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 or No Guns?? Your views.

page: 11
19
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 01:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Dr Expired
 


Many people in the area do have guns.

But in Britain we don't carry them with us whilst going on a cycle ride, visting the shops or working in the fields, because we don't ever expect to encounter a madman trying to shoot us!




posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 01:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 

Whereas in say Texas they are prepared, and perhaps he wouldnt have killed so many and injured so many if the Brits were prepared?
I was born int he general area of the NE I know its a relatively safe place, but the fact cannot be denied to be helpless invites the wolf?
I learnt to shoot a semi auto very young, and I surrendered my gun when the Aussies brought in the gun laws whilst I lived there.
Sometimes I wonder what I would do if on the radio news of some crazed gunmen heading my way was heard?
I know one thing if I had a gun I would have some chanc eif they came shooting my door down.
Guns kill people who have no defense.
It is common sense?



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 02:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


They happen. They just aren't quite as reported due to the fact that not all of them are giant like the Rodney King riots. It does seem to be more common in the UK.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 03:53 AM
link   
Here's part of an article from WND in 2007 that sums up how I feel about it:

"In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw – responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. – unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of "Wild West" showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender."

I'm not a huge gun advocate, though I do keep a revolver in my home for protection. I would encourage people to check out this entire article--it has some eye-opening statistics.

www.wnd.com...

By the way, regarding the UK tragedy, it's terrible. There are no adequate words for such things. I cannot say that had there been more gun owners there that this wouldn't have happened, but I can say with near certainty that it wouldn't have gone on nearly as long as it did, and not nearly as many would have died.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 03:55 AM
link   
Sorry but i haven’t read all the replies...

For me it’s simple... The talk of an outright gun ban is nothing but an emotional, hypocritical, knee jerk reaction from soft urbanites who have know ideal about either country life... or gun crime!

I say hypocritical because all of those screaming for tighter restrictions will happily discuss this issue over a glass of wine, knowing that someone somewhere will be killing family after knocking back several glass of wine and the driving home. Yet i do not hear a mass outcry for a ban on wine...

What we have is a nation of people, most of whom have had no experience of firearms, apart from what they see in movies, making judgement and decisions on that which they have no understanding...

99% of the gun crime committed in Britain is carried out with illegally obtained guns... Banning legally owned firearms will not stop these crimes.

This reaction is based on fear and ignorance and reminds me of that hormonal character from the Simpsons...

The one who always runs around, during times of disaster, shouting...

"Wont somebody think of the children"



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 04:14 AM
link   
reply to post by blupblup
 


I will not begin to tell the UK what kind of laws they should or should not have, as it really isn't my business at all.

In the perfect world of my mind, we would not need guns for protection, but they would not be banned either. Sadly, I don't see that becoming a reality in my life time.. so..

There are millions of gun owners in the United States, and millions that have never committed a crime with a gun. GUNS do not kill people, people kill people. That may be played out, but nonetheless, it is a factual statement.. at least in the way I view the debate that spawned this statement.

What needs to be addressed is what causes some to take other's lives. That is something that I will not even try to get into, as it is not the point of conversation.

I have guns. I hunt with my guns, and they are there if I ever need to protect my home with them.. I do not own them so I can go out and kill people.

The large majority of people who own guns legally do not commit the large majority of gun related crimes.. this is also a fact.

We do not need more barriers, such as gun bans or more restrictions.. in reality, we need a more caring, accepting, loving society. Again, that is a total fantasy given the state of 'society'.

The word civilization has nothing to do with being more caring and understanding. It simply means we have political, social and economic structure.. that meets the definition of being civilized. We are still very much barbaric. That is why I advocate gun ownership, because I have the right to protect myself from the barbaric decay of 'society'.


Resistance is peace.

Peace.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 04:40 AM
link   
My interest in this discussion was sparked by an early comment that if UK citizens were armed then this tragedy could have been ended sooner and that this proved that the UK was wrong to ban general gun ownership.

Leaving aside the plain and simple fact that the UK does not have a widespread gun culture, or the experience and natural restraint that the majority of people raised around guns has, such as in the USA, or indeed any sort of general desire to own guns, I sought to see how true this statement was. How many massacres in the USA were ended by armed citizens?
I got nowhere then, but earlier in this thread someone posted a timeline of US mass shootings from 2005 onwards, and I had the chance to see how this worked in cases in the USA

For example;

12 March 2005, Terry Ratzman killed himself
21 March 2005, Jeffrey Weise killed himself
2 Oct 2006, Charles Carl Roberts IV killed himself
16 April 2007, Seung-Hui Cho killed himself
5 Dec 2007, Robert Hawkins killed himself
14 Feb 2008, Steven Kazmierczak killed himself
24 Dec 2008, Bruce Jeffrey Pardo killed himself
10 March 2009, Micheal McLendon killed himself
9 March 2009 Robert Stewart wounded by a police officer, arrested and facing trial
3 April 2009 Jiverly Wong killed himself
4 August 2009, George Sodini killed himself

So, In not one occurence was the incident ended by an armed citizen, rather deflating that argument. And yet, in the USA, people continue to be be robbed, murdered and raped, so that isn't an argument for gun ownership by the masses in the UK either.

Also this highlights that there were 11 incidents in the USA of this occurrence in the last 5 years, whereas in the UK, there was none until this week for more than twice that period.

There is more to that simple statistic than meets the eye though. Here in the UK the population is much more densely crowded than it is in the USA, There are far fewer wide open empty spaces and, there is nowhere in the UK that people just drive everywhere, as there are in the US, and you get crowded pedestrian streets everywhere, even in the big cities. As such social pressures, strains and conflicts occur much more commonly, with people often coming to blows over what even they, in their more rational state, would agree are the most trivial things. Therefore I am not even trying to say that gun ownership here would make us ‘as bad as America’.

Because of our unique situation, because they would be a ‘new toy’ to the vast majority of people and because of the natural social conflicts that exist here, I think we would be much worse.
That is not to say all of us, of course, and I may have painted a particularly bleak picture there, but really, UK dwellers here, don’t think about you owning a gun. Think about the ‘big I am’s ‘ that roam town centres every weekend, think about the stressed out neighbours posting dog turds through each others letterbox over a parking space, think about the road rage drivers honking away in a traffic jam, or chasing you because they imagine you have slighted them just for being in front and obeying the speed limit. The idea of those people having guns is really scary.


[edit on 4-6-2010 by waynos]



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 05:00 AM
link   
reply to post by waynos
 


Startling information and certainly debunks the theory that an armed population would have put an end to this massacre a little bit earlier.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 05:22 AM
link   
Guns don't kill people, bullets do. a gun without ammo is a very expensive blunt object. but anyway my two cents.

i am pro gun, but it takes a level of responsibility to own or use. I grew up in a hunters world and was taught at a very young age the respect you must give to a firearm.

mentally unstable and/or habitual criminals should never be aloud to have one.
i think responsible home owners and hunting enthusiast should be aloud to have one, i had to take a class on hunter safety.

sorry if some of this has been stated, didn't read much of the thread.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 05:38 AM
link   
Carrying a firearm (handgun) saved my life not once, not twice, but on five separate occasions!

The first time, involved a criminal who tried to mug me in the street at knife point. When he discovered that I wielded a gun and was not afraid to use it, the thief ran away empty handed. That creep had a knife to my throat when I growled, “F#ck You” after pulling a pistol out of my pocket, and sticking it to his head cocked with my finger on the 'hair' trigger. I still have a small scar on my neck where the knife was drew blood due to my reaction. The perp could have killed me, but before I died I would have made sure that I killed him! Freaky thing was that I felt NO FEAR WHATSOEVER during the attack. But after it was all over and I was out of danger, I started shaking (from nerves) that lasted about 20 to 30 minutes. Years later, I talked to a cop-friend of mine about the incident and my delayed shaking reaction; and he said that my reaction was very common, possibly due to the body trying to cope with the instant adrenalin rush.

On all the other occasions, I was able to head off disaster just by being armed and dangerous to criminals who had targeted me as their victim.

"A gun is dangerous, but not having one is even more dangerous!" - unknown.

"It is better to be tried by 12, than carried by six." - unknown



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos

12 March 2005, Terry Ratzman killed himself
21 March 2005, Jeffrey Weise killed himself
2 Oct 2006, Charles Carl Roberts IV killed himself
16 April 2007, Seung-Hui Cho killed himself
5 Dec 2007, Robert Hawkins killed himself
14 Feb 2008, Steven Kazmierczak killed himself
24 Dec 2008, Bruce Jeffrey Pardo killed himself
10 March 2009, Micheal McLendon killed himself
9 March 2009 Robert Stewart wounded by a police officer, arrested and facing trial
3 April 2009 Jiverly Wong killed himself
4 August 2009, George Sodini killed himself



Afterthought. Maybe only women should be allowed to carry guns?



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 05:59 AM
link   
reply to post by waynos
 




It's clearly obvious from the facts that an armed population does nothing to stop incidents like this, in fact you're more likely to be killed and injured by a gun if you own one... and yes It may be people who kill and not guns... but if those people have guns, it makes the killing a lot easier.

But this argument between Brits and Americans is just pointless.... It's like religion... those who believe it, have an unshakable faith and no matter what you say and how out of date and crazy their views may sound to the non-religious.... they will not move from their position.
It's the same with guns... if you're brought up in that culture and your media and society tells you 24hrs a day that there threats everywhere and says you're an idiot and un-American if you don't carry a gun.... and you truly believe your government is going to come and round you up.... then of course you're going to want to carry a gun.

It's mass paranoia in a sense.

Where as I suppose to them, we are mass ignorance.


We can never understand it and they can't understand why we don't all go around with guns...

It will never change and this thread has only highlighted the massive gulf in logic and understanding and similarities between our two nations... both culturally and on the topic of guns.

To-may-to & To-mah-to I think the term is.

[edit on 4/6/10 by blupblup]



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 06:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
My interest in this discussion was sparked by an early comment that if UK citizens were armed then this tragedy could have been ended sooner and that this proved that the UK was wrong to ban general gun ownership.

Leaving aside the plain and simple fact that the UK does not have a widespread gun culture, or the experience and natural restraint that the majority of people raised around guns has, such as in the USA, or indeed any sort of general desire to own guns, I sought to see how true this statement was. How many massacres in the USA were ended by armed citizens?
I got nowhere then, but earlier in this thread someone posted a timeline of US mass shootings from 2005 onwards, and I had the chance to see how this worked in cases in the USA

For example;

12 March 2005, Terry Ratzman killed himself
21 March 2005, Jeffrey Weise killed himself
2 Oct 2006, Charles Carl Roberts IV killed himself
16 April 2007, Seung-Hui Cho killed himself
5 Dec 2007, Robert Hawkins killed himself
14 Feb 2008, Steven Kazmierczak killed himself
24 Dec 2008, Bruce Jeffrey Pardo killed himself
10 March 2009, Micheal McLendon killed himself
9 March 2009 Robert Stewart wounded by a police officer, arrested and facing trial
3 April 2009 Jiverly Wong killed himself
4 August 2009, George Sodini killed himself

So, In not one occurence was the incident ended by an armed citizen, rather deflating that argument. And yet, in the USA, people continue to be be robbed, murdered and raped, so that isn't an argument for gun ownership by the masses in the UK either.

Also this highlights that there were 11 incidents in the USA of this occurrence in the last 5 years, whereas in the UK, there was none until this week for more than twice that period.

There is more to that simple statistic than meets the eye though. Here in the UK the population is much more densely crowded than it is in the USA, There are far fewer wide open empty spaces and, there is nowhere in the UK that people just drive everywhere, as there are in the US, and you get crowded pedestrian streets everywhere, even in the big cities. As such social pressures, strains and conflicts occur much more commonly, with people often coming to blows over what even they, in their more rational state, would agree are the most trivial things. Therefore I am not even trying to say that gun ownership here would make us ‘as bad as America’.

Because of our unique situation, because they would be a ‘new toy’ to the vast majority of people and because of the natural social conflicts that exist here, I think we would be much worse.
That is not to say all of us, of course, and I may have painted a particularly bleak picture there, but really, UK dwellers here, don’t think about you owning a gun. Think about the ‘big I am’s ‘ that roam town centres every weekend, think about the stressed out neighbours posting dog turds through each others letterbox over a parking space, think about the road rage drivers honking away in a traffic jam, or chasing you because they imagine you have slighted them just for being in front and obeying the speed limit. The idea of those people having guns is really scary.


[edit on 4-6-2010 by waynos]


That's because very few people these days conceal carry thanks to our fear stricken society.

Thereby debunking your argument.







Oh me-gosh, people can actually use guns for self defense?
that's just a legend

[edit on 4-6-2010 by Scarcer]



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 06:08 AM
link   
Reply to post by waynos
 


Something to consider is how many of those attacks happened in places where guns were either banned or guns were not carried popularly due to political opinion of the region.

I do know of a university tower shooter in Texas who was indeed supressed by bystanders with their rifles who happened to be passing by the scene.

It's hard for somebody to use a gun defense of self when guns are banned from the area likea school, shopping mall, Amish village or military base. It is in contrast quite easy for an individual with a gun to run amuck in the same gun-free zone.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 06:08 AM
link   
Absolutely Blup. My post in no way tries to preach to Americans what they should do in their own country. I don't live there, I cannot properly know.

I only highlight why I think it wouldn't work here, and why the particular argument put forward in favour that I addressed, is based on a false premise.

Both sides of the argument can throw in any stats they like to 'prove' their case either way. Thats why I prefer a discussion, rather than simply throw up stats, or Daily Mail links, lol





[edit on 4-6-2010 by waynos]



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 06:15 AM
link   
Reply to post by waynos
 


But your rebuttal is based on a false premise. For the conclusion you draw to have any merit you would need to prove that in the area of the attack there were in fact armed citizens carrying.

If no one is armed but the attacker how can anyone else use a gun to stop the attack?


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 06:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Scarcer
 




Anybody can post a few videos backing up their point.

What Waynos did was use a time-line, posted by an American, of the massacres that have happened over there since 2005.... and not one of them ended because an armed citizen shot the perp.... so it disproves the notion that a gun carrying public makes things safer.


Here is a video of a guy shooting a gun.... and a man inside the pub hears the shots, fears for his wife who is outside, and disarms the assailant without ANY weaponry.

So by your logic, nobody need carry guns right?








[edit on 4/6/10 by blupblup]



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 06:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by blupblup
reply to post by waynos
 




It's clearly obvious from the facts that an armed population does nothing to stop incidents like this, in fact you're more likely to be killed and injured by a gun if you own one... and yes It may be people who kill and not guns... but if those people have guns, it makes the killing a lot easier.
[edit on 4/6/10 by blupblup]


What facts


Do you even have experience with firearms? I find that 95% of people scared of firearms are the same ones who haven't spent more than 15 minutes firing them and go on blogs and articles talking how semi-autiomatic "assault" rifles and 20 rd "high capacity" magazines are the devils ass.

Please, make sure you have sufficient experience, if so then I'll respect your opinion on that.

[edit on 4-6-2010 by Scarcer]



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 06:23 AM
link   
Reply to post by blupblup
 


Prove there is a "gun carrying public" around during the incidents in the timeline. Otherwise the conclusion has no merit.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by blupblup
reply to post by Scarcer
 




Anybody can post a few videos backing up their point.

What Waynos did was use a time-line, posted by an American, of the massacres that have happened over there since 2005.... and not one of them ended because an armed citizen shot the perp.... so it disproves the notion that a gun carrying public makes things safer.


Here is a video of a guy shooting a gun.... and a man inside the pub hears the shots, fears for his wife who is outside, and disarms the assailant without ANY weaponry.

So by your logic, nobody need carry guns right?








[edit on 4/6/10 by blupblup]


Good for them! Great job!

Too bad that doesn't happen more often.

P.S. and thankyou for twisting my logic
, silly me, I saw a couple videos of people saving the day with guns and assumed that's the only way possible!

Thankyou, no, I was proving that it's possible. Now go sit in the corner and think before you say next time.

[edit on 4-6-2010 by Scarcer]



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join