Why a ban on guns would never work.

i'm a gun owner. i've never had to take a human life for any reason, but i sure as hell have had to save a few. that wouldn't have been possible without a firearm. as the old saying goes: "i'd rather have one and not need it, than need one and not have it."

some of you anti-gun folks sound like Adolf. an exact quote exists, i just don't feel the need to reference it.

For 5 years i lived in an apartment complex that suffered from an inordinate amount of petty and violent crime. there was ONE part-time "security guard" that patrolled the premises. even though he was a martial arts instructor, every time there was a dangerous situation, guess whose door he knocked on? your friendly neighborhood law-abiding gun owner.

not that i minded, but if more people had been willing to confront their own problems then i wouldn't have had to place myself in danger and do it for them. call the police you say? allow me to step back from the keyboard and laugh that one off. if they bothered to show up at all, it was usually too late. and get this, there was a major precinct less than a mile from the complex. you see, there was so much petty crime the cops just abandoned the notion of dealing with the problem. which pretty much leaves it in the hands of the residents. when the time came that a few folks decided they'd had enough it finally shrank to a tolerable degree. only after it became apparent that there were armed and angry citizens afoot.

even petty crime becomes a serious problem for those already suffering from low income. some of these thugs will smash through a $100 car window, just to take the $1 in change that might be hiding under the seats. and that sh*t spreads. the next time it's three car windows, then five, then an entire car. soon it brings in more bad element. strangers creeping around, using the area as a thoroughfare, and pissing ground.

knife vs. gun? hmmm... ever been shot? ever been stabbed or cut? knives are just as lethal. sometimes more. a knife, if wielded properly, can make even more of a mess than a handgun. AND they are more concealable. ceramic knives that can pass detectors are expensive, but fairly easy to find. a shiv can be made from anything, is easier to dispose of, and offers the option of a silent assault. there are no working parts to complicate what will already be a stressful situation. it may lack range, but it is quiet and simple. and most of them are cheap! the blade would then seem to be the choice weapon for those practicing arts of skullduggery.

so then the next logical step would be to ban all knives as well?

Originally posted by The Theorist
I don't expect you to understand the way I, or the way many American's, think. Truth be told, I can't understand your thinking, either. Not completely, anyway. I assure you though that I am trying to.

You're wrong, I understand how you think, what you think and why you think it, I just disagree, very strongly. The US has no historical incident that is unique. There is nothing in the history of the US that isn't there in Irish history, in volumes that would make you weep, but because of that we have realised that picking up a gun and shooting someone has consequences so deep, disturbing and destructive as to make it an almost unthinkable response.

Our founding fathers enshrined neutrality in our constitution.

The only way to protect our way of life, and to assure that this country never becomes the next Nazi Germany, is in my opinion, for us to be armed.

What good are the guns doing? Fascism US seems to be progressing just fine.

I would never go out and shoot someone out of anger. I am a law-abiding citizen.

Which is true of everyone until they decide to shoot someone that has made them angry. By then, it's to late. I see no need to take the chance.



[edit on 21/6/10 by pieman]

reply to post by pieman


I need to proof-read, more.

***
Damage Control: My wife defends my honor. She owns a .45! And she's pregnant! You've been warned...
***

Edit: You deleted my proof-reading fail. Guess my wife got to you.

[edit on 21-6-2010 by The Theorist]

reply to post by pieman


Your fear of guns should be put into prospective by your signature...

Originally posted by pieman
Which is true of everyone until they decide to shoot someone that has made them angry. By then, it's to late. I see no need to take the chance.
[edit on 21/6/10 by pieman]

If they're angry enough to shoot you, they're probably angry enough to kill you whether they have a gun or not.

People talk about US homicide rates versus the UK, and they blame it on guns, but you need to realize that the US averages 6,000 homicides yearly that do not involve the use of a firearm. That's roughly a third of all homicides that occur here every year. That strongly suggests that people will just use whatever is available.

The remaining two thirds use guns to commit violence mainly because its the weapon of choice, not because the gun makes them do it. Guns are not the factor that motivates one to violence. If you could snap your fingers and make every American firearm disappear, its a good bet that a significant majority of those would still occur as people just found another weapon to commit the crime...and that's the best case scenario. In the worst case, it might actually cause a spike in violent crime as criminals would know they would no longer have to worry about a shotgun waiting for them behind the next door they decide to kick in.



[edit on 21-6-2010 by vor78]

Originally posted by seagull
I've saved a life with them, weren't nothing big, shot a rattlesnake that was camped out by my Uncles door.

From the snakes perspective, you went into his house and shot him for no good reason except his being there. He wasn't even threatening according to you. Saved a life? In what way?

Yes, lives are taken by guns, and that's a bad thing. On that we agree. However, lives are saved by their use as well.

A gun has a single purpose, to take life. Any live they "save" is only through the balance of supposition as to what you believe might have happened if things had been different. They can't actually save a life.

Like any tool, dangerous to the user and those around him if used in a fashion not intended.

Guns are quite dangerous when used in the fashion to which they were intended. That is why they are called weapons, not tools. Don't give me that tool crap.

...as for your cowboy remark?

Which one? I never said a thing about cowboys, I have nothing against farm laborers of any description, except, perhaps, nerf herders!!

[edit on 21/6/10 by pieman]

Originally posted by jeh2324
Your fear of guns should be put into prospective by your signature...

It's just not that simple but seeing as you say it, from the perspective of my sig, the need to own a gun is a fear of powerlessness in the face of a stronger opponent.

The pointlessness of that fear is that the powerlessness you feel is due to your own doubt in yourself, not your opponents strength. Dismiss the doubt and the disadvantage is gone so there is no need for the gun.

The truth is, a gun only re-affirms your powerlessness to you and so, while a gun makes you feel more powerful, it also robs you of your power. That's why the "go off" so often. Scared people carry guns.

Originally posted by pieman
Allow me to put it another way, gun lovers seem happy to let children die for their ability to access the easy power fire arms offer. I feel that this level of stupidity and irresponsibility deserves very little respect. The contempt with which I hold excuses about rights and freedoms has no bounds. I believe the main reason for gun ownership is to allow the impotent to feel powerful.

The continued "right to bear arms" is a disgusting and abhorrent strangulation of the basic rights and freedoms of all right thinking people.

The most disgusting aspect of it is that those who would claim to value democracy make threat of force before allowing democratic debate and referendum on the subject.

Well, you seem happy at the thought of people not being allowed to defend themselves. Works both ways.

Originally posted by vor78
If they're angry enough to shoot you, they're probably angry enough to kill you whether they have a gun or not.

Rubbish. That's all I have to say really, I could expand on it but it's pointless. Shooting someone is really quick and easy, a momentary thought, running after someone and catching them and beating them to death is way harder. So, eh, yeah, rubbish.

Originally posted by technical difficulties
Well, you seem happy at the thought of people not being allowed to defend themselves. Works both ways.

Defend themselves from what? No guns, no need to defend from guns, and guns aren't defensive, a bullet proof vest is defensive as it stops you being shot but you're not likely to shoot a bullet out of the air.

Actually, I'll concede that if you are a good enough shot that you hit a bullet mid air before it reaches you, I'm happy enough for you to own a gun.

[edit on 21/6/10 by pieman]

Originally posted by pieman

Originally posted by seagull
I've saved a life with them, weren't nothing big, shot a rattlesnake that was camped out by my Uncles door.

From the snakes perspective, you went into his house and shot him for no good reason except his being there. He wasn't even threatening according to you. Saved a life? In what way?

Yes, lives are taken by guns, and that's a bad thing. On that we agree. However, lives are saved by their use as well.

A gun has a single purpose, to take life. Any live they "save" is only through the balance of supposition as to what you believe might have happened if things had been different. They can't actually save a life.

Like any tool, dangerous to the user and those around him if used in a fashion not intended.

Guns are quite dangerous when used in the fashion to which they were intended. That is why they are called weapons, not tools. Don't give me that tool crap.

...as for your cowboy remark?

Which one? I never said a thing about cowboys, I have nothing against farm laborers of any description, except, perhaps, nerf herders!!

[edit on 21/6/10 by pieman]

Firstly...apologies for the Cowboy thing...it wasn't you. Sorry about that. What have you got against nerf herders? Scruffy, or something ?

Living as you do in England, I don't think you realize just how dangerous a grumpy rattlesnake is. ...and a rattlesnake that just got stepped on is about as grumpy as it gets. Rattlesnakes are poisonous, if you didn't know this. This one was not a young one either...about 2 feet long. Dangerous to adults, very probably lethal to kids. Yeah, it wasn't out to do evil things, yet an evil would have occurred had someone stepped on it, or disturbed it. There was no real choice in the matter, had there been, I'd have been more than happy to let it go its way, and I, mine. You see, folks who know their way around guns are not, as you seem to think or want to imply, all about killing things they dislike...

Guns have saved lives, and without taking them. Many a burglary, or would be assault, has been stopped, pardon the pun, dead by the mere presence of a hand gun, or the ratcheting sound of a pump shotgun. The trigger needn't be touched to save a life...

A gun is only as dangerous, barring sheer unadulterated stupidity or accidents, as the user. You would be perfectly safe around me, for example...because I've been trained, virtually from the moment I was old enough to hold it safely, in how to handle them with safety, and competence. As for them not being tools...that's the load of crap... Weapons of any sort are tools. Knives, swords, guns, bombs, slingshots, oil spills...all are tools of sorts...just like hammers, screwdrivers, and pliers. Yes, their intended use is to take life, that doesn't make them anyless of a tool.

Safety is paramount when using a handgun/rifle/shotgun or any other sort of tool. A handgun is always loaded, whether it is or not...always treat it as such. The first time you don't, you may live to regret it, but someone else may not.

We've reached the point where we agree to disagree. I'm unlikely to convince you of your mistaken belief. ...and for darned sure, you aren't going to change my mind. So...until we next disagree.

reply to post by seagull


who was that aimed at?

Originally posted by pieman
Rubbish. That's all I have to say really, I could expand on it but it's pointless. Shooting someone is really quick and easy, a momentary thought, running after someone and catching them and beating them to death is way harder. So, eh, yeah, rubbish.

And yet it happens all the time. In a given year, anywhere from 5,000-6,000 homicides occur that do not involve the use of a firearm.

But don't take my word for it.

Facts suck.

Pieman, your fear is somewhat humorous to be quite honest, it shows a general lack of understanding and knowledge and shows that you know little more about firearms than what you've gathered from anti gun talking points and pie charts (probably how you got your name) of biased statistics.

Its quite funny how those such as yourself like to place themselves upon a pedi stool of superiority as if you know more about guns than the ones who actually have first hand knowledge, and not only first hand, but a lifetimes worth of knowledge and experience with firearms.

You can blame "guns" all you want for deaths but it doesn't change the fact that the people you need to fear, DON'T CARE ABOUT GUN BANS.

The law abiding citizens that you're arguing with on this very forum aren't going to be the ones with guns breaking into your home holding you and your family at gunpoint while they are raping your wife and daughter and looting your families possessions.


Law abiding gun owners that can recite the second amendment and its meaning are of no threat to you.

It's the illiterate and undereducated lower class forced into a life of violence and crime who are also victims to a system which makes them dependent upon it and not only that but gives them no reasons to achieve higher goals for themselves and thus producing a crime rich environment,, and ironically its these very same individuals who support the same liberal left wing parties and politics that wants to ban said firearms in the first place that you need to fear.

conservative middle class gun owners are law abiding citizens and aren't the ones who add to your anti gun statistics. Not only that but citizens who carry firearms especially those with CCW permits are the SAFEST people to be around, not only do we NOT want a confrontation involving our firearms, we AVOID situations which can put us into ANY type of confrontation be it verbal or simple hand to hand.

We know the consequences of such altercations and that they aren't worth it.

your fear of firearms is irrational and your arguments are stale.

And quite frankly who are YOU to tell me much less any other person what they should and should not be able to own? my property is of no consequence to you, if you have a problem with firearms, then the problem is yours alone, if a firearms is used to cause someone harm then the only one to blame is the user.

Its so typical in modern society to cast the blame elsewhere, when the blame lies completely on the person committing the injustice.

but I wouldn't expect someone argument the childish and irrational things you suggest in your ramblings to be one to place responsibility where it lies, because after all into days world its everyone else's fault right?

And I also notice you like to throw out veiled insults towards ones manhood by question his power to fend off an adversary without a firearms. its a nice fantasy world you live in where everyone is equal and all that crap but the fact of the matter is this, ones life is all that really matters in this world, and beyond that is the life of his or her family and friends when a threat to those things arises the only thing that matters is overcoming it, if someones assaulting and raping my fiance'e or sister or mother or whatever else, I'm not going to set there and think to myself "hmm will i look like a coward by piemans standards if I don't use my fists?" Hell no I'm going to to whatever is within my means to stop the attack, I couldn't give a damn whether or not it pleases you or any other "real man?" what matters is my loved ones are safe, challenging my manhood by attempting to fend off an attack with my fists isn't worth their lives, ill use whatever is in my hands at the time, be it a gun or a ball bat.

taking chances with peoples lives is ignorance at its best.

[edit on 21-6-2010 by C0le]

Originally posted by C0le your fear of firearms is irrational and your arguments are stale.

i'm thinking about this for my new sig.

Originally posted by pieman

Originally posted by The Theorist
There are too many people like me, who would rather die, than give up their guns.

I can live with all you people gone, to be honest. I might so far as to call that evolution.

If all the idiots who would rather posses power than peace and freedom were removed from the gene pool, we might have a chance of living out the century. [snip]

EDIT: And knowledge doesn't require action, knowing how to make a gun doesn't mean you have to go out and make one.

If I had my way, anyone found in possession of a gun should be charged with possession of a weapon with intent to kill. People get charged with intent to supply for drugs.

[edit on 21/6/10 by pieman]




Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 21-6-2010 by 12m8keall2c]

Guns can be used to defend as well as attack. Nice try though. Now don't get me wrong, the fact that drugs are illegal is stupid (almost as stupid as believing a gun in a law abiding citizen's hands will turn them into a cold-blooded killer), but that's a different story.

Originally posted by pieman

Originally posted by technical difficulties
Well, you seem happy at the thought of people not being allowed to defend themselves. Works both ways.

Defend themselves from what? No guns, no need to defend from guns, and guns aren't defensive, a bullet proof vest is defensive as it stops you being shot but you're not likely to shoot a bullet out of the air.

Actually, I'll concede that if you are a good enough shot that you hit a bullet mid air before it reaches you, I'm happy enough for you to own a gun.

[edit on 21/6/10 by pieman]

If guns can be used for defending yourself, then yes, by defintion guns are defensive. You aren't making any sense.


[edit on 21-6-2010 by technical difficulties]

People will kill when they want to. No gun law is going to protect anyone.
Where there is a will, there is a way.

But...

It will prevent any unnecessary deaths from guns.
Those who do not know how to use them are likely not in possession of them.

It makes it harder to get them and likely that only those trained and responsible have them and treat them as such. ( Not leaving them on places another would find them. Shoot themselves with it )

People will as a result not get one when threatened because the changes are slim to actually come face to face with one. ( Those familiar with them will use them only when they need it and not to play a tough guy )

So...

Reply to post by pieman

Car owners seem to want kids to die, as there is easy access to cats.

Pool owners want children to die as there is easy access to pools.

That argument that you anti-gun people regurgitated can be used for anything that can cause death.

How about we teach safety instead, like we do with every other dangerous thing in the world.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by BlastedCaddy


Just to answer this... when I did a google search;

how to make a zip gun?
About 870,000 results (0.24 seconds)

you really don't need any special skills... but making a zip gun without knowing a few things might do you more harm to yourself, than your intended target

[edit on 21-6-2010 by DaddyBare]

This is one of those arguments were neither side will ever reach agreement. I am all for gun control and allot of your are for it admittedly there are some good points made by the other side however for me on balance gun control is a righteous thing to desire. However like i said neither side will ever come to an agreement. So perhaps it is best to just forget about this entire debate as neither side can win.