Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

GUNS: The Untold Truth

page: 2
21
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 05:24 AM
link   
I Absolutely believe everyone has the right to defend themselves,however in Australia that right has been taken away from us and gun crime has skyrocketed,the only losers are law abiding citizens who are harassed by police if they want to own firearms




posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 05:39 AM
link   
Excellent thread and artical
Its one of the major things that bothers me here in the Uk after having been raised in the Us is the anti gun approach from people.. and have had many a debate with them over the topic of course lol.. they now are aiming to ban knives (ie collector daggers, swords, etc) and they do have the 'call the cops' approach if something does happen.. sorry i gotta say i wouldnt trust any cop i have ever met with my life, and besides that, if you are being attacked, its quite easy to assume you arent going to be in an easy position to call 999 (911 equivilent here) and just WAIT for help to arrive.. over the years of living here i have heard stories of those who own guns (farmers and land care takers for pest control a lot of the time) and have shot people in a clear cut case of self defense and then the guy who had to defend himself is in trouble over it.. really winds me up.. i cant seem to find the link to the news artical about one case particularly, if i do stumble across it, will add it here..
As a child i always grew up with guns in the house, hell at one point my family would have gone hungry many a time were it not for guns and my fathers excellent hunting skill! but i was taught to respect them, in an area of the country where high schoolers were able to bring shotguns in their trucks to school and leave them in the truck until after school to go hunting during deer season.. so all kids were really brought up the same in those regards there, and i cant think of one single incident of violence or accidents from the handling of fire arms with respect and knowledge..



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 06:09 AM
link   
I've never owned a firearm, but I have thought long and hard about the morality of using one in self defence.

The anti gun lobby have many arguments as to why people should be denied guns. Maybe they are right sometimes, but they are never keen to discuss certain unpalatable facts of life. Based on gender, age and physical health, people differ vastly in the amount of physical strength they have. If you are are a large, physically fit thug, it is pretty easy to get away with beating up an old lady or someone who cannot defend themself - the police wont protect the innocent person.

The government, police and the gun lobby don't have any solutions to this, its just part of life that some 'classes' of people should be routinely abused and murdered. Yet try to redress the balance by giving guns to the people who are being bullied in their own homes and suddenly this is a huge danger to the public.

How strange.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Doc Holiday
 


Yeah, because a sissy who grows a pink garden will protect the neighbors with guns.



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 05:44 AM
link   
reply to post by KyleOrtonArmy
 

just my guess, but i would say its an older couple who live in the house and the pink garden is the wives, the big ass gun collection in the dining room is the husbands.. just how it works



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 05:49 AM
link   
Using violence against any form of oppression equals destruction.
Using weapons to protect yourself equals injury or death.

Eliminate all forms of weapons and promote peace and love.

Arm yourself with intelligence and wise words and convert those with missguided conceptions to see beauty in the world and not fear.



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 05:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Spirit777
 
well..isnt that just chock-full of common sense




posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 06:13 AM
link   
Ah...The gun thing again. Leave the cops alone they have enough to deal with. I live in a city with two homocicdes per day and there is not much they can do to stop it. Here in the area that holds on to their guns and their bibles the police know who the bad guys are. If you mention gun control around here you better be talking recoil......



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 09:17 AM
link   
As a ex EMT found two old body bags.

Guess why i keep them around.

If someone breaks into my place they will find out.

Why call the police when i can bag them and give them a deep burial somewhere in the desert.

No fuss. No charges filed against me for shooting them, and No lawsuits from there families.

You ever wonder when you see all those missing persons posters how many of the missing were criminals that broke into the wrong home.

Just look closely at the ones that look like mug shots from previous arrests,
They likely are mug shots especially if they are cropped just below the chin.
I have had the cops tell me they are less likely to look for missing criminals that do not have major new charges on them.
They just figure that someone got rid of them.



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 09:22 AM
link   
To be honest anyone using a gun is pathetic!

I think however you will find that the police do care about people and will try anything to prevent something malicious happening to civilians!



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 10:12 AM
link   
nope, one has to defend his home and family...when you get good with a gun, you can bounce bullets off the pavement to just incapacitate an attacker, thus taking the long range energy out of the projectile for more safety. just the report will back trouble away from the door, just the blast!



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Cygnis
 


Here's some case law showing the police have no duty to protece you:



Police Have No Duty To Protect Individuals

Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers."

The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." There are many similar cases with results to the same effect.

In the Warren case the injured parties sued the District of Columbia under its own laws for failing to protect them. Most often such cases are brought in state (or, in the case of Warren, D.C.) courts for violation of state statutes, because federal law pertaining to these matters is even more onerous. But when someone does sue under federal law, it is nearly always for violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 (often inaccurately referred to as "the civil rights act"). Section 1983 claims are brought against government officials for allegedly violating the injured parties' federal statutory or Constitutional rights.

The seminal case establishing the general rule that police have no duty under federal law to protect citizens is DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services. Frequently these cases are based on an alleged "special relationship" between the injured party and the police. In DeShaney the injured party was a boy who was beaten and permanently injured by his father. He claimed a special relationship existed because local officials knew he was being abused, indeed they had "specifically proclaimed by word and deed [their] intention to protect him against that danger," but failed to remove him from his father's custody.

The Court in DeShaney held that no duty arose because of a "special relationship," concluding that Constitutional duties of care and protection only exist as to certain individuals, such as incarcerated prisoners, involuntarily committed mental patients and others restrained against their will and therefore unable to protect themselves. "The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State's knowledge of the individual's predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf."

Read more: Source



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Full_Vision
 


That, or it's an overcompensating gardener male who buys guns because he can't defend himself without them.



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Freq Of Nature
 


Yes and the police can wave their magic wands and be right at the scene of a crime
Legally the police are for the public good not an individuals
Pathetic is not protecting what is yours by any means necessary. To put it into natural terms criminals are scavengers who prefer the weak and unprotected prey. I.E. sheep. To go after a predator {a armed person} would endanger their continued existence. Peaceful desires require violent actions at times.



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 08:58 PM
link   
yes the joined terror task force are breaking and entering into our loved ones homes and accusing them of being a terrorist, it goes against our constitutional rights due to the patriot act. The right to bare arms and if home land security decides to convict me for it, well I'm just going to shoot when they show up knocking on my door step and hide their sinister bodies in the lake out back.



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by KyleOrtonArmy
 


Ever heard the saying, "Never bring a knife to a gunfight"? Good luck protecting yourself and your loved ones when your home gets invaded by armed burglars (plural, because rats travel in packs).

Gun control laws only affect law-abiding citizens. Why would criminals follow gun control laws when they constantly break laws?

Having a firearm is like insurance. It is better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Cygnis
 


I've told this story a number of times now but it fits here...

Here in Albuquerque we live in a townhouse complex. you know the type lots of houses packed together out front is a big parking lot, looks more like an upscale apartment complex to me... Anyway three years ago at 3 am I woke to the sounds of a neighbour screaming. When I got up and looked out the window her boyfriend had chased this seventeen year old pregnant girl out to the parking lot where he sat on her just pounding at away with his fists!

Told the wife "Call the cops!" As I rushed out the front door. in the short time it took me to get out there she had managed to get to her car, that boyfriend already had brick in hand and was in the process of smashing the drivers side _ I yelled "Get the F way from her buddy!" she saw me kicked the car in drive and nearly ran me over to get to me and safety.

Well I must have looked pretty intimidating me an old guy standing there in just my boxers and unarmed cause that guy took off running....

The Ambulance was there within 5 minutes, he broke her arm in the fight... took the cops 40 minutes to finally get there...

Ya know a lot of very bad things could have happened to that little girl in 40 minutes



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by KyleOrtonArmy
 




Yeah, because a sissy who grows a pink garden will protect the neighbors with guns.




That, or it's an overcompensating gardener male who buys guns because he can't defend himself without them.


What are you talking about? A man who grows a garden to please his wife is a sissy, so he can't defend himself without a gun?

Can you name anyone besides Superman, who can defend himself from a large caliber handgun or rifle at 15+ yards? Let me guess, you've been watching the sci-fi Ninja movies where they can jump over bullets flying at 2800 FPS and climb the walls while dropping behind you to deliver the death-blow. LOL



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 10:44 AM
link   
I love gun threads!

GUNS: The untold truth.

The main fact of the matter is:
When you peace loving people are fired upon and wounded...
...All because you're sitting around trying to calmly talk your way out of a situation...

I'll be firing back. Protecting my life, and property. It's my right.
If I have the ability to practice self-preservation. I will.

DON'T come crying to me about defending you either. You wanted peace.
This world is no longer a safe-haven. This world has become much more dangerous.
Criminals don't talk back.
There is NOT an ounce of goodness in everyone.
Someone lied to you.

There are entirely TOO many situations where a gun would've solved the problem.
Rapes, murders, gang violence, car-jackings, etc...
Not enough people properly trained.

I digress. You can't stop them all. (just the ones around me)




posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freq Of Nature
To be honest anyone using a gun is pathetic!

I think however you will find that the police do care about people and will try anything to prevent something malicious happening to civilians!


It's quite sad when people base their personal views based upon their fantasies of how the world should be, rather than how the world is in reality.

I have always prescribed to the old axiom that "a conservative is just a liberal who has been mugged".

And I'm sorry, I don't want to risk my life or property based upon someone who is going to "try" to protect me.

And please don't talk about guns enabling crime. Is anyone so foolish as to believe crime didn't exist before guns? Guns do not cause crime anymore than gasoline causes drunk driving, computers cause wire fraud, or cameras are the root cause of child pornography.

People are the problem. On both the criminal and enforcement sides.

[edit on 21-4-2010 by Pyros]





new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join