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.

 

Guns and Good Stuff

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2004 @ 07:15 PM
link   
Now that I look at the original post again I have a few questions.

As everyone knows, USA and Europe have different laws and rules regarding drugs and weapons.


Absolutely!


In the netherlands, buying, smoking and selling weed is legal,
When did that happen? I was under the impression that it was "decriminalized"? Last time I was there it was allowed in coffee shops but not in public. What changed and when? Dealing was obviously owned by law enforcement.


where in the USA, buying, using and selling guns is legal.


This is a common misconception of America these days.
Contrary to what your media tells you we have to go through an "instant" background check. This involves providing government issued photo identification but they wait for an FBI check of you before you can buy a long gun (average nationwide is 8 days).
I suggest you look into the laws we have here on this subject. Start here:
www.access.gpo.gov...

Granted, those are the "federal" laws. Many of our state laws or even down to the county and town level are much more restrictive.


[Edited on 1-6-2004 by Fry2]




posted on Jun, 1 2004 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Europeans are not this paranoid and realize that with a solid democracy and constitution, a government can not suddenly turn against their people

Europeans have a history full of strife and bad governments. I mean just look at France, they've had like 7 governments in 200 years. America has had one.

Just because America allows its citizens to have guns, that doesn't mean we're a bad country or bad people. Some people like to hunt, some people like to target practice, and yes, there are some people who would use the guns for evil means. But there are some people who would use knives for evil means, or saws, or axes, or anything. Should we outlaw kitchen knives? What if a husband gets mad at his wife? What if he grabs a knife and stabs her? There are always bad apples among a good batch, and when it comes to guns most of those bad apples will continue to get the guns (on the black market) even if they're outlawed.




Originally posted by Jakko

Originally posted by Fry2
You obviously think we live like the old western movies. Far from it!
I have been a gun owner and target shooter for three decades. I never have nor do I plan to take a life with a gun. At the same time I always have that option open if the situation requires it.


That's exactly the kind of tough-talk I am talking about.
If the situation requires it?
And when would that be?
Like when you're really mad at someone?

You aren't giving Americans, or people in general, any credit. I'm not sure what your beef with Americans is... But for the most part we're stable enough to know it's not a good call to shoot someone if you get mad at them. I mean come on. I think when he said this he meant a situation like self defense. A guy breaks into your room with a (illegal) gun and puts your family in mortal danger; are you going to let him kill you and your family? No, you're going to do all you can to protect yourself, even if that means killing that person.


It just does not make sense, everyone having a gun.
It's common sense that everyone makes mistakes, and that everyone can do things they regret. Why enlarge the results of mistakes by letting everyone have a gun?

Well, not everyone in America has a gun. Again, you have a misconception of how it is here. This isn't the wild west. We're not all walking around with Magnums holstered to our thighs. Some people enjoy collecting guns. Some people enjoy hunting. Some people enjoy target practice. And even some people don't like guns and don't own any.


Kids "borrowing" their fathers guns to shoot animals, in-house accidents when people want to take a look at the gun of their brothers, these events are not rare.

Actually, in the big picture, I think you'd find out that these events are rare. You think they're not, because they're always made into a big deal, and they get a lot of attention. But I'm sure if you did a study you'd find that these situations are a minority in the gun owning community. Besides, these situations should be stopped by gun locks, keeping guns and ammo separate, etc. There are plenty of rules in place, but like everything, not everyone follows the rules exactly. But that's not the fault of the rules themselves.


Can you explain when your gun really did help you?
Can anyone from USA come with an example that proved their gun usefull?
I am really curious.

Here, I'll provide you with some reading material...


Store Owner Kills Armed Man
ROSELAWN - The owner of a convenience store shot and killed an armed man wearing a black ski mask who authorities said was intending to rob the store, police said Friday



77 Year Old Woman Shoots Intruder
A 77-year-old woman who lives alone on Rogers Gap Road shot one of two 19-year-old men who tried to break into her home early Sunday, police said.


There are two incidents out of a great many. Here, read up about some more examples right here Self Defense Incidents

Hope that'll keep you busy for a while.



posted on Jun, 1 2004 @ 08:23 PM
link   
Faisca since you persist in the drivel of this mindless debate of “Mine is bigger the yours” and found among the class of arguments know as “Pissing Contests” allow me to clarify a few items you most recent public demonstration of foolishness has raised for me:

1. What academic credentials do you possess that would allow you to make the claim the government of France has changed (assuming you refer to changes in the type of governance by various means) can you can cite relieving you of the responsibility from a source reference?
2. How extensively have you traveled in Europe and the Netherlands specifically which might give weight you your opinions?
3. Why have you accused the author of calling the USA a “bad” country? Or can you demonstrate that he has in fact done so. And where?
4. Why do you accuse author of “having a beef” with the USA? Could his motivation possibly be something else?
5. Why do you employ the exaggeration (Reductio Ad Absurdum)…… [Well, not everyone in America has a gun. Again, you have a misconception of how it is here. This isn't the Wild West. We're not all walking around with Magnums holstered to our thighs] ……….to gives weight to your assertions?
6. Your argument “Guns are useful.” while at certain times, places and for multiple uses may in fact be a supportable premise, the examples you provide are in no measure proof supporting your claim. Can you explain?

That’s just a few questions I noted giving your post just a quick read. Looking forward to your clarifications and answer to my queries.



posted on Jun, 1 2004 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Venus
Gee KJ that's a pretty paranoid response. When was the last time you needed a gun to defend yourself against the government or an outside attack?
The only logical reason to own a handgun in the US is to defend ourselves from each other..................Ya, right....and to "hunt"


First, I didn't say handgun, I only said gun which refers to quite a wide variety of weapons.

Second, there is nothing paranoid about it. When was the last time you used a fire extinguisher to put out a fire? Not often, if ever, but needed when the time arises none-the-less.

And third, I only listed the purposes of guns as they stand in this country. I did not speak to the frequency they were used for such. It was a fairly vanilla statement; I stated their purpose.

I think all guns should be accessible to law abiding citizens so long as proper records are kept as to who owns them. There should be no limit as to how many they can have.

As I've said, guns are tools. They should be regarded as such.



posted on Jun, 1 2004 @ 09:13 PM
link   
The answer is simple.

DRUGS = Self harm. Smoking weed, snorting speed and popping pills isnt going to hurt anyone else and more than getting drunk will. I dont think heroin and coke should be legalised. In fact i think only weed should be legalised (i'd still do speed and E's).

GUNS = Hurts other people, potential of illing many people in a short space of time. records of who own them which may help in tracking down perpertrators of gun crimes. I understand people like to have them for hunting and what not, but the laws should be stricter to protect the cummunity. They shouldnt be completely illegal but definately controlled a little more.

Europe (holland included) are alot more liberal in their thinking which in turn gives their people alot more freedom to make their own choices. I would much rather live there than in the USA



posted on Jun, 1 2004 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by gmcnulty
Faisca since you persist in the drivel of this mindless debate of “Mine is bigger the yours” and found among the class of arguments know as “Pissing Contests” allow me to clarify a few items you most recent public demonstration of foolishness has raised for me:
I'm actually not trying to persist in "mindless drivel" i was merely trying to respond to points that the original poster made. And I'm wondering, what do you mean by my "most recent public demonstration of foolishness"? Have I done other such things in the past? Please, enlighten me if I have.


1. What academic credentials do you possess that would allow you to make the claim the government of France has changed (assuming you refer to changes in the type of governance by various means) can you can cite relieving you of the responsibility from a source reference?
Any quick glance at the history of France reveals that it's gone through a lot of regime changes throughout its history. I was heated when I wrote my comments, and I'm prone to exaggerate numbers, so 7 changes out of 200 years wasn't the best choice of words. But I figured it would get the point across. As for academic credentials, I'm in my third year of college, but I'm sure that doesn't mean much.


2. How extensively have you traveled in Europe and the Netherlands specifically which might give weight you your opinions?
I've only been to Spain and Switzerland, actually. But my opinions weren't directed at any single place in Europe. I've learned over the years about many revolutions in Europe, governmental changes, tyrannical governments, etc. This is what my opinions are based on.


3. Why have you accused the author of calling the USA a “bad” country? Or can you demonstrate that he has in fact done so. And where?
4. Why do you accuse author of “having a beef” with the USA? Could his motivation possibly be something else?
Well first of all, it seemed that the author was taking a "Europe isn't paranoid/scared, America is," kind of tone, which I replied to thusly. I wasn't even saying that the author called us a bad country, it was a general statement based off of what he said, it wasn't only directed to the author.

As for me saying he "has beef" with America, I said that because of the sense of tone I got from his posts in this thread, and other threads he's posted in. It seemed like he thinks there is something wrong with Americans, in that we can't control ourselves and will kill anyone for any reason. I'm probably off base and misunderstood his comments, but like I said when I wrote that post I was heated. And if I offended anyone I honestly apologize. I didn't mean to make it seem like an attack on the poster, just a case by case argument to his points.


5. Why do you employ the exaggeration (Reductio Ad Absurdum)…… [Well, not everyone in America has a gun. Again, you have a misconception of how it is here. This isn't the Wild West. We're not all walking around with Magnums holstered to our thighs] ……….to gives weight to your assertions?
I employed the exaggeration, and notice that I said "again" because had already been used in the thread before my post. I was simply repeating what another poster had said. Am I wrong in asserting that he has a misconception? He assumed that everyone in America has a gun, which is not the case, which is a misconception, which I pointed out. The wild west thing was a throwback to another post, that's all.


6. Your argument “Guns are useful.” while at certain times, places and for multiple uses may in fact be a supportable premise, the examples you provide are in no measure proof supporting your claim. Can you explain?
I'm not quite sure what you mean here. That argument is not mine alone, I was actually just trying to back up what others here have already said. I provided a link containing incidents in which guns had been used in self defense, because the author specifically asked that someone do so. I was merely giving him examples of good uses for guns, like he asked.

Hope that clears some stuff up. To recap: I wasn't attacking the author of the post, I was arguing with his comments. If anyone took offense, I am sorry, but that's what I wrote and that's how it is.



posted on Jun, 1 2004 @ 09:16 PM
link   
Gosh Faisca, your hailing self defense killers.

Sure they were defending themselves, but don't kid yourself they're still killers.

My problem is that someone who is too angry decides to take out the old huntin rifle and kill someone, thats the main problem with guns. One bad apple is still to many.



posted on Jun, 1 2004 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrJingles
Gosh Faisca, your hailing self defense killers.

Sure they were defending themselves, but don't kid yourself they're still killers.


Again... I was merely providing examples in which guns had been used for self defense. Like the poster asked for. I'm not advocating every example in the link, I was just giving the author what he asked for.

But yes, I guess I am on their side (for the most part!). If I had to choose between killing somene, or letting that person do harm to myself or my family, I would kill them. I don't think I'm alone in that opinion either. Nor do I think that makes me a bad person. We have the right to defend ourselves, and if it comes down to mortally wounding someone because of that, so be it.



posted on Jun, 1 2004 @ 09:25 PM
link   
…………. You draw the distinction between Gun and handgun making handgun but a sub-set of the larger most general class of weapons called Guns. It that not correct!

You go on and assert a logical connection between the uses of a fire extinguisher (a tool infrequently used but most necessary) to solve a problem with and thereby suggesting there is some logic supporting your connection with TOOLS/SOLVES PROBLEMS to then claim “Guns as a tool to solve problems” The conclusion of both arguments are the same tools are good; Tools can help solve problems; therefore fire extinguishers and guns are good to have around. SEE ANY PROBLEMS here with such logic or lack there of……..?????

You assert guns should be available to “law abiding citizens”. I ask what a law abiding citizen is - Is he/she nothing more then a citizen who has yet to become a criminal?

I have more questions but for now let’s deal with these simple most obvious insults to logical thought. OK?



posted on Jun, 1 2004 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrJingles
Gosh Faisca, your hailing self defense killers.

Sure they were defending themselves, but don't kid yourself they're still killers.

My problem is that someone who is too angry decides to take out the old huntin rifle and kill someone, thats the main problem with guns. One bad apple is still to many.


To your first point, yes they are killers. And rightfully so. The first and most important right someone has is the right to life. The attacker has forfeited, or at the very least volunteerily gambled, his life for whatever gain he hopes to achieve. The defender has the right to protect his life and those of his family at all costs. Again, they are killers of the best kind.

To your second point (and I use this term loosely because there is very little to work with there), getting "too angry" and killing someone is a valid point for not liking guns. Yet I don't hate knives, and many people are killed by them. I don't hate cars, but people get drunk, misuse them, and kill people. While I see your point, bad apples can not spoil it for everyone.

They say one bad apple is too many, let's ban alcohol. I say that's silly. Nothing is perfect, and even if we did ban guns, they would have to grandfather all the current weapons out there (which are many) or fight a fully scale civil war.



posted on Jun, 1 2004 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by gmcnulty
…………. You draw the distinction between Gun and handgun making handgun but a sub-set of the larger most general class of weapons called Guns. It that not correct!


I can only assume you mean "Is that not correct!" with your last sentence. The comment you are responding to was a response to the assertion that I claimed (or thought) handguns were needed to hunt, which is apparent to anyone who read my post. Here is the quote I'm responding to in case you missed it.



[By Venus]The only logical reason to own a handgun in the US is to defend ourselves from each other..................Ya, right....and to "hunt"


Seems fairly obvious following the lineage of posts.


You go on and assert a logical connection between the uses of a fire extinguisher (a tool infrequently used but most necessary) to solve a problem with and thereby suggesting there is some logic supporting your connection with TOOLS/SOLVES PROBLEMS to then claim “Guns as a tool to solve problems” The conclusion of both arguments are the same tools are good; Tools can help solve problems; therefore fire extinguishers and guns are good to have around. SEE ANY PROBLEMS here with such logic or lack there of……..?????


The logic is fairly clear. Guns are tools to be used in the four instances (generally) that I listed early on. Because they are not used frequently does not mean they are not necessary (as with the fire extinguisher). Guns do solve certain problems.


You assert guns should be available to “law abiding citizens”. I ask what a law abiding citizen is - Is he/she nothing more then a citizen who has yet to become a criminal?


While that seems to be a rather cynical view of life and humanity, I'd say yes. Law abiding citizens would be ones who have not committed crimes of specific nature (to be dictated by law). Is there more to that, or is that it?


I have more questions but for now let’s deal with these simple most obvious insults to logical thought. OK?


The only insult my friend, is the misrepresentation made by you and the misunderstanding you seem to be having. My post is not independent and should not be analyzed as such. Perhaps that is the problem.



posted on Jun, 1 2004 @ 10:55 PM
link   
Faisca………I really do not want to address the subjective opinions I noted in reading to your post………..still believing the accuracy of my assessment I would like to point out the real danger of drifting into the personal attack, a place where you would be at serious disadvantage………….. and for me to do that would be…………unfair.

So let me respond to the substance of your reply to my questions which you were so kind to post as a response. Thank you for taking the time to do so:

QUOTE 1 – So you were wrong; had no knowledge or credentials in proffering a false asserting and did so because your reply was an emotional response; more gonadal then cerebral.

I thank you for your honesty and forth rightfulness. Both commendable qualities; done with courage and an important component of a REAL MAN. thank you.

Quote 2. – Such personal experiences are strong and forceful additions to any argument. Pull from them and share them in support of major point of your argument.

QUOTE 3 - Unless directly and clearly stated most implied or assumed meanings are the recipe for at least misunderstanding and more often much worst. Ask questions first. Answer also applies to “has a beef”.

QUOTE 5 – Publication of another’s ‘error’ is………….. let me explain it this way, Do you recall as a child being mildly rebuked by a parent or someone who loved you dearly saying in frustration often, “If that damned fool Billy jumped off the bridge you would too?” Need I say more?

QUOTE 6 – Stupidity is endemic in the United States today. Fortunately it is a successful treated disease if folks seek treatment and faithfully follow the required regimes. Sorry a variation on the “WELL JIMMY DID IT” gambit fails muster.

In conclusion, I TOO was not attacking you. Personal attacks do nothing but make the problem we all face as a nation more difficult to solve. At no time in the history of our great nation have we been so divided. And the level of animosity is at a flash point.

It is my assertion at the heart of this is the predominance of emotionally charged rhetoric machine-gunned into society at such a chilling rate having a deadening effect on critical thinking and logical thought.

I wish to thank you once again for you most uncommon demonstration of openness (for such a venue) and the time you invested in your reply.

I care not for the positions folks take. I’m will to listen and thoughtfully consider. But drives me nuts and most often pisses me off big time to see folk demonstrate stupidity, and most often the stupidity of some one they trusted and passed to them as ‘gospel’.


[Edited on 2-6-2004 by gmcnulty]



posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fry2
Just because you fear guns gives you no right to dictate to the rest of the world about them. Do you actually know anything about firearms or are they just "bad"?


I do not fear guns itself, I just realize their main function is to hurt/kill living things. Or are you going to tell me guns are also for shooting at cans?



posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jakko
I do not fear guns itself, I just realize their main function is to hurt/kill living things. Or are you going to tell me guns are also for shooting at cans?

No, actually guns are also for shooting targets. BBguns might be for shooting cans.



posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 08:11 AM
link   
Ah of course, shooting targets.
I guess that makes sense. You don't shoot something unless it's a target.
Too bad that in most cases the target is either a human or an animal.



posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jakko
Ah of course, shooting targets.
I guess that makes sense. You don't shoot something unless it's a target.
Too bad that in most cases the target is either a human or an animal.


If you are one of those guys who believe that you should not hurt animals or humans even in cases of self defense, then just come out and say it.

Otherwise, I don't know why you have such a hang up about guns being for shooting people and animals.

That is what they are for. Guns are there to kill people and to kill animals. There is nothing more to it.



posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro

Originally posted by Jakko
Ah of course, shooting targets.
I guess that makes sense. You don't shoot something unless it's a target.
Too bad that in most cases the target is either a human or an animal.


If you are one of those guys who believe that you should not hurt animals or humans even in cases of self defense, then just come out and say it.

Otherwise, I don't know why you have such a hang up about guns being for shooting people and animals.

That is what they are for. Guns are there to kill people and to kill animals. There is nothing more to it.


Well said, KrazyJethro. The fact is, there will always be people who like guns and always people who don't. There will always be people who use guns properly, and always people who will misuse them. But I think the bottom line is that a few bad eggs should not ruin it for everyone else who is an upstanding citizen.

To bring something up that has been said before... Should we outlaw knives, saws, forks, rope, pillows, or shovels? Should we outlaw the practice of martial arts. Anyone's hands and feet are deadly weapons; any object could be used for killing someone. I have the ability to use my martial arts training to kill a person, should I be outlawed? It sounds funny, but it's serious. My hands could be just as deadly as a bullet from a gun, but you don't see me flying off the handle and breaking people's necks.

When you look at it this way, you can see that outlawing guns is not a solution. A rock is as deadly in the right hands as a gun is. The people are the ones who matter, not the objects.



posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Faisca
When you look at it this way, you can see that outlawing guns is not a solution. A rock is as deadly in the right hands as a gun is. The people are the ones who matter, not the objects.


I wouldn't say AS deadly, being that machine guns are effective killing tools, but I get your point.

My point is that humans are the weapon, no matter the method. Guns, knives, rocks, fists, etc are only tools for a purpose.

Should you use those tools properly (which is the goal) then there is no problem. THIS should be the goal of legislation, not on the weapons themselves.

Then again, how do you regulate the human heart. You can't.



posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
That is what they are for. Guns are there to kill people and to kill animals. There is nothing more to it.


Indeed, and because there are tons of ways to defend yourself against animals and humans without the use of something as deadly as a gun, allowing everyone to have a gun is silly and naiv.



posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 01:45 PM
link   
Jakko, why don't you reply to some of the good points we bring up? Instead of restating the same thing over and over.

What do you say to us saying that guns don't kill people, people do. Also, that anyone could kill anyone with anything. I honestly want to know, should we outlaw knives, forks, rocks, saws, axes, shoes, hands, pencils? Anything could be used to kill, should we outlaw anything that, in the wrong hands, could kill someone? I do want to know what you think.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join