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.
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.
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.
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.
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 recommend reading John Lott's book More Guns, Less Crime.
Originally posted by vor78
Its not so much your opinion on gun control. Its the self-righteous way you present that opinion.
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?
Originally posted by Enderdog
I hope you never have occasion to test your beliefs in real life.
Originally posted by pieman
You can defend without a gun.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Originally posted by MikeNice81
Don't come here and preach about the peaceful nature of the Irish or their abhorence of guns.
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.
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.
There are guns and ammo built specificly for use in competition target shooting.
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.
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?