybe these stats were found after a deep meditation session. Luckily I have been using these cd's for about 4 yrs now and haven't needed a doctor since!



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by NatureBoy
 


No no no no I never said I was a crackshot by any means. The biggest tool I have against an intruder is the layout of my house. I know where everything is (photographic memory). Here is how the scenario plays out in my opinion.

I walk in on the intruder, hopefully I do not attract too much attention and you have to remember he is a little pre-occupied trying to steal something. I bolt back to my room and grab a tool (gun) and return to where I saw him/her. YOU USE COVER TO YOUR ADVANTAGE, it is not a new thing. I know how to use cover, cut the corner, clear a stairway. I am not going to shoot the intruder unless I get fired upon. You are thinking that these intruders have some kind of formal training with a gun, I would have to guess that 90% of the average intruder has no training in handling a gun. Did you know the pistol is one of the hardest firearms to master and in my opinion that is what they will be carrying because it is easy to hide. OK back to the scenario. From the time I return to where I saw the intruder it can go down three ways:
1. The intruder has already left do to the fact of being discovered. I clear the rest of the house to make sure they are not hiding somewhere and then turn on all of the lights and proceed to alert the authorities. End of branch 1.
2. Is still standing there with or without a weapon. From this branch of possibilties I then tell them I am armed and they should leave NOW! They leave and I call the authorities which ends this branch.
3. After being warned they fire at where my voice is. Now from here the noise of the intruders gun has awakened my neighbors who are now calling the police about hearing a gunshot. Depending on where the intruder is in my house I may either return fire or I am may alert them that the police are on their way trying to persuade the intruder to leave. If the intruder is in between me and an outside wall of my house returning fire is the best option. This will scare the intruder and put them in a situation they may not be comfortable with. When I am returning fire I am not blindly shooting just to scare him/her, I am shooting at center mass (middle of the body) which will give me the best opportunity to hit my target in a low light scenario. With this branch you will either hit your target injuring or killing him/her, make the intruder leave, or get hit myself. If I do get hit and still am able to fire I will continue firing until the situation ends.

With this scenario, my main goal the whole time is to keep the intruder from advancing on my position or my family's position. I want this person out of the equation whether they leave on their own or get injured and become unarmed or they perish.

Do you see how my goal is not to kill the intruder. That has no bearring on what I am worried about.

For your scenario my friend what is to stop the guy with a knife from getting everthing he wants? I know you said you know how to defend yourself but your chances against a knife when you are unarmed are not very good. The intruder could get in a lucky shot and then what?

I am not trying to fight with you just because we have different viewpoints on this topic, I just honestly believe that I have a better chance against a scenario like mine if I am armed. That's all.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 11:30 PM
link   
Next time you are ill, don't bother going to see a doctor, they are too dangerous. Instead, take your gun, stick the barrel in your mouth, and pull the trigger. And don't forget, guns don't kill people.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by WEOPPOSEDECEPTION
 


In your statement the gun did not kill you, you USED the gun to kill yourself.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 01:11 AM
link   
reply to post by NatureBoy
 




HOw silly of me i forgot that you guy are going to rise up and overthrow your government any day now........ refereshed with the blood of.... yeah, yeah....


Apparently you only read the first 2 lines of my post. So, let me be a little more clear. I said that it was the original intent of the Founding Fathers to put the 2nd Amendment into the Bill of Rights of the Constitution as a means to fight tyranny. Key word being "original" intent! Then I said that times have changed. I also stated we are no longer in the days of muskets and horseback, and weapons are now much more deadly and efficient killing machines. I guess you missed those parts. Selective reading maybe...

The point I was trying to make with that statement was that it was originally intended to prevent the government of the US to become over-controlling, and it was to be a means for us to fight back. It has little meaning today in the sense of actually overpowering our government, but it is still very symbolic. The founding fathers of my country strongly advocated being armed as a last means of defense against tyranny, and there are countless quotes of them saying so. Here's 2 of the best, by Thomas Jefferson, and then by George Washington, respectively:


The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in Government.



Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself! They are the American people's Liberty Teeth and keystone under Independence.

I could dish out these quotes all day long. Even as recently as 50 years ago, the same reasoning was being echoed by a United States president. Here's a beauty from Kennedy:


Although it is extremely unlikely that the fears of governmental tyranny which gave rise to the Second Amendment will ever be a major danger to our nation, the Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason, I believe the Second Amendment will always be important.


Now, keep in mind that I'm not advocating that US citizens should buy firearms and go after the government. It is the last thing we should do in the present day (there is no tyranny, just a government trying flex its muscles a little more, bit by bit). The point I was trying to prove is that it is symbolic of a means for us to defend ourselves and our liberty. Sure, a bunch of handguns and semi-auto aren't gonna do a whole hell of a lot against cruise missiles, fighter jets, tanks, and nuclear subs. But, it's what they stand for, which is so much more than they're physical abilities. The fact that a citizen can still fight for his rights and liberty, no matter how unlikely it seems, is an assurance we won't go down easily and that we can still make a stand. It's about freedom.

Also, keep in mind that in a revolution, the government would not bombard all its citizens with cruise missiles and such. Those babies are hundreds of thousands each. How will they pay for them if they kill all the taxpayers?


I guess you missed where I said that measures should be passed to keep them out of the hands of criminals, but not infringe on good citizens' rights too? And, did you overlook any of the facts and graph I provided?



America might not be europe but last time i checked it was on earth and full of humans, pleed special case all you like - simple fact is your nation would be better without guns.


I'm sorry, but if you live in Europe, then why the hell is it any of your business? What gives you the right to say what's best for our country? And please, just because I have different views as you, and can back them up, DO NOT insult me or my intelligence!



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 03:56 AM
link   
reply to post by die_another_day
 


thats cool!
thanks for the post


BUT, I don't have a doctor... and I know lots of people without doctors as most of my friends are grad students with no medical insurance... so that last fact is a little shady.
but its a cool post non-the less!



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 04:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
reply to post by NatureBoy
 


Guns are designed to kill which means they are very efficient at what they do, all the more reason to have one to protect yourself with, because it is designed to do the job.

You don't hike in the jungle without a machete, you don't go cooking in the kitchen without kitchen knives, you don't go building a house without a hammer.

Different tools for different jobs, guns equal the odds for you against people with guns. You could get killed with a screwdriver just as easy as a gun, the thing is anything could be used as a weapon, there is no reason to ban guns, they are just as useful for hunting, among other things.

If you want to take away my guns, then where does it stop? Over in the UK they are already trying to ban knives, what is after that? you get to own whatever the government wants you to own? No don't think so.

Guns are designed for killing and so are some drugs administered by doctors.


Slippery slopes make for poor arguments. Its best to avoid that type of reasoning when attempting to make your point. We will never get anywhere in a discussion with that false logic.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 04:29 AM
link   
Why are people calling guns 'tools'? A gun is a weapon. Plain and simple. I think calling it a 'tool' is just a way of trying to sugar coat the fact that the gun was invented with one real intention; to kill.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 04:37 AM
link   
Mmm, bad news for gun owners who have to go to the doctor after shooting each other.

Or after doing this:




posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 05:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by NatureBoy
interesting stats...

now lets consider how many 'gun owners' just happened to be working really hard to perform a delicate medical procedure or choose the right compound to treat a rare or obscure illness when they accidentally discharged their 44 into little suzzy's cranium.

Haha i suppose all the rest of the people killed by guns were on purpose so didn't count right?

A gun is a weapon, pure and simple - they are made to end life.
A doctor is a good guy working hard - they just try to save lives.
Compareing the two is just retarded.

Really it's pathetic how desperate you gun nuts are getting!


I think the point is... Most people put their faith in medicine not knowing how dangerous it is or how driven by money from the big pharma companies. People think of guns as killing machines that the powers want to ban but we need to open our eyes to the fact that from the minute a doctor enters med school he is taught how to give out medicine that costs money.

Doctors, unbeknowest(sp) to themselves, are salesmen for the pharma companies. This in itself is more dangerous to society than a hundred guns.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Trams
That is very interesting indeed. I did get a laugh out of this.

Just goes to show you how dangerous the doctor can be.


You have to look at it in perspective that doctors see a large number of patients. Do gun-owners have situations where they may have to use their guns as often as doctors may make mistakes? So you have to take into account the total potential scenarios....

....and whether pre-meditated murder is more likely with a gun than during a doctor's appointment.


[edit on 18-8-2009 by john124]



new topics

top topics



 
82
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join