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.

 

To all the people who want to ban guns.

page: 12
225
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 01:04 AM
link   
I quite agree, Freedom should meen everyone gets the right to defend themselves and guns are bascially the ideal thing for it. In the UK, usally a scumbag robber or a rapist comes out on top over the victim because the victim has nothing to defend themselves with. Sure guns can be dangerous, but lets face it..not everyone is a jared lee whatever.

anti gun propaganda is basically just liberals trying to score political points, dont fall for it.




posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 01:05 AM
link   
A wise man once said :


"guns don't kill people, people kill people"


This is why we have free will


Take the guns away, then you have people wielding Swords, Hammer, Axe , Bow & Arrow even throwing rocks. We will return to our Dark age of weaponry. So this will do what? The problem lies in our nature to kill. Every one of us has had the thought at one time or another to kill someone lets not kid ourselves. But do we do it? Most of us are not killers. Some of us are, soldiers kill. Unless you change the nature of the beast, take violence out of the animal you are not going to make much of a difference. People will find a way to kill. We have a brutal history as a species long before the gun. The idea of banning guns is absurd. The people who call for it do not understand the root of the problem or they do not want to tackle it. They really want to give more power to the police state in the end. Unless the police disarm, all law enforcement, Military, we all just get together and melt the guns then we can sing kum by yah and call it even.Then we can kill each other less efficiently. He who run the fastest gets to live.
edit on 12-1-2011 by Unknown Soldier because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 01:12 AM
link   
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101
 



And why rationalise with drunks? You already logically knew the drunk is far too intoxicated to be of right mind for any reason or logic. Just simply walk away, and talk to him when he is more mentally stable when the effects of alchol is gone. Challenging or hitting drunks do not make one a hero. You are only actually bullying a temporary mentally challenged person, nothing to be proud of.

Why should she have to walk away from someone she doesn't know, threating her in her own house and refusing to stop or leave her property? Screw that, I think she was more than generous to the lady by just shooting her in the leg. She could have popped her in the head. BTW this was two woman and not two guys, I made the same mistake.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
You can crow about your guns in America...but compare the murder rates for Toronto and Detroit...about 10 times higher per capita in Detroit.

You may have a right to your firearms (and we have legal guns, too, though more controlled), but you'd better add your national psyche to the equation.


WOW, and you had to put your foot in your mouth.

Do you have any idea what sort of city Detroit is, and what gun laws it has?

Detroit is the U.S.most unsafe city simply because it has very strict anti-gun laws, and anti carry laws...

You actually made the point the OP was making, and you didn't even realize it because like always, people like you just have a knee jerk reaction every time you hear, or read the word "gun"...



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 02:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Rocky Black
 



Must be an american thang ....
i'm of the belief that only pussies need guns but i already know your american pride wants to shoot me lol oj



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 02:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Rocky Black
 




Ban guns? What for? Better screening for those who purchase firearms is justified. I suppose it is easier to just ban them instead. That's like the lazy way out. Trouble is that guns can always be obtained. Remember prohibition? Probably not. Overnight a black market for booze was created. The same would happen in the gun market. Just like in the current drug market. We would have a "war on guns" and waste zillions more dollars running around in circles doing that. Even more citizens would be in prisons. No kids. Let's just be more careful about who gets to buy a gun in the first place. I know it's more work. It requires actually using our brains. But for once let's try to fix a problem the best way.

Sheesh.....



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 02:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Rocky Black
 


I completley agree with the OP. Having a weapon on your person, keeps other folk honest.

I just bought a new shotgun the other week. I feel safer already.

and so does my wife.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by mtnshredder
reply to post by Honor93
 




thank you for noticing but i gotta ask this truly stupid question ... what difference does that make?

No not stupid question, Most guys could take "most" woman down physicaly. You said she was much bigger than you and you were small, that makes a difference. One of the first things a defense attorney would want to do is establish what the threat level was. If you flipped the circumstance around and you were much bigger than her it could and would be factored in to the threat level by the prosecution. If it was a guy against her ,it would be even tougher in a court of law to prove that he acted in self defense and deadly force was necessary.


oh ok, that's makes sense but i really never considered the 'threat level' potentially being evaluated by persons not present.
guess that comes from being a victim too many times already.
as for her, i'd guess around 180 'bout 5'7 or taller ... but remember, at 5 ft, most everyone is bigger than me.
however, i certainly don't view them as a 'threat' just by their size. Heck, if i did that, i might as well crawl in a hole and hide.
Given the invasion aspect compounded by the previous threats and the risk of arrest, i'm not sure size would have been a factor in the decision to fire ... something to think about though, thanks.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 02:36 AM
link   
reply to post by JonoEnglish
 


I think you're bound to have a higher risk. yes. Indeed. The risk is obvious. But the fact is that you are less likely to be physically killed by another.


An armed society is a good society. Hitler never invaded Switzerland for that very reason. And Japan knew they'd never invade America because "they're would be a rifle in every field".

Armed people life. Risks will always persist with weapons. But your safety is more guaranteed with a gun. When the law permits I will purchase a nice little gun and carry it when I go into places of danger. And I intend to have it quite visible. My tempered nature and docileness means I won't resist police nor complain. Thus I'm less likely to be shot. I also, of course, intend to purchase a small camera for my button when the technology allows. Just for added security to my innocence.

I would argue that a highly recorded, highly armed society is the safest. When people know all they do is seen and they have weapons to protect themselves, they tend to stop being bad people.

I suppose that's why the highly armed and religious people of the past were more peaceful. They feared God and had a sword to defend their honor.
edit on 12-1-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 02:39 AM
link   
There is no way to check for mental stability...as someone around here said. Psychology doesn't work and crazy people will always legally own guns.
You can't stop people from owning illegal guns because the government doesn't crack down hard enough on them, aside from that they sell arms illegally anyway. (Not to mention drugs, sex, etc....)
You have right here a broken down system (for a million reasons i haven't listed), and an argument that will go nowhere.
Society should be free of guns and we should have a government that cares about us.
A gun is meant for killing, and that's pretty much it. Saying it is positive is just wrong. Not that I don't like firing guns. Its fun. Screw em anyways. We would be better off without them. And if it came to a point where we had to defend....something...we would find them.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 02:43 AM
link   
Making something illegal does not magically take it away. Same in the streets of Copenhagen Denmark where almost all criminals today have guns, yet the populace have no way to defend themselves against this. I wish i could get a gun permit so i could protect me and my girlfriend.

Mass murderes like Jared Loughner will never ever be restricted from objects that can be used to kill.

The problem is really not the guns.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 02:57 AM
link   
Ok i'm new here.

I came here because of the Jared Story.

I am Canadien/ Quebecers and French ( So my english will sux xD lol sorry for that
).

So i read all your arguement of :

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Guns is a tool of self-defense.

cars kill, so he will ban them ?

Seriously.... These are your argument for having guns ?.

First, you want gun to defend yourself ? One guy said : In london, if you get attack you don't have a gun to defend yourself !

YEAH, but if in London, gun was all over the place ( Like in USA ) they guys would attack you with a gun !!! He most likely to have a gun ready because he planned his attack ! You, you could let it at home !!!


I didnt your gun/death report, but im PRETTY FREAKIN SURE, that most gun attack are not Defense act...

MOST of your crime by gun ARE MADE FOR ATTACK NOT DEFENDING ( cap are just for key word, because of my bad english lol )

It would be surprising that more then 15% or the death and hurt by gun are made for DEFENSE.
85% of the time it must be for ATTACKING someone !


Someone said that in other country, gun kill at the same rate... HELLL NO ! Here gun crime are really rare and mostly made by Hunting gun or if it's a automatic gun, it's from Mafia or ganster rapper ( big organise crime ).

Because guns like automatic and rifle are ILLEGAL. So YEAH illegal crime can get them, but normal public no.

I even read a guy said :

Without guns, people would fight with sword, axe, shiel, bow and arrow !!!


Lol... Come on man !! I heard a story in england of a Katana guy... He use his word for mass killing... He killed like 1 persons and hurt 2 other. With a gun he would kill and hurt far more !!!



And WHY YOU WANT AUTOMATIC GUN. I can understand gun for hunting animal ( 1 bullet at a time, or semi-automatic ).

Automatic gun, like hand guns or SMG. ARE FOR HUNTING HUMMMMMMMMAN !!! You can not go hunting animal with Glock, you would just look stupid !

Why army, police use these gun ??? It's for killing or hurting HUMMMMMMMMMMANS... COME ON !!!


And, like EVERY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD, if you are a hunt man, a gun social club member ( shotting target in place for that ) YOU WILL GET YOUR GUNNNNNNNNNNNNS !

But man... In USA you can have your gun in PUBLIC PLACE !!!!! what the hell ???

You must think ( Yeah, but if someone atttack me !?!?!??!?!! )

It's paranoia !!!

It's faaaaaaaaar more scary to know that EVERYONE can have a gun !!!!!!



And YEAH, i hate automatic guns, i looooove them in video game, but when i see crime by gun.... I just hate it...

Gun make people too much powerful... EVEN A KID CAN KILL WITH A GUN !

I saw storys of KIDS killing other KIDS with a gun... But RARELY hear kid of 6yr killing a other with a knife !!!!



And your paranoiac thinking of : We need gun to fight our gouvernement !!!


WE ARE NOT IN 1800 !!!!! The gouvernement will NOT go to your home and try to kill you alll...




We got murder in Canada YES... by knife and beating majoritary. It's true mad people will do mad things !

BUT, with a HARD ACCESS TO GUN ( not a ban xD it will never occur in USA even if all the world ban it, you will keep it ). MAD PEOPLE HERE have trouble to find gun. SO less death by gun !

And knife attack have a less success then gun attack. So we got LESS DEATH in % !!!


Sorry for my long and bad writting rant ! I'm not from your country and i can't understand your love for guns.

and BTW, Liberals here is a good things xD It's about liberty and a centric gouvernement xD. Funny to see you use it like Liberty is a bad things xD.

And in Canada, people can have gun after a mental check and they need a permit. But all automatic gun are banned in Quebec after our mass shouting ( we learned at least... )



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 02:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by brokedown
Anti-gun laws are NOT about safety of the public, it is about the CONTROL of the public.

We all know this.


And the pro-gun people are any different? Here's a comparison; How many people have anti-gun activists murdered with guns to make their political point? Now, how many pro-gun people have done this? You might call pushing legislation an attempt to "control the public" but at least the public gets a say in the matter. Terrorism and murder is a whole different kettle of fish.


The Anti-Gun lobby is ANTI-AMERICAN. They want to render the Constitution obsolete.


Hate to break it to you, but that portion of the constitution IS obsolete. The entire point of it was to have armed citizens that could be called to militia to protect the state from insurrection and invasion. I don't know how to tell you this, but anyone who invades us isn't going to be stopped by a neighborhood watch armed with deer rifles.

Now if you think citizens should have unrestricted access to military hardware, then by all means, I guess the amendment isn't obsolete in that case.


When they take away the guns they will not have any barrier from taking away the rest of the Bill of Rights.


Another "hate to break it to you" here - but while you guys have been clamouring about guns for the last fifty years, we've lost our rights to freedom of speech, public assembly, redressing of grievances, unlawful search and seizure, our right to not be tortured, our right to a speedy trial with evidence and representation, we've seen religion and legislation holding hands and skipping rope, theft of private land by government, we have HORDES of people telling us anything not expressly outlined i nthe constitution isn't allowed, and you know what?

Most pro-gun people support all that. They want "the enemy" tortured. They want the accused found guilty regardless of trial. They want a christian nation. They want abusive "tough on crime" legislation. They want to restrict everyone's unenumerated rights, they want the press shushed, they want activism crushed, Andthey happily watch private property stolen by the government - so long as it's poor people's private property (Declaring eminent domain throughout much of New Orleans is A-OK, buying a majority share in GM is not). And at least a few of these people are willing to kill to get all this.

Which is WHY THEY WANT GUNS.

Buddy, the bill of rights has been gone for a long, long time, frittered away mostly by people who think the Bill of Rights ONLY contains the 2nd amendment. They shout from the rooftops, "the second amendment protects all the others!" without ever noticing that the price they've paid for getting to keep their irrelevant ego-pumpers is throwing away the rest of the constitution. They did it knowingly and eagerly.


ANYONE WHO DOES NOT SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES IS AN EMENY OF the PEOPLE of the UNITED STATES.


I dunno. I'd consider someone who accepts one small portion of the constitution and wants to do away with all the rest more of an enemy than someone who accepts all but a small portion of it. You don't often come across a vociferous gun nut who supports the first, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and ninth amendments.
edit on 12-1-2011 by TheWalkingFox because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 02:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101
 

can i call you to 'rationalize' with the drunk, next time?
i've tried that technique many times and usually end up laughing my arse off but that's about it.

i agree patience, acceptance and quality social interactions begin at home. However, in a history such as mine, once you've moved beyond the aggressive environment but those around you have not, do you succumb to their desire or your survival?

edit on 12-1-2011 by Honor93 because: typo


There can be no denial that yours and your loved ones survival comes first. If you cannot even protect yourself, then there is no need to talk further about protecting others.

But having said that, who is 'they' and 'us'? Aren't we all humans? The cold war is dead. Communism ended. No state had declared war on anyone. The only ones who are hell bent on waging wars are based on differences by radicals. But are the jews, muslims, christians, hindus, taoists, atheist, etc our enemies?

At the basic level, we are and will always be only one race - humans, with common aspirations in life, and it is such aspirations that will be the common ground we can all stand on without resorting to violence.

Those that do resort to such, are either provocative or believe that it is the only course, without using their given and gifted brains to come out with better solution that needs not make brother harm brother.

The recent flare up over the mosque to be build near zero point NY is a case to ponder. It could have triggered a lifetime of untold deaths, regrets and sufferings, but saner heads prevailed, and once again peace was achieved.

And why rationalise with drunks? You already logically knew the drunk is far too intoxicated to be of right mind for any reason or logic. Just simply walk away, and talk to him when he is more mentally stable when the effects of alchol is gone. Challenging or hitting drunks do not make one a hero. You are only actually bullying a temporary mentally challenged person, nothing to be proud of.

symantics?? that's your argument? oh please, yes we are all humans. but, i was of the opinion (regarding this event) ... we have 'us' - law-abiding citizens ... and we have 'they' - criminals.
Now that the basics of 'us' and 'they' for this conversation are established, can we move on to more substantial subject matter?

believe me, if this 'sister' would have summoned her 'brother', there would have been a massacre ... is that what you're suggesting?

i am not the person with which to discuss the Gzero shrine ... i am steadfastly against it and firm in my stance. for more reasons than one. next subject please.


And why rationalise with drunks?
... ummm, you suggested it ... are you changing your mind?

You already logically knew the drunk is far too intoxicated to be of right mind for any reason or logic.
your assumption doesn't make it so. i had no prior knowledge of her drunken status.

Just simply walk away
in my own home, where do you suggest i go while the inebriated maniac has her way with my family, property or whatever else was in her target zone ?

challenging or hitting drunks didn't occur in this situation ... could you stick with the facts instead of designing your own please?


You are only actually bullying a temporary mentally challenged person, nothing to be proud of.

again, never said i was proud (your assumptions are waaaay out there now)
thankful for the experience but hardly proud.
Lastly, the bully is the aggressor, period. And in this case, that wasn't me.

clearly, even though you suggest 'civil discourse' as a resolve, you seem less than capable of providing it. what is a person to do?



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 03:00 AM
link   
arm the sheep, and the wolves will think twice about attacking.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 03:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by jetflock
There is no way to check for mental stability...as someone around here said. Psychology doesn't work and crazy people will always legally own guns.
You can't stop people from owning illegal guns because the government doesn't crack down hard enough on them, aside from that they sell arms illegally anyway. (Not to mention drugs, sex, etc....)
You have right here a broken down system (for a million reasons i haven't listed), and an argument that will go nowhere.
Society should be free of guns and we should have a government that cares about us.
A gun is meant for killing, and that's pretty much it. Saying it is positive is just wrong. Not that I don't like firing guns. Its fun. Screw em anyways. We would be better off without them. And if it came to a point where we had to defend....something...we would find them.


But here in Canada, illegal gun are hard to find and surely more expensive ! So the guns are not popular in the crime scene ( we got more Knife attack then gun attact ( and knife attack are less deathly by much ) )

Only gun i saw in my live was police one and gun for hunting.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 03:06 AM
link   
reply to post by ztruthseeker
 


Armed sheep are still sheep. And the wolves are better-armed.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 03:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by JonoEnglish

According to this report you are likelier to be killed if you are armed.

The article you site is a very neat survey and is only more proof that stats can be skewed to fit any agenda, hell i could probably in some way prove that the movie Bambi has spawned all mass murderers since it's release.
I mean hell who hasn't seen Bambi? and some of those people ended up mass murderers.
The study you site takes into account people who have been murdered with a gun from a hotbed of crime. and i cannot say for sure but, i think firearms in philly are illegal. i may have to look that up.
I think a better title of the study would have been "Gang members" more likely to be shot to death.
I have been carrying a concealed weapon since i was 18 some of the time with no ccw but for the greater part very legally.
I have had the occasion to shoot a few people yet i never did, and best of all i am still alive too.
And plz everyone, after the evidence i have submitted... please keep your kids clear of Bambi...or any Disney movie for that!!



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 03:14 AM
link   
If gun is legal for defend yourself.
Then, criminals will have gun too ! ( because of it's easy acces ).


Here in Canada, YES, some crime are made by guns. But it's mostly hunting gun AND if it's Mafia or big organize crime, they got gun "for killing humans" ( semi-automatic ). They bought it from USA ( thx.... lol )

MOST OF THE CRIME are made by poor and dumb people. SO here in Canada they have a HARD ACCES TO GUN.

I dont live in USA, but it seem that some state sell bullet at wal-mart and gun without check up....

I guess gun are more cheaper too ( Due to be legal and commercialize ).

Here illegal gun are surely very expensive ( due to come from the USA, crossing the border without getting caught and selling on illegal market. ).


YEAH big gangster and mafia people will still have gun. But our normal crazy and poor people here dont HAVE GUN. They attack by knife so less death.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 03:29 AM
link   
reply to post by blupblup
 


Actually at least one WAS armed. HE chose not to open fire on the dimbulb because of the crowd of people around. That shows the restraint and responsible thinking of a RESPONSIBLE gun owner. Loughner passed a background check on the FBI data base, which he wouldn't have if the local sheriff had been doing his job. The sheriffs department had been involved with this deranged individual in the past, even to the point of escorting him from the local community college because he was deemed dangerous by the administration. No 72 hour hold for psychiatric evaluation, nothing. Others who recieved death threats reported him to the sheriffs department and (according to their statements) were told that he was being handled very well by the mental health department and that it would be better to forgo pressing charges. There was also an implication that this happened because mommy worked for the county. I haven't been able to verify that his mom worked for the county yet since I just got home from work, but I'm working on it. This has nothing to do with gun control, this has to do with a democrat sheriff failing in his responsibility of protecting the community and instead attempting to deflect attention from his own failures by blaming vitriolic political speech. It has now been used by the anti-gun, anti freedom, liberal loon left to try once again to circumvent the constitution and force their beliefs down our collective throats. If you don't like guns don't own one but don't ever think I'm gonna give up mine. 42 years on this earth and I've seen just about every low a human being can sink to. I prefer to be armed and dangerous to those that could be dangerous to me. I treat everyone as a friend I haven't met yet, but I keep my head on straight and trust no one until they prove they can be trusted.

The statistics, as pointed out on this thread go against just about every argument the left can make for banning guns. IMHO an armed society is a polite society. Of course your gonna have your fringe loons and downright crazies, but if the liberal loons hadn't shoved all this touchy feelly, its societies fault, they'd still be locked up where they (and we) are safe from their delusions and fantasies. I've served in the military and been trained with a gun, I've owned a handgun most of my life, I haven't killed anyone that I didn't have to. I haven't gone out and shot up a meeting because I was angry a person there. However, if someone comes to take my gun away..................

thus endeth the rant.



new topics

top topics



 
225
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join