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.

 

US Gun Statistics

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by budaruskie
reply to post by Equinox99
 


With all due respect, I completely disagree. If you are proposing that basically there will be no sales of new guns, then those of us with guns are now 1st class citizens and those of you without are now 2nd class. What are you going to do about it?


How do you get that? I want to know the reason you think that other citizens will be second class and your first class.

EDIT:

And I am suggesting handguns not rifles or shotguns. Big difference.
edit on 30-11-2010 by Equinox99 because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Equinox99
 


Please, let's not get into tactics or which guns are better than others, because its really irrelevent. Yes, I meant I risked my life roughnecking for a while and I can assure you that people get hurt and killed on a regular basis doing just that. By the way, in your scenario, do the cops have guns or no? When I die, does my son get my guns and if not who does. Who is going to be in charge of making sure the guns get melted? How are they going to enforce their authority against someone with millions of guns? I think outlawing fiat money, as you eluded to earlier, would go a lot further towards feeling warm and cozy at home that outlawing guns.



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 08:33 PM
link   
I hope the other guy does not have this on. www.youtube.com... or maybe this, www.youtube.com...
edit on 30-11-2010 by nite owl because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Equinox99
 


Perhaps you should stick to topics you are familiar with, because this one obviously isnt your best subject.

Cops have no legal obligation to protect anyone who isnt in their custody. Furthermore, the ignoramuses tend to believe cops are much more proficient with firearms than your average citizen, when reality states they couldnt be more wrong.

Sure, some cops take training seriously, but for the most part they only shoot their duty gun when their quarterly qualifying requirement comes up.

Large numbers of people hunt with handguns, once again proving your ignorance on the subject.

you conveniently ignored the following question in my previous post:

What about the countless defensive uses of handguns? Those dont count?

hypothetically speaking, if your little wish came true and all handguns were banned, would you be ok with me carrying my M-4 slung across my back? (Since you arent knowledgeable on the subject, an M-4 is a type of rifle)

Of course you wouldnt be. Your solution for defense outside of the home would be what then?



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Equinox99

Originally posted by budaruskie
reply to post by Equinox99
 


With all due respect, I completely disagree. If you are proposing that basically there will be no sales of new guns, then those of us with guns are now 1st class citizens and those of you without are now 2nd class. What are you going to do about it?


How do you get that? I want to know the reason you think that other citizens will be second class and your first class.

EDIT:

And I am suggesting handguns not rifles or shotguns. Big difference.
edit on 30-11-2010 by Equinox99 because: (no reason given)


I did write that thinking you were saying all guns, but either way, those with handguns still have an immense advantage. Is your widowed granny gonna be able to pick up, load, aim, and fire a 12 guage or 30-06? I don't think so.



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by BigTimeCheater
 


Dude...I wanna hang with you and play twister!! Your signature is my gaming mantra.



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 08:40 PM
link   
Doctors may be the #1 killer in America but #2 is Pharmaceuticals.


How many Americans did they kill with Vioxx and Bextra?
How many Americans did they kill when Tylenol sent manufacturing to China and the product had to be recalled?

It's interesting to research drugs that get peddled on us. Go to the FDA Drug Facts website and look up Flexiril/Cyclobenzaprine.

The FDA approved that drug to be used on humans for no longer than 2 weeks. Why? Toxicity from longer used killed all the rats by destroying their livers/internal organs.

So I wrote the FDA and asked why they let Doctors prescribe that medication for longer than 2 weeks....their reply.....Doctors can prescribe medications for as long as they see fit....even if they know use longer than 2 weeks will kill you.

People are making money killing Americans and Congress is behind it 100%. There's money in it. Billions.

Research Purdue Pharma and their Placebo Oxycontin.....yes they make a placebo Narcotic and Doctors peddle fake narcotics to say cancer patients. Killing them. Plus Purdue is making full costs on the medications.

20% of the drugs we pay for are Placebo's. Lots of people are paying full costs for drugs...but get placebo's and are dying in America. It's tolerated because Congress Critters get massive kickbacks...doctors get free vacations to the Cayman Islands.....we have the worst healthcare in the world.
edit on 30-11-2010 by Pervius because: words



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 08:42 PM
link   
YOU , will become a statistic if you meet up with this thing packin. www.youtube.com...



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 08:44 PM
link   
thanks for making me question my beliefs, i have always been against people having guns, i just feel that there are to many people out there who would use them for revenge or in the heat of the moment.

however i have been sat here thinking about how 9/11 would of panned out if everybody on the planes were allowed to carry guns. obviously there would of been deaths but more or less? i would imagine less.

its a hard one, on one side it seems guns do harm and the other it seems they can lessen the evil.

how hard would it be to hold up a bank if the robber say's hands up and everybody else trains a gun on him and say's "no %$£"&^* way man".

i am of the belief that those who want to do harm are way less than those who are law abiding citizens. but then i am from the u.k. and am maybe just to use to people no having guns which is why i am uncertain if it would be good or bad.



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigTimeCheater
reply to post by Equinox99
 


Perhaps you should stick to topics you are familiar with, because this one obviously isnt your best subject.

Cops have no legal obligation to protect anyone who isnt in their custody. Furthermore, the ignoramuses tend to believe cops are much more proficient with firearms than your average citizen, when reality states they couldnt be more wrong.

Sure, some cops take training seriously, but for the most part they only shoot their duty gun when their quarterly qualifying requirement comes up.

Large numbers of people hunt with handguns, once again proving your ignorance on the subject.

you conveniently ignored the following question in my previous post:

What about the countless defensive uses of handguns? Those dont count?

hypothetically speaking, if your little wish came true and all handguns were banned, would you be ok with me carrying my M-4 slung across my back? (Since you arent knowledgeable on the subject, an M-4 is a type of rifle)

Of course you wouldnt be. Your solution for defense outside of the home would be what then?


My solution for defense outside your home would be a stronger society. Instead of defending your handguns and spending money on collections we could help the poverty stricken areas.

Why would you need protection in a neighborhood with little to no crime? Because crime is a major issue with poverty stricken areas, do the research.

Your question:

What about the countless defensive uses of handguns? Those dont count?

What about the statistics? Those don't count?

A shotgun would suffice for home protection. If you want to carry your M4 in public I wouldn't care as long as it is registered and you have had the training in using it.

But the problem with handguns is that you can hide it well without detection. Even though you can hide rifles and shotguns it would be tougher. Not saying it can't be done but the statistics say that handguns are easier to to commit crime with.

A cop would have a harder time spotting someone with a nine millimeter than say a rifle or shotgun.



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by nite owl
 


Those are some really scary videos. If the 2nd amendment was actually being upheld as it was intended you could have those and the AA-12, provided you had the $$$.



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 08:46 PM
link   
todays tech could make you a statistic. GEE, i thought star wars was a MOVIE. NOT REAL.



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by budaruskie

Originally posted by Equinox99

Originally posted by budaruskie
reply to post by Equinox99
 


With all due respect, I completely disagree. If you are proposing that basically there will be no sales of new guns, then those of us with guns are now 1st class citizens and those of you without are now 2nd class. What are you going to do about it?


How do you get that? I want to know the reason you think that other citizens will be second class and your first class.

EDIT:

And I am suggesting handguns not rifles or shotguns. Big difference.
edit on 30-11-2010 by Equinox99 because: (no reason given)


I did write that thinking you were saying all guns, but either way, those with handguns still have an immense advantage. Is your widowed granny gonna be able to pick up, load, aim, and fire a 12 guage or 30-06? I don't think so.


To answer your question:





posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Equinox99
 


Nothing in home defense will protect you against the new tech. I still will be packin tho.



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Equinox99
 


Serious question:

Whats it like to have the mindset of a peasant who lives in fantasyland?

No offense intended, but you dont live in reality.

You can come up with all of the "oh well lets just cure poverty and hunger and that will prevent crime, while at the same time we can let the government dictate how we can protect ourselves" scenarios you want, but crime will still happen. Some people are just aholes like that.

That is not reality, nor is it indicative of someone who values freedom.



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Equinox99
 


Touche my friend


However, believing that the elimination of handguns equals the elimination of crime or violence is an enormous leap of faith and a logical fallacy. That is what we are trying to say.
edit on 11/30/2010 by budaruskie because: apparently there is no i in faith


Also, wouldn't the criminals just revert to using shotguns and rifles instead? Wouldn't the number of deaths then jump in those categories leading to the removal of those weapons as well?
edit on 11/30/2010 by budaruskie because: I wanted to add sumthin'



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigTimeCheater
reply to post by Equinox99
 


Serious question:

Whats it like to have the mindset of a peasant who lives in fantasyland?

No offense intended, but you dont live in reality.

You can come up with all of the "oh well lets just cure poverty and hunger and that will prevent crime, while at the same time we can let the government dictate how we can protect ourselves" scenarios you want, but crime will still happen. Some people are just aholes like that.

That is not reality, nor is it indicative of someone who values freedom.


I think you and I both know that is intended to offend or else you would have came with a different approach.

I'm sorry if you feel that helping people is not reality but that is the best way to fight crime. Crime is here because of poverty. You stated blacks have the highest per capita and I suggested a way to lower that capita.

Your solution to the gun problem is make more guns. Mine is build a stronger community and eradicate poverty. Which is only a fairytale to you because of your mindset. If we had people helping each other out rather than showing off their e-d!cks we would have already accomplished a low per capita crime rate.

So I am going to ask you again, how do you intend on solving this issue?



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 08:56 PM
link   
Here is some pretty good skin armor you can buy. If i had the cash i would buy this. www.youtube.com... This is a must have in home defense.
edit on 30-11-2010 by nite owl because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Equinox99
 


If poverty was the only thing that caused crime, then how do you explain the FED, Mafia, Bernie Madoff, the list goes on for miles.



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by budaruskie
reply to post by Equinox99
 


Touche my friend


However, believing that the elimination of handguns equals the elimination of crime or violence is an enormous leap of faith and a logical fallacy. That is what we are trying to say.
edit on 11/30/2010 by budaruskie because: apparently there is no i in faith


I never said eliminating handguns will eradicate crime. Not once did I mention eliminating handguns will eliminate crime. I know crime will be around regardless.

All I am saying is that the elimination of handguns will help in lowering the crime rate. If I did say that eliminating guns will eliminate crime rate than I apologize, I didn't mean that.

But I am merely showing the statistics of guns that is all. Handguns are responsible for 87% of all gun crimes in the US. That is all.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join