Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Why a ban on guns would never work.

page: 6
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by vor78
If you're really that arrogant, that you think you know better from your little soapbox several thousand miles away than the people who live in this country, then its pointless to continue with you.


It's not like Americans are slow to stick their nose into everyone else's business, at least I have a good idea what I'm talking about, and can find your country on a map without names.

Come on now, is that the best you can do? Call me arrogant because I hold an opinion on gun control?

Here's a little food for thought for you as you go on your way, the US spent untold billions in a weapons race with the USSR and it's satellites, they bought guns, tanks, bombs, nukes, planes and whatever other aggressive thing you can think of (and quite a few you haven't) yet the thing that bought it all down in the end was people saying "no". That's pretty much all they did, they said "no".

[edit on 22/6/10 by pieman]




posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 11:49 AM
link   

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?


This is pretty telling, pieman. Moral equivalence is a flaw in logical thinking. That you believe a human life and a snake's life are of equal importance, exposes a lack of empathy or sympathy for anyone but yourself.

I would not have shot the snake myself. I would have removed it, despite the greater danger to myself, because I believe that personal internal consistency and reverence for life, is more important than simply removing a problem the easiest way available. The risk vs benefit equation for me, would tip the scale that way, because I know about snakes.

To suggest though, that someone else who doesn't have that knowledge, or that makes a different risk vs benefit assessment is wrong, would be hubris.


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.


Yes they can. The fact that one cannot know for absolute sure that that was the crucial factor makes no more logical sense than saying that someone who doesn't step out in front of a speeding car didn't save their life. Do you routinely step into traffic without regard, because you believe that it makes no difference to whether or not you live? I doubt it.

Perhaps it's that you equate people and snakes that you make this mistake. Guns are useful precisely because their presence informs a potential wrongdoer of consequences. The "threat" of being killed is indicated by the mere showing of a gun, by an intended victim, and often leads to no one being hurt, because the attack is broken off.

If your argument that guns are unnecessary held water, there would be no attacks of any kind on anyone, anytime. Since this is demonstrably not so, it fails spectacularly. And since bad people overwhelmingly attack those perceived by them as weaker, you are actually advocating that little old ladies be victimized by criminals, simply by denying them the compensatory value of being armed, and therefore, not weaker, in practicality.

Your heart is in the right place. You simply have not taken your impulse to it's logical conclusion. I recommend reading John Lott's book More Guns, Less Crime.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by pieman
 


Its not so much your opinion on gun control. Its the self-righteous way you present that opinion.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Enderdog

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?


This is pretty telling, pieman. Moral equivalence is a flaw in logical thinking. That you believe a human life and a snake's life are of equal importance, exposes a lack of empathy or sympathy for anyone but yourself.


I don't mean to be blunt here but have you actually read what you've quoted. My point was that the snake hadn't threatened anyones life so shooting him didn't constitute "saving a life". It was taking a snakes life because he was afraid of the snake, nothing else. Who's life was saved? what human life was in the balance?


If your argument that guns are unnecessary held water, there would be no attacks of any kind on anyone, anytime. Since this is demonstrably not so, it fails spectacularly.


I don't follow you. Which of my arguments suggest that there will be no attacks on anyone at any time? I feel you are trying to creates logical flaws where you can find none.


I recommend reading John Lott's book More Guns, Less Crime.


I recommend thinking for yourself and mandatory MDMA supplementation to the water supply in a similar fashion to fluoride supplementation, who's idea is better?


Originally posted by vor78
Its not so much your opinion on gun control. Its the self-righteous way you present that opinion.


If I think I'm right and that the opposing point of view is plain evil, I have difficulty presenting my points humbly. I'm sure your robust enough to manage.

[edit on 22/6/10 by pieman]



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by pieman

Originally posted by Enderdog

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?


This is pretty telling, pieman. Moral equivalence is a flaw in logical thinking. That you believe a human life and a snake's life are of equal importance, exposes a lack of empathy or sympathy for anyone but yourself.


I don't mean to be blunt here but have you actually read what you've quoted. My point was that the snake hadn't threatened anyones life so shooting him didn't constitute "saving a life". It was taking a snakes life because he was afraid of the snake, nothing else. Who's life was saved? what human life was in the balance?


If your argument that guns are unnecessary held water, there would be no attacks of any kind on anyone, anytime. Since this is demonstrably not so, it fails spectacularly.


I don't follow you. Which of my arguments suggest that there will be no attacks on anyone at any time? I feel you are trying to creates logical flaws where you can find none.


I recommend reading John Lott's book More Guns, Less Crime.


I recommend thinking for yourself and mandatory MDMA supplementation to the water supply in a similar fashion to fluoride supplementation, who's idea is better?


I have to concede, you are bulletproof! I hope you never have occasion to test your beliefs in real life.

be well,

Thomas



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Enderdog
I hope you never have occasion to test your beliefs in real life.


And I pray no-one else has occasion to test yours.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by pieman
You can defend without a gun.


How do you defend against an armed tyrannical/opressive-government military soldier without a gun? How does a little old granny defend against a much larger 20 year old thug on crack without a gun?

I don't know if you are American or not, but in America the 2nd Amendment (right to keep and bear arms) is primarily intentioned "being necessary to the security of a free State" meaning to keep the people free from tyranny; either home grown or invasive foreign tyranny. Now, if all military forces in the world want to melt down their weapons, I might consider the idea of banning firearms. Might.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 05:00 PM
link   

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.


CDC Source

2007, United States Firearm Deaths and Rates per 100,000
All Races, Both Sexes, Ages 0 to 18
2,251

That is less than 3 out of every 100,000 kids. I don't think that hardly equates to gun owner's hating children. Your logic is so flawed it is breath taking.

During the same time 2,000 kids suffocated. I guess that means people that buy things in plastic bags or let kids swim without a life guard hate kids as well.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeNice81
 


Its worth noting that its not an even distribution, either. It increases rapidly with age. The 15-18 year olds make up 1,853 of that 2,251, or 82.3%. Some of those (440) were suicides, but many of the rest will be gang-related in one way or another. So what you find is that, in contrast to what the anti-gun lobby wants you to believe, the overwhelming majority of these are actually high school kids or, in the case of the 18 year olds, young adults.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by vor78
 


Thank you for expanding the idea I started with. I was trying to cook dinner and post at the same time.

I wish more people would take the time to research the facts. If they did most people would understand that the majority of firearm murders are comitted during the comission of a crime with an illegaly obtained firearm.

People that buy their guns legally rarely use them for nefarious purposes.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by pieman
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.


The IRA, PIRA, LVF, RIRA, CIRA, ONAE, and the INLA would like to say hello. They would also like to remind you of their proclivity for bombing public places and killing innocents as well as represenatives of the crown.

As I recall it wasn't untill 2005 before the PIRA laid down arms.

The INLA killed Billy Wright in 1997 using hand guns. They shot in to a prison transport unit. They obviously had no regard for innocent life.

CIRA and OnE are still bombing places and firing on and killing police officers.

Don't come here and preach about the peaceful nature of the Irish or their abhorence of guns.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
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.


Here is something interesting to note about Chicago. They were actually considerring calling in the national guard to help with the explosion in murders. They had 113 in the first four months of 2010. ABC News Article

Chicago also has about 2000 CCTV cameras in use that are monitored by the police department. Yet after the initial drop in crime, the murder rate went back up.

[edit on 22-6-2010 by MikeNice81]



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by vor78

Originally posted by pieman
A gun is not designed to shoot paper targets, if it is used to do so it is not being used for the purpose to which it was designed. If used for the purpose to which it was designed, a gun will kill.


That may be true, but it doesn't change the fact that millions of Americans use them for the purpose of target shooting. Myself I prefer cans and paper plates.


Actually it isn't true. There are guns and ammo built specificly for use in competition target shooting. There is also a class of ammo made to break apart when encountering resistance to reduce lethality while maintaining stopping power.



[edit on 22-6-2010 by MikeNice81]



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeNice81
 


On the issue of competition guns, you're absolutely right, of course. Not only that, but professional competition shooting seems to be gaining momentum in many areas of the country. At the time, I was willing to concede that point trying to meet the guy halfway. Looking back, I'm not sure why I bothered.

[edit on 22-6-2010 by vor78]



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 01:52 AM
link   
Pieman, my grandfather (proud vet of WWII) would say that if you're in a room thinking everyone is crazy maybe you're the crazy one.


I now see why St. Patrick was Welsh.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 02:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by kevinunknown
I don’t understand people that are not for gun control, perhaps if you had your child or mother shot dead then gun control would suddenly seem like a good idea. Why do people need guns, i really do not understand that. In American everyone man and his dog seem to own a gun, why? If it is for personal protection and the logic is that everyone else has one, then i should have one to protect myself, then a ban should have been put in place 50 years ago. A ban would not work over night, we had a problem with the volume of dangerous knifes in the uk a while back so to solve to problem there was a 6 moth amnesty on dangerous knifes were people would hand them into the police without prosecution. In the USA this would have to be longer, it would have to be done in stages but it can and should be done. Yes you can look at the UK and point out every incident of gun crime, but when it comes down to it we have less gun crime than in the States and that is just because we can control them. Its only legal in the USA as i understand it, because it was necessary to have guns way back when you were all cow boys. Why won’t you even give it a try?


Because you are just repeating media lies. Gun crime may be down in the UK but since the UK outlawed most guns the crime rate overall went up 300 percent. Why? Because criminals know most of their victims are not armed! And I would venture to say there are many more guns in the UK then you think, not everyone turned them in.

Outlawing Guns will work about as good as outlawing drugs has worked! Yep good thing we're all drug free since all those drug laws got rid of all the illicit drugs... Sigh!


We have tried gun control in places like NY City, Chicago, Washington DC, and Los Angeles. Guess what they are some of the most dangerous places on the planet with some of the strictest gun control. If gun control actually worked they would be some of the safest places. NY City has a higher murder rate then Baghdad Iraq for cripe sake. So are you going to tell me London is a safer place with all the gun control? LOL!

Also in every city in America that has loosened gun control and allowed concealed carry the crimes rates have dropped dramatically. The states with most liberal gun laws or lack there of have the lowest crime rates. I live in Idaho it is not uncommon to see people open cary weapons here and we have one of the lowest crime rates in the nation. Other states with similar attitudes on guns have similar low crime rates. So please quit trying to blow the media smoke up our arses we know better!

You see we have proven over and over gun control does not work and will never work and it in fact does exactly the opposite of what all the misinformed gun control advocates claim.

And as for making guns I know people who have whole machine shops in thier garage and can make anything you want. You can go on the internet and get plans on how to make AK47s with no machining required. A lot more people then most realize make thier own guns. And no these are not junk guns. Americans are far more resourceful then the guys in robes in the middle east many of who make thier own guns and actually use them to fight with. Guns will never be eradicated from America like Australia and the UK...!


[edit on 23-6-2010 by hawkiye]



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 06:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by MikeNice81
Don't come here and preach about the peaceful nature of the Irish or their abhorence of guns.


The disgust at the depravity that grew out of Northern Ireland as well as the fresh memories of armed revolt and civil war on the whole island are exactly the reason for the the wider Irish abhorrence of armed conflict in all it's forms, we know exactly what armed conflict involves, the pointlessness of it and that is the reason we demanded an end to violence.

It's not preaching so much as a realistic expectation and an understanding of the consequences, I'm not working off some rambo inspired hero light dream of glory, I know that armed uprising against a tyrant is mostly about shooting your neighbours children because they might be informants and then shooting your brothers because they're becoming a tyrant in their place. Any idea how much that screws a people up?

After all that, it still doesn't work. Tyrants become more tyrannical or are replaced by worse tyrants. It's not the 18th century anymore, war is so much uglier now.

I also know that the same objectives can always be achieved through political and peaceful means. Armed conflict and the means to prosicute it have outlived their usefulness and the only thing that allows them to remain are fear and ignorance.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 06:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by MikeNice81
2007, United States Firearm Deaths and Rates per 100,000
All Races, Both Sexes, Ages 0 to 18
2,251

That is less than 3 out of every 100,000 kids. I don't think that hardly equates to gun owner's hating children. Your logic is so flawed it is breath taking.


Not as flawed as your maths, according to you, the figures are per 100,000. That means it's 2251 per 100,000. Where are you getting 3 in 100,000?


If they did most people would understand that the majority of firearm murders are comitted during the comission of a crime with an illegaly obtained firearm.


Which is exactly why I said anyone caught in possession of a gun should be charged with intent to murder. Also, it would be a hell of a lot harder to obtain a weapon illegally if weapons weren't so readily available. The illegally obtained weapon argument is stupid and circular.


There are guns and ammo built specificly for use in competition target shooting.


Not really, they are marketed for use in competition but they are designed to kill.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 06:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by vor78
So what you find is that, in contrast to what the anti-gun lobby wants you to believe, the overwhelming majority of these are actually high school kids or, in the case of the 18 year olds, young adults.


I'm sure their parents are comforted by the fact.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 06:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by pieman
Not as flawed as your maths, according to you, the figures are per 100,000. That means it's 2251 per 100,000. Where are you getting 3 in 100,000?


You really don't have a clue what you're talking about, do you? You might actually try visiting the site the CDC site he linked to. If you did, you'd find that his 2,251 figure was for a population of 78,110,694...that's a rate of 2.88 per 100,000.

And just to add, no, its no comfort or consolation to the parents of those older kids, but the argument needs to be grounded in reality, and the reality is that most of them are in their mid/late teens and know exactly what a gun is and what its capable of when they pick it up.

I'm sure its certainly no consolation to the parents of the other 11,661 kids aged 0-18 to learn that theirs died from some other non-firearm related injury, either.

[edit on 23-6-2010 by vor78]





new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join