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: 3
14
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Well define mental instability. If someone was diagnosed of depression, is that mental stability? Perhaps that is why they mislabel so many people with depression and ADHD.




posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 10:46 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 have to disagree, just when do you become *mentally unstable* when you believe in the constitution for gun rights against illegal immagration? What if they start marking everyone they don't like as *mentally unstable*.. You scream for gun laws now you will scream for your life at the barrel of one later..



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by MisterCrowley
 


Yeah us "conspiracy theorists" are obviously mentally unstable, am I right?



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by MisterCrowley
 


Yeah us "conspiracy theorists" are obviously mentally unstable, am I right?


You could be a harvard law student high IQ very intelligent head on their shoulders that just got pissed and kill someone. Does that mean your *mentally unstable* not always. Soldiers are not mentally unstable but they kill people every day (you get the point in retrospect) Gang members shoot each other but thats what they do they are not *mentally unstable*.
All it takes is a paid off psychologist to mark on that paper *mentally unstable* and there goes your right to carry.. No judge, no jurry, just a doctor who can say if you can carry? No I do not believe that is a good idea... Even if you are *mentally unstable* it could mean you were depressed after your wife died went to the doctors to get some help they mark you and that mark is FOREVER even if you come out of that depression.. What about when they come for you! Or the *conspiracy theorist* yup sure mark him unstable.
edit on 9-1-2011 by MisterCrowley because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by MisterCrowley
 


Yeah that was prettymuch my point. Also psychology is not really a clearcut science that those in the field would want you to believe. Especially these days, when shrinks are more likely to give you a few dozen magic pills, rather than find and destroy the root of the problem. If I had listened to "experts" I would be a drooling zombie now, but I chose to not take all the magic pills(after the first antidepressant almost drove me to suicide), and delve into psychology myself. Took 4 long years, but now I am happier than I ever thought possible back when I was depressed among other things.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by gnosticquasar
 


How exactly do you propose the government goes about classifying people as stable and unstable?



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 12:19 AM
link   
Gun control should have been carried out long ago, we know it really takes instability in social security for the country , but it is a fact that it is not a easy thing to limit such a large population that own guns.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 01:01 AM
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.


On a foid card application, it asks if you are mentally retarded.

There's a simple fact that all these bleedy heart yuppies refuse to acknowledge...

mentally ill...criminal....mentally ill criminals....they're going to do what they're going to do regardless of laws.


These weak minded politicians are just looking for a soap box to win a few more votes.

To hell with them for trying to capitalize their agenda in the midst of a loss of life.

Taking guns away from law abiding citizens *will* make things worse



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lunatic Pandora

Originally posted by Cocasinpry
How would have this have went down without a hand gun, someone please explain this to me.



How would it have gone down with a ban on guns?

Probably about the same way.


Most Europeans engage in a logical fallacy regarding guns. They see all these gun rampages from America, but forget to take into question the vast number of people in America. Per capita there's no more gun rampages in America than in most Western European nations where guns have strict legislation.

We're tricked by our totalitarian leaders into discarding freedoms in the name of 'safety'. It's always been the case.

Perhaps more worrying, alot of gun bans and anti-gun rhetoric in Europe is built on the back of Anti-Americanism.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by Lunatic Pandora
 


Seriously... Hand guns are banned here, but I could go to the local drug dealer, who has connections with some gangmembers in the city. For around 2 grand I can get a handgun.


It's exactly the same in Britain. There's estimated to be around 8 million guns on British streets. Do the math. Would be nothing to get one.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 07:22 AM
link   
To be honest with you, I almost encourage them to try and come after people's guns.

As I've said before, I believe there are a lot of people out there that will not wake up to what is going on until they try and come for their guns. I think that would be the final push to wake up a lot of ordinary citizens who might not be reading ATS, or anything for that matter, and have had their heads buried under a rock.

I often joke to my father about it. He won't believe me about anything I say, so I'll always come back with the remark, "Just wait until they come for your guns."

Do it! I dare you!



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cocasinpry
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.


Crime in Canada is sky rocketing. Most heavily populated areas have higher average crime rate than American cities.

There doesn't need to be a disguise. Right now there's hundreds of millions of guns in circulation. Yet there isn't hundreds of millions of deaths today, or tomorrow, or this week, or this month, or this year. Because 99.9999% of people own guns for completely legit reasons. Hunting or fending off criminals.

If the sole function of guns was to murder, or kill, the stats would reflect that. They don't, ergo you're wrong. Infact you're so incredibly wrong it needs stating twice.

Maybe you live in the nice suburbs where nothing happens, I assure you if you lived in a bad area you would want a deterrant.

It's a fact. In any area with a decent sized population, when the guns go, crime goes up. You think criminals are scared of the police?



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 07:46 AM
link   
This should come as no surprise. The typical gun haters will be out in force crying about how evil guns are.

Guns are not the problem, people are.

Blaming an object for the actions of a person is lunacy, pure and simple.

When will we begin mentally evaluating politicians?



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 09:09 AM
link   
Honestly, to me, more gun regulation is what's to be expected from our gov't. Heck, many already believe the Constitution/Bill of Rights is an outmoded form of government and should be taken as "guidelines" instead of "the document that defines and regulates the powers of our country".

We'll slowly go the way of the UK; gun-less and on Candid Camera 24/7. Your right to bear arms? Taken away by an oppressive nanny-state; now only the criminals will have guns, and THAT scares me.
edit on 10-1-2011 by igigi because: Antikythera mechanism



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by igigi
Honestly, to me, more gun regulation is what's to be expected from our gov't. Heck, many already believe the Constitution/Bill of Rights is an outmoded form of government and should be taken as "guidelines" instead of "the document that defines and regulates the powers of our country".

We'll slowly go the way of the UK; gun-less and on Candid Camera 24/7. Your right to bear arms? Taken away by an oppressive nanny-state; now only the criminals will have guns, and THAT scares me.
edit on 10-1-2011 by igigi because: Antikythera mechanism


And if you defend your home with physical violence, you will be jailed



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 


They are going after free speech and total control over the Internet, too. We live in interesting times.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 09:47 AM
link   
If you want to also look at the UK, stabbings have risen because some folks cannot get guns-but that doesn't stop them from finding a knife-or some other means of during harm, to go and do what they had planned in the first place.

Seriously, a gun ban doesn't stop people from committing crimes, or stop gun crimes, etc. We can see that.

Maybe we just need people bans




posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by sara123123
 


Where the modern-day Coliseum is CNN/Fox News... lions, tigers and bears! Grab your sword!



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by igigi
 


Since the "war on terror" has been expanded to name us all as suspected domestic terrorists, the sky is the limit for all fascist/Marxist wannbes in power. The Republic is up for grabs both domestically and internationally.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by NadaCambia
 


Dude, you're pulling stats out of thin air, not very cool. Post sources if you're going to make such claims. According to all these sources, you're statement couldn't any more inaccurate.


Levels of gun violence vary greatly across the world, with very high rates in South Africa and Colombia, as well as high levels in Thailand, Guatemala, and some other developing countries.[8] Levels of gun violence are low in Singapore, Chile, New Zealand, and many other countries.[8] The United States has the highest rate among developed countries.[9]

en.wikipedia.org...




The risk of death by gunshot has been cut in half in Canada and is far smaller than in the United States, Statistics Canada says. In a study issued on Monday, the federal agency notes that Canadian gun-control laws have been stiffened in recent decades and gun registration has been made compulsory, but it draws no conclusions about the cause of the falling death toll.

It says that 816 people — 767 males and 49 females — died of firearms-related injuries in Canada in 2002, the most recent year examined in the study. This represented 2.6 deaths per 100,000 population, down from 5.9 per 100,000 in 1979, it said. Guns seized by Toronto police in February 2005. Among males, the 2002 rate was 4.9 deaths per 100,000, down from 10.6 in 1979.

Among females, it was 0.3, down from 1.2. In a cross-border comparison for the year 2000, Statistics Canada says the risk of firearms death was more than three times as great for American males as for Canadian males and seven times as great for American females as for Canadian females. Because more of the U.S. deaths were homicides (as opposed to suicides or accidental deaths), the U.S. rate of gun homicide was nearly eight times Canada's, the agency says.

Homicides accounted for 38 per cent of deaths involving guns in the United States and 18 per cent in Canada. But even as Canada's rate of gun homicide shrank (to 0.4 per 100,000 population in 2002 from 0.8 in 1979), handguns moved into a dominant role. Handguns accounted for two-thirds of gun homicides in 2002, up from about half in the 1990s, the agency says.

Consistently through the period, The risk of death by gunshot has been cut in half in Canada and is far smaller than in the United States, Statistics Canada says. In a study issued on Monday, the federal agency notes that Canadian gun-control laws have been stiffened in recent decades and gun registration has been made compulsory, but it draws no conclusions about the cause of the falling death toll.

It says that 816 people — 767 males and 49 females — died of firearms-related injuries in Canada in 2002, the most recent year examined in the study. This represented 2.6 deaths per 100,000 population, down from 5.9 per 100,000 in 1979, it said. Guns seized by Toronto police in February 2005. Among males, the 2002 rate was 4.9 deaths per 100,000, down from 10.6 in 1979. Among females, it was 0.3, down from 1.2. In a cross-border comparison for the year 2000, Statistics Canada says the risk of firearms death was more than three times as great for American males as for Canadian males and seven times as great for American females as for Canadian females.

Because more of the U.S. deaths were homicides (as opposed to suicides or accidental deaths), the U.S. rate of gun homicide was nearly eight times Canada's, the agency says. Homicides accounted for 38 per cent of deaths involving guns in the United States and 18 per cent in Canada. But even as Canada's rate of gun homicide shrank (to 0.4 per 100,000 population in 2002 from 0.8 in 1979), handguns moved into a dominant role. Handguns accounted for two-thirds of gun homicides in 2002, up from about half in the 1990s, the agency says.

Consistently through the period, about four-fifths of Canadian firearms deaths were suicides, it says., it says.


Read more: www.cbc.ca...



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join