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.

 

Why a ban on guns would never work.

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by kevinunknown
 


take a look at the statistics of the first full year of 'gun control' in Australia, gun crime up 40%, strange how less guns means more gun crime, just like in the UK, shootings, up gun ownership down, just seems weird to me.




posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 06:15 PM
link   
Aside from all the arguments about whether or not gun control works, it is good to remember that in the US gun ownership is protected by the US Constitution.

It's called the Second Amendment. It is one of the first ten amendments called the Bill of Rights that the first Americans demanded before they would ratify the Constitution.

Just sayin'.

[edit on 2010/6/21 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 06:22 PM
link   
In ten years explosive powder weapons will be out dated, as any one up to speed will be sporting a Lazer.
This will be better, you won't run out of bullets, just make sure you have charger and extra battery pack or packs.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 06:43 PM
link   
Guns serve three purposes: recreation, hunting and defense.

To take away any of these for any reason is to remove freedom. This concept is repulsive to the American idea, for any reason. It maters not that we have police, military or grocery stores. The most important of these IMO is defense against tyranny and oppression. Let me leave you with these.



" border=0>


[edit on 21-6-2010 by Wolf321]



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 08:04 PM
link   
question:


considered dangerous by authorities...

because of a gun?
or is it something else?
would he be dangerous if he just had a 12" switchblade?
as dangerous?



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by queenannie38
 


I would say that he's dangerous because of his background and his current actions. Would he be less dangerous with a knife? It depends on the situation. In open space, yes, but in close quarters, the threat level posed isn't that far from parity.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 09:42 PM
link   

People talk about US homicide rates versus the UK, and they blame it on guns,


In the US its a homicide if a home owner shoots a armed intruder.
Its a homicide if a store owner shoots a robber.
Its a homicide if ether of the above beats the criminal to death with a baseball bat. or a golf club.

The the US the public just saves the taxpayer money when they punch the criminals Darwin ticket.

In the UK all the criminal have worry about is jail at the taxpayer expense and likely are not afraid of anyone stopping them from there crimes. they also know that most people are unarmed and can pick any home or business to commit there crimes.

In the US they take there chances and many crimes are not committed just because the criminal are afraid if meeting armed homeowner or business owner.

I have a gun collection most have not been out of my gun safe for years and only one i take out of the house is my 1911 45 to keep in practice this is my home defence gun. The rest are my SHTF guns and i would not care to try to survive after the SHTF without them.


It emerged earlier this week that police in the UK also recorded more than 26,000 serious knife attacks in the year up to March 2009, meaning that 72 people a day are stabbed or robbed at knifepoint.


we have few knife crimes in the US compared to the UK.
likely because someone trying to rob someone in the US with a knife would stand a higher chance of getting shot.

we also have many areas in the US that don't have cops on call in minutes in some areas of the US it would take anywhere from a half hour to two hours for a cop to get there.
most people would think these would be high crime areas and they are not because just about everyone that lives in these areas have weapons and know how to use them.

wheelgun.blogspot.com...

US homicide rates in the year 1900 were an estimated 1 per 100,000 -- at a time when anyone of any age could buy a gun and carry it.
its now about 5.6 nationwide.
and the homicide rate climes with the stricter the state gun laws are.


A survey conducted by the UK Home Office of 20 European and nine North American cities put the US capital way out in front with a murder rate of 69.3 per 100,000 population.

The gun laws in washington DC are almost as strict as the UK.

There were 2034 violent crimes per 100,000 in the UK in 2008 and there rate has been rising.
The U.S. has a violent crime rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents in 2008 and its been falling.

The one thing i see is that in the US the public shoots more criminals and that is what give us the higher rates of homicide.

And there is more violent crime in the UK because the public can not shoot criminals.






[edit on 21-6-2010 by ANNED]



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by googolplex
In ten years explosive powder weapons will be out dated, as any one up to speed will be sporting a Lazer.
This will be better, you won't run out of bullets, just make sure you have charger and extra battery pack or packs.


yeah... and by Y2K we were supposed to have flying cars, jet packs, and condos on the moon...




posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 10:00 PM
link   
In Georgia:

There are 3 code sections that govern when lethal or deadly force may lawfully be used.

Defense from a forcible felony; A person is justified in using force which may harm or kill only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. You are not justified if you were the aggressor or you are/were/on-the-way-to committing a felony. (The state has pre-empted local cities and counties from further restricting this defense.)(16-3-21)

Defense of habitation; (here habitation means dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business) A person is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:


1.A person is breaking\has broken into your home in a violent and tumultuous manner, and you think that the intruder is going to assault you or someone else living there.
2.A person who is not a member of the family or household and who unlawfully and forcibly enters the residence and you know it is an unlawful entry.
3.The person using such force reasonably believes that the entry is made or attempted for the purpose of committing a felony therein and that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of the felony.
(16-3-23)

Defense of property other than habitation; Lethal force cannot be used to protect real property unless the person using such force reasonably believes that it is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.(16-3-24)

(Stand Your Ground/Shoot First/License To Murder - went into effect July 1st, 2006) If you have determined you need to use lethal force (as stated in one of the underlined "Defense" sections immediatly above) you do not have to try to retreat before using that force. If your defense is valid, you are immune from criminal procecution (unless it is illegal to carry that weapon where you used it) and civil liability actions.(16-3-23.1, 16-3-24.2, 51-11-9)



That should make them think twice!

[edit on 21-6-2010 by jeh2324]



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by queenannie38
 
Ain't gonna happen. If you beat the guns to plowshares, I can make a knife/sword, and kill you, even if you had a gun, before you could even think about pulli8ng the trigger.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by googolplex
In ten years explosive powder weapons will be out dated, as any one up to speed will be sporting a Lazer.


if we don't change our ways, we won't be here in 10 years.
none of us

guns or no guns
we will be EPIC FAIL



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by kettlebellysmith
 


don't need a gun!

i could kill you with my mind if i had a mind to
so could you

and that's where the true power is

and that's why there WILL be more farm implements on this planet in the future.
a whole lot more.

just look at the mural at the Denver Airport.
plus GOD said

we'll just see if there is a GOD after all



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 03:29 AM
link   
I just thought I'd point out this thread in BAN, just a matter of reference. Chicago has one of the most stringent gun control laws in the country and just like every jurisdiction with strict gun control, they have an astronomical murder rate.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I remember back in the Nineties in New Orleans, there was something on the order of 25 murders in one weekend.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 04:58 AM
link   
I've been following this thread and I got something to say.

America is not the only country where guns are allowed.
Norway, Switzerland and a bunch of others this is also allowed.

However their murder statistics hardly resemble that of the US. Proofing that guns don't kill people. People kill people.

American people have a number of fruitcakes in their mids. The silly idea that owning a gun equals liberty is just so. Silly.
A lot of man woman and children would still be alive today if it was not so freaking easy to get your hands on a gun in the US.

And for what ? Feeling liberty is under attack ? That is just it...

Just to many fruitcakes... Silly Americans.:shk:



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 06:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by seagull
Living as you do in England,


My location clearly says "Ireland". They're two different countries and the inhabitants of either tend to take offense at confusion.


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...


If you'd no gun to hand, you would have used your brain and found a way to avoid someone getting bitten. You might have called animal control or used a 4ft stick to poke it out of the way. You had a gun so you shot it.

My pint is, people with a gun don't bother to try to find a better way to deal with the "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...


Neither a burglary nor assault is likely to involve someone being killed. How does stopping these crimes = saving a life?


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.


No matter which way you look at it, I'd be safer around you if you had no gun. I don't care how well trained you are, you are less likely to kill me without a gun.


Weapons of any sort are tools.


A tool is used to do something productive, a weapon is used to do something destructive. A gun cannot be used productively so it's not a tool.


We've reached the point where we agree to disagree.


If you want to withdraw, that's up to you.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 06:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas

Just to many fruitcakes... Silly Americans.


I couldn't agree with you more. Do everything in your power to avoid ever coming here.

Of course, when the US entered the wars in Europe in the early and mid 20th century, almost everyone except the Germans was glad to see that we showed up with our guns.

Before we entered WWII, we loaned Britain a whole bunch of our privately owned guns because they just didn't have any, because of their gun control laws.



After the fall of France and the Dunkirk evacuation in 1940, Britain found itself short of arms for island defense. The Home Guard was forced to drill with canes, umbrellas, spears, pikes, and clubs. When citizens could find a gun, it was generally a sporting shotgun Ð ill suited for military use because of its short range and bulky ammunition.

British government advertisements in American newspapers and in magazines such as The American Rifleman begged Americans to "Send A Gun to Defend a British HomeÐBritish civilians, faced with threat of invasion. desperately need arms for the defense of their homes." The ads pleaded for "Pistols, Rifles, Revolvers, Shotguns and Binoculars from American civilians who wish to answer the call and aid in defense of British homes."

www.nraila.org...


Don't get me wrong, I love our British friends, but don't you think having to borrow firearms so you can fight a war is kind of silly.

www.rifleman.org.uk...

en.wikipedia.org...

Now, let's try to recall what happened to the Netherlands in WWII.


At the outbreak of Second World War in 1939, the Netherlands declared itself neutral once again as it had done during World War I. Even so, on May 10 1940, Germany invaded the Netherlands.

The invasion resulted in 2,300 dead, and 7,000 wounded Dutch soldiers and the deaths of over 3000 civilians.

By the end of the war, 205,900 Dutch men and women had died. The Netherlands had the highest per capita death rate of all Nazi-occupied countries in Western Europe, 2.36%.

en.wikipedia.org...


Now, what were you saying about guns and liberty?


[edit on 2010/6/22 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wolf321
Guns serve three purposes: recreation, hunting and defense.


You can have recreation without guns.
You can hunt without a gun.
You can defend without a gun.

Guns serve one purpose, they kill. This pretense that they have another purpose is just silly. At least be honest about it.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Car owners seem to want kids to die, as there is easy access to cats.


A car used properly will not kill.


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


A Pool used properly will not kill

You getting the idea yet?



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 06:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Before we entered WWII, we loaned Britain a whole bunch of our privately owned guns because they just didn't have any, because of their gun control laws.


Links please, I've never heard of this and it seems a very strange thing to do. Rifles aren't that hard to produce.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by pieman

Links please, I've never heard of this and it seems a very strange thing to do. Rifles aren't that hard to produce.


I added these links to my earlier post.

www.rifleman.org.uk...

en.wikipedia.org...


After the fall of France and the Dunkirk evacuation in 1940, Britain found itself short of arms for island defense. The Home Guard was forced to drill with canes, umbrellas, spears, pikes, and clubs. When citizens could find a gun, it was generally a sporting shotgun Ð ill suited for military use because of its short range and bulky ammunition.

British government advertisements in American newspapers and in magazines such as The American Rifleman begged Americans to "Send A Gun to Defend a British HomeÐBritish civilians, faced with threat of invasion. desperately need arms for the defense of their homes." The ads pleaded for "Pistols, Rifles, Revolvers, Shotguns and Binoculars from American civilians who wish to answer the call and aid in defense of British homes."

www.nraila.org...



This is not an exhaustive search, but I don't have time to track down every link at this time.

Try this:

Google Search



[edit on 2010/6/22 by GradyPhilpott]



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join