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.

 

Debate on gun control heats up after Giffords shooting

page: 2
14
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Exactly, people with agendas know the masses are going to be responding with emotion, and not logic after a terrible event. So the push their agendas, like banning guns, or video games they don't like, or free speech, knowing that people are not in a logical state of mind. If you took the time to think about it, the person obviously didn't care to obey the law against murder, what makes anyone think they would obey a lesser law against guns?




posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 07:52 PM
link   
I'm not going to get concerned until I see a fair number of GOP House members start talking about it. They're not going to just give away their strongest domestic issue, so as it stands, the Democrats likely would not have the votes to push any major new gun legislation through that chamber of Congress. In fact, I don't even think the Democratic party as a whole will be too keen on the idea following their losses in November.

In the end, the usual suspects will screech loudly for more gun control measures, but I suspect none will be forthcoming. IMO, that's a good thing.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Cocasinpry
 


You really want to know? Would it have been worse if he would have slammed a pickup truck into the crowd of people instead? Absolutely! Would it have been possible? Absolutely! You wanna know whats worse? He could have waited patiently to speak with her face to face and stabbed her right in the jugular killing her in seconds. There is not really a limit to how he could have carried this out, so if your argument is against firearms I could easily replace it with many many everyday items and in most cases did more damage.


The bottom line here is the guy has serious mental issues that should have been addressed long before it came to this. I think his mind was broken to the point that even if you removed firearms from the equation he would have figured out how to pull off what he intended to do regardless.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 08:11 PM
link   
With the laws in AZ it surprises me that someone was not armed and took out the shooter.

But then this was a democratic function.

Just one lawfully armed citizen and things could have been very different.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 08:24 PM
link   
Reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 


Under Clintons AWB high cap mags could still be purchased. The AWB had a grandfather clause. Production and sale of new mags was prohibited.

Seeing as how there are millions of high cap mags out there It would take a century for all of the high caps to disappear. Further reinforcing the grand uselessness of Clintons AWB.

Of course none of that "reality" stuff ever registers with people who believe they can legislate peace on earth.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 08:28 PM
link   
I agree guns should be outlawed, then all the bad people will turn in theres and childern, butterflys and unicorns will be free to romp in the parks without any cares or scraped knees.

Look at mexico they outlawed guns there and no one has ever been killed there since

Thats how it worked out...........right???



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 08:40 PM
link   
Mexico outlawed guns!?!? Who knew!?!?!? It's working out so well for them, we should do it too!



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 


the congressman from utah was talking today on the news. when asked about changing gun laws he infadimately said no. he said infact arizona has less homeinvasions because of its gun laws. Im not sure hwat will happen with this, but yet it will be on the table to be discussed. and even if they try and change the gun law, personally they have to find my guns to get them right



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Just one lawfully armed citizen and things could have been very different.


You understand Loughner was a "lawfully armed citizen", yes? (except for the high-cap mag)

By the time anyone had fumbled a gun out of it's holster and taken the safety off those people would still have been shot. There's simply no way to predict when and where trouble will start.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Yah I seriously think that most people don't own hand guns in Canada. In fact, I don't know anyone here that owns one, I've never even seen one except on a police officer and you know what? It's not a problem here...

A ban on handguns would be the best thing ever. Yeah, fight fire with fire, that's much smarter, how many other people do you think could have been caught in the crossfire? Best the guy could have done would have been a hunting rifle and that's not that easy to conceal.

Guns exist for one single purpose... to kill. You can disguise it any way you want but that's it.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Cocasinpry
 



I tell you what you do what you do in Canada and we'll do what we do in the US.

I know hundreds of people who own guns not a single one of them has been involved in a shooting.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Cocasinpry
 


I live in canada, I can get an illegal handgun easily with 2 grand. I prefer to wait and get it the legal way myself.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective
Although this lawmaker tends to not be going overboard and approaching the subject with a level head, I wonder how long it will take before we see OTHER lawmakers using this as an opportunity to zero in on gun rights?


Rep. McCarthy is saying she will be introducing gun control legislation as early as tomorrow.

This is the same McCarthy that, when questioned, didn't know what a barrel shroud was, but it needed to be banned.

Also, she was pushing for new addtions to her gun control legislation while they were still stuffing bodies into bags during the Virginia Tech shooting.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 09:15 PM
link   
I hope you all realize there *was* a legally armed citizen nearby - not actually in the store. But the shooter had already emptied his first magazine when the legally armed citizen ran over to the scene. He helped hold the shooter down but had no reason to use his gun at that point. It would have helped had an armed person actually been in the store - but in that respect, a law enforcement officer or security would have been ideal.

What really makes me nervous is that this might be the catalyst for a re-instatement of the assault weapons ban which did ban high capacity magazines (>10 rounds). But, I have to admit that it's hard to justify 30+ round magazines for normal citizens. (the shooter used a glock model 19 handgun with an aftermarket 30rd magazine) That being said, I just ordered an OEM 33rd magazine for my glock 19. Never had a reason to buy one before, but I want one (or more) now before they get banned again. It it gets banned again, the price will go up and they will be quite valuable. If it is like the previous ban, new sales will be banned but existing magazines will be grandfathered. It might be fun for some range time too, but unweildy for most other uses.

I already stocked up on 15rd mags when Obama won the election just in case - I figure, if my gun will hold 15 with a flush mag (in other words, something that actually fits properly), why be forced to load it with only 10.

I hate it when nut jobs do bad things that put my freedoms at risk....such is life. If nothing else, maybe we need a better way to determine who is "mentally competent" to legally purchase a firearm. That's a really tough one to figure out.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
By the time anyone had fumbled a gun out of it's holster and taken the safety off those people would still have been shot. There's simply no way to predict when and where trouble will start.


I've always liked when events like this happened, people describe individuals that have a carry permit as "fumbling".

Yep, people might still have been killed, but it probably would have been fewer. Like maybe that 9 year old girl would still be alive.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by jerico65
 


She usually attempts to introduce a gun ban every year, so that one is hardly a surprise. That particular one is very likely to go nowhere fast, thankfully.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by jerico65
 


Yes! What is this gal's deal jericho? She has been salivating all over this and other events.

The thing that always gets me in relation to these events is, A-The usual knee-jerk reactions to begin banning weapons, and B-The total IRRATIONALITY in that institution of such bans only serves to do what? Prevent law abiding individuals from purchasing or carrying these items. The actual criminals and killers couldn't give two turds about a 'weapons ban' if they are going to be robbing or killing someone with a gun! As IF they are going to stop and go, "uh-oh, this gun is banned, so I better not hold up that liquor store with it."

So the only folks these bans effect are the ones who DO obey the law.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by jerico65

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective
Although this lawmaker tends to not be going overboard and approaching the subject with a level head, I wonder how long it will take before we see OTHER lawmakers using this as an opportunity to zero in on gun rights?


Rep. McCarthy is saying she will be introducing gun control legislation as early as tomorrow.

This is the same McCarthy that, when questioned, didn't know what a barrel shroud was, but it needed to be banned.

Also, she was pushing for new addtions to her gun control legislation while they were still stuffing bodies into bags during the Virginia Tech shooting.


Hell this time they didn't even bother to wait until the bodies got cold let alone being put in bags.

Political opportunism is disgusting.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
By the time anyone had fumbled a gun out of it's holster and taken the safety off those people would still have been shot. There's simply no way to predict when and where trouble will start.


People with CCWs don't fumble.

I have used a 1911 .45 since i was trained on it in the military and i don't fumble and as i draw my thumb drops the safety.
If you train with your weapon. there is no fumbling and if you don't train you should not be carrying.

All the states i know of require you to fire your weapon on the range and show you are proficient in using it before you can get your CCW.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by gnosticquasar
If I'm not mistaken, this guy had a history of mental instability. Maybe the lesson is that we shouldn't let people who are mentally instable own a gun, which seems like common sense to me. No need to ban guns and all this other stuff that will invariably be talked about at some point.
I thought not being mentally unstable was already a requirement in some states for buying guns, but I have no objection to firming that up.

People without any record of mental instability should still be allowed to own guns. Besides, hasn't history shown us that when guns are banned, it only keeps them out of the hands of the law abiding citizens, tipping the balance of power in favor of the criminals, who will get and use them anyway?

So general gun bans seem pretty stupid to me. But banning them from nuts is a good idea.




top topics



 
14
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join