It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 33
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 11:15 PM
reply to post by Rocky Black

Gun Laws in the US are at best a Joke, Every state has different rules and guns available.
You can buy a Banned Gun in another state hop across the border and whack someone.
Unless Killing people is a Sport, why would anyone need a Semi or Automatic Pistol.
They can only be used for the Expressed Purpose of Killing People.

All you need is a Piece of Paper that says I can own a Gun. And you have to wait 2 weeks
before you can whack someone, like that will deter people.

There's no point having ANY gun laws or banning guns unless it applies to all states.
Might as well allow anybody to buy a 50mm Canon, (as long as they have a piece of Paper),
and only if it's used Peaceful or Fishing Purposes.

posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 11:29 PM
You make a great point right after the shooting last week i was on a blog and within minutes people are spouting nonsense about it being other peoples fault about the shooting.I think people should shut the hell up a woman and many others were killed and their blaming others for why it happend.
wow they need to slow down and look at what just happend a little girl was shot to death and their blaming each other from my point of veiw it was noones fault but the guy who pulled the trigger
thats all i have to say about fault the people trying to ban guns think thier doing good and being thoughtfull well how thoughtfull are you when your blaming other people for one mans faults.

edit on 15-1-2011 by 4thetruth because: i spelt trying wrong

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 12:35 AM
reply to post by Rocky Black

Hello from the UK.

We banned guns and guess what, the gun crime went up. I don't know why people find that confusing either. If guns are banned then you need to break the law to have one, the only people who break laws are criminals and criminals don't usually have good intentions. Therefore only criminals then have guns and the innocent can't defend themselves.

This is so simply it's shocking any society allows guns to be banned, but sadly large groups of people tend to react without thinking.

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 01:10 AM

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Well your not really giving me any respect if your irresponsible enough to mention its ok to give adolescent kids a gun so they can learn how to shoot. A gun is not a golf club or a tennis racket to swing away and HOPE no one gets injured.

Me and everyone else in my Boy Scout Troop learned to shoot guns at age 10. None of them has ever shot anyone, it's much better to learn firearms respect and discipline at a young age than wait until you are a cocky teenager who thinks they know everything. By the way you are much more likely to get killed driving a car than owning a gun, cars are much more dangerous, do you support banning them?

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 01:14 AM

Originally posted by Phenomium
In Canada, they have a gun register law and it's hard to get weapons. Does that stop killing? Nope! In Canada they stab the crap out of each other with knives lol. I am serious. If people are going to kill, they will kill, gun or no gun,

Right, like a couple years back that Canadian guy who cut the head off of his fellow bus passenger!!! I have never heard someone do that in the States, instead our wack jobs use a gun. Either way the victim is dead!!

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 01:17 AM

Originally posted by Naradia

Owning a gun means trouble, unless you use it for hunting or anything, but would having to own a license be so bad in that case?

It's already required in the States to get a hunting license you need to pass a gun safety course.

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 01:25 AM

Originally posted by mtnshredder
Has anyone stopped long enough to evaluate the cultural diversity that America has vs other countries? This needs to be figured into the equation. America has probably the most diverse culture in the world. We've accepted every culture, race and religion on the planet, for better or for worse, but yet were judged collectively when differences rear their ugly head. The growth rate here of various nationalities is probably higher than any other country, at least I can't think of one that's higher.

In Los Angeles there is a lot of Latino on black murders, in many cases it is actually ethnic cleansing, basically a war created by our idiot elites who think multiculturism is great and everyone from around the world is well off and educated and thinks like them.

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 02:59 AM
Here in Hawaii, I cannot buy guns without filling out alot of paperwork and alot of other stuff. This makes it hard for us to obtain guns, and I personally only know 2 people who own a gun. Hunters here usually use dogs, machetes, or bows. Oh, and look at that, we have the lowest gun crime rate in the country as well as the 8th lowest homicide rate. I agree that not ever murder involving a gun should be made an example, because alot of it has to do with idiots getting guns. But it's not right to say that more guns = less violence. More guns+ idiots= Violence. Less guns+ idiots= Less idiots able to harm others= Less violence.

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 03:01 AM
reply to post by TimBrummer

Yea, all those damn elitists wanting equality and fair opportunities for everywhere... Can't we all just go back to slavery?

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 03:15 AM
For all my Canadian friends who appear to be sadly mistaken ...
Alberta, Canada source:

There is little empirical evidence that reducing general access to firearms reduces criminal violence. In fact, empiricial evidence suggests that the more punitive gun control is, the greater the level of violent crime. For example:
1. US per capita handgun ownership remained stable in the first 30 years of the 20th century, while the homicide rate rose tenfold; between 1937 and 1963, the American homicide rate fell 35.7%
2. In 1976, Washington D.C. enacted stringent gun controls. Since then, the homicide rate has risen 134% while the national rate fell 2%.
3. Maryland claims to have the "toughest gun laws" in the U.S., and has the highest robbery rate, and ranks 4th in violent crimes and murders.
4. 20% of American crimes occur in 4 cities with roughly 6% of the U.S. population (Detroit, Chicago, New York and Washington D.C.). Each has a virtual prohibition on private handguns.
5. Switzerland has fewer gun controls than the U.S., and lower crime.
6. Australia and England, which have essentially banned gun ownership, have the highest rates of robbery, sexual assault and assault among the top 17 industrialized countries.
7. Since banning guns, the UK has seen a dramatic rise in violent crime.
8. Since banning guns, Australia has seen greater than 100% increases in armed robbery, kidnapings, assaults, attempted murder and sexual assaults.
9. Alberta has the highest rates of firearm ownership in Canada. Alberta does not have the highest crime rate in Canada, and has the lowest crime rate in Western Canada.

Alberta has the highest gun ownership in Canada. As such, Albertans favor the right to bear arms to a much greater extent than other Canadians.

Further, restrictive gun control harms certain members of the population more than others, especially when self-defense is an issue. Women, by nature, tend to not have the physical strength of men. In a criminal attack by a man against a woman, the woman will in most cases be at a disadvantage. Firearms counteract this difference. Abridging the right to bear arms disproportionately harms women, which leads to some questions regarding the equality of right under the law.

it does appear that 'armed' Canadians clearly see the benefits.
it would also seem that Canadians who prefer their gun restrictions might wanna focus their attentions more, locally. i don't believe Toronto is in the Alberta province, is it?

Also, to the poster who mentioned that Canada didn't participate in Iraq ... u sure about that?

VANCOUVER, Jan 23 (IPS) - Despite the government's official position abstaining from combat in Iraq, Canada has dispatched yet another top general to the command group overseeing day-to-day operations for the U.S.-led occupation and counterinsurgency war.

Brigadier-General Nicolas Matern, a Special Forces officer and former commander of Canada's elite counter-terrorism unit, will serve as deputy to Lt. Gen. Lloyd Austin III, incoming commander of the 170,000-strong Multi National Corps-Iraq beginning in mid-February.

Officials at Fort Bragg confirmed that Matern has already been deployed to Iraq, though no official statement has been made by Canadian officials.

There are also economic interests in Iraq itself. The April 2007 Iraq Reconstruction Report lists Canada as the fourth largest importer of Iraqi oil. Industry Canada records that total Canadian imports from Iraq have risen from 1.06 billion dollars in 2002 to 1.61 billion dollars in 2006, making Iraq second only to Saudi Arabia as a Middle Eastern source for Canadian imports.

According to Canada's Defence Policy Statement, the increased collaboration with the U.S. military will "not see the Canadian Forces replicate every function of the world's premier militaries," but rather fill niche roles that allow Canada's interventionist capabilities to be relevant and credible.

To this end, Matern's Special Forces background is seen as an asset. "He comes in with a unique set of skills," Col. Bill Buckner of the 18th Airborne told the Ottawa Citizen. "We're the home of the airborne and the special operating forces, so he fits in very nicely to this warrior ethos we have here."

Canada's most important foreign policy documents list Iraq, along with Afghanistan, Haiti, Sudan, and Israel-Palestine, as areas of "strategic priority".

Canada was an active participant in the 1991 Gulf War and helped enforce the crippling blockade on Iraq throughout the 1990s, but declined to join the so-called "coalition of the willing" in March of 2003 when the U.S. launched the invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein without a final U.N. resolution authorising the war.

Nevertheless, Canada's contribution to the mission is notable. In 2003, Canada pledged 300 million dollars in aid and reconstruction in Iraq. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police has helped train more than 30,000 Iraqi security forces in neighbouring Jordan, and has had top level advisors operating within the Iraqi interior ministry. As well, Canadian frigates continue to operate alongside the U.S. aircraft carriers in the Arabian Gulf that are a primary staging platform for bombing raids in Iraq.

Indeed, during the first week of the war in 2003, then-U.S. Ambassador to Canada, Paul Cellucci, said that Canada had provided "more support indirectly to this war in Iraq than most of the 46 countries that are fully supporting our efforts there."

Around the same time that Canada opted out of combat in Iraq, it increased its combat role in Afghanistan, ultimately taking command of the counterinsurgency war in southern Afghanistan.

Unlike the Canadian deployment in Afghanistan, which is subject to relatively significant coverage domestically, Canada's participation in Iraq is handled much more carefully by Canadian officials.

still think you are getting the 'whole' story do ya?
well, you keep believin' you are somehow 'separate' from the US ... one day, you'll awaken to realize Niagara is the sole remnant of a border that used to be.

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 04:51 AM
reply to post by Rocky Black

Here in Britain the private ownership of most handguns was made illegal in 1997. We have strict controls on firearm ownership and storage.

In 1999/00 we had 19 shotgun and 42 handgun homicides;
In 2008/09 that fell to 7 shotgun and 28 handgun homicides.

In a population less than 55 million.

Regulation can work, but it's not all about guns. If a citizenry are responsible and have respect for human life, then they can have all the firearms goodies the industry can provide. Where that responsibility and respect are lacking however - God help you if they even have a stick.

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 04:58 AM
The guns are already in circulation, now it's impossible to get them off of everybody. Australia almost has no gun violence at all, as they've been taken away years ago. Then again, I think some Scandinavian country issues all men an assault rifle, and there is no gun violence at all. It all really comes down to society.

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 05:33 AM
reply to post by EtCetera

while it's true that Australia has reduced firearm violence since the gun ban was enacted, it seems Other violent activities / crime has escalated, some greater than 100% ...

8. Since banning guns, Australia has seen greater than 100% increases in armed robbery, kidnapings, assaults, attempted murder and sexual assaults.

** from post above ...

now i'm not sure about you but if the rate and frequency of Other violent crimes are severely reduced by mere gun possession ... i would gladly accept a few firearm accidents or fatalities as a result of ensuring my/family safety rather be subjected to the will of the criminals acting out as indicated above.

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 05:55 AM
While we're on the subject of making this world a better and safer place . . .

I think the way most people drive is scary.
You don't really need cars . . .
They are dangerous and can kill someone!
Only people who work for the government should be allowed to drive cars.

Now that i think about it; i think the things that most people say are bad too.
You don't really need to speak . . .
They offend others and that's what starts arguments, problems and wars!
Politicians should be the only ones allowed to speak.

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 05:56 AM
reply to post by Honor93

You should have a look at the amount of gun deaths in Oz.

I think someone got shot last year. And there were a few armed robberies last year.
The only ones getting shot now is when one Drug Dealer whacks another one.
That, I don't have a problem with and neither do the police.

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 07:14 AM

Originally posted by TimBrummer

Originally posted by Phenomium
In Canada, they have a gun register law and it's hard to get weapons. Does that stop killing? Nope! In Canada they stab the crap out of each other with knives lol. I am serious. If people are going to kill, they will kill, gun or no gun,

Right, like a couple years back that Canadian guy who cut the head off of his fellow bus passenger!!! I have never heard someone do that in the States, instead our wack jobs use a gun. Either way the victim is dead!!

Yeah, you just pointed out, dying with a knife can sometimes be a lot more painful than dying by a gunshot would. I would much rather be shot in the hed than to have my head sawed off wit a buck knife.

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 09:35 AM

Originally posted by Honor93
For all my Canadian friends who appear to be sadly mistaken ...
well, you keep believin' you are somehow 'separate' from the US ... one day, you'll awaken to realize Niagara is the sole remnant of a border that used to be.

A) As much as it and our current government may wish it to be, Alberta does not define Canada.
B) As I keep saying...look at our murder stats per capita. We ARE indeed different.
C) If you can even suggest otherwise, then you'd better cross that border for a visit some time. We'll leave a light on and a cold one in the fridge.
edit on 16-1-2011 by JohnnyCanuck because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 10:23 AM
Since Americans feel the need and responsibility to defend themselves I am wondering what the limit is, or should be?

Should individuals be able to own anti-aircraft missiles? tanks? armoured cars fitted with machine guns?

Where's the limit and what would the rationale be??

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 10:35 AM
The Wall Street Journal Europe
June 4, 1999 Stephen P. Halbrook

In 1994, when the U.S. Congress debated whether to ban "assault weapons," a talk show host asked then-Senator Bill Bradley (New Jersey), a sponsor of the ban, whether guns cause crime. The host noted that, in Switzerland, all males are issued assault rifles for militia service and keep them at home, yet little crime exists there. Sen. Bradley responded that the Swiss "are pretty dull."

For those who think that target shooting is more fun than golf, however, Switzerland is anything but "dull." By car or train, you see shooting ranges everywhere, but few golf courses. If there is a Schuetzenfest (shooting festival) in town, you will find rifles slung on hat racks in restaurants, and you will encounter men and women, old and young, walking, biking and taking the tram with rifles over their shoulders, to and from the range. They stroll right past the police station and no one bats an eye. (Try this in the U.S., and a SWAT Team might do you in.)

Tourists--especially those from Japan, where guns are banned to all but the police--think it's a revolution. But shooting is the national sport, and the backbone of the national defense as well. More per capita firepower exists in Switzerland than in any other place in the world, yet it is one of the safest places to be.

According to the U.N. International Study on Firearm Regulation, England's 1994 homicide rate was 1.4 (9% involving firearms), and the robbery rate 116, per 100,000 population. In the United States, the homicide rate was 9.0 (70% involving firearms), and the robbery rate 234, per 100,000. England has strict gun control laws, ergo, the homicide rate is lower than in the U.S. However, such comparisons can be dangerous: In 1900, when England had no gun controls, the homicide rate was only 1.0 per 100,000.

Moreover, using data through 1996, the U.S. Department of Justice study "Crime and Justice" concluded that in England the robbery rate was 1.4 times higher, the assault rate was 2.3 times higher, and the burglary rate was 1.7 times higher than in the U.S. This suggests that lawfully armed citizens in the U.S. deter such crimes. Only the murder and rape rates in the U.S. were higher than in England. The small number of violent predators who commit most of these crimes in the U.S. have little trouble arming themselves unlawfully.

The U.N. study omits mention of Switzerland, which is awash in guns and has substantially lower murder and robbery rates than England, where most guns are banned.

Here are the figures: The Swiss Federal Police Office reports that in 1997 there were 87 intentional homicides and 102 attempted homicides in the entire country. Some 91 of these 189 murders and attempts involved firearms. With its population of seven million (including 1.2 million foreigners), Switzerland had a homicide rate of 1.2 per 100,000. There were 2,498 robberies (and attempted robberies), of which 546 involved firearms, resulting in a robbery rate of 36 per 100,000. Almost half of these crimes were committed by non-resident foreigners, whom locals call "criminal tourists."

Sometimes, the data sound too good to be true. In 1993, not a single armed robbery was reported in Geneva. No one seems to be looking at the Swiss example in the U.S., however.

Congress is stampeding to pass additional firearm restrictions in response to the events of April 20, when two students used guns and bombs to murder a dozen classmates and a teacher in Littleton, Colorado.

Yet in 1996, a man who legally owned guns under England's strict regulations went on a rampage, murdering 16 children and a teacher in Dunblane, Scotland. Parliament then banned all handguns and most rifles.

But there have been no school massacres in Switzerland, where guns and kids mix freely. At shooting matches, bicycles aplenty are parked outside. Inside the firing shelter, the competitors pay 12-year-olds tips to keep score. The 16-year-olds shoot rifles with men and women of all ages. In fact, the tourist brochure, "Zurich News" recommends September's Knabenschiessen (boy's shooting contest) as a must-see: "The oldest Zurich tradition consists of a shooting contest at the Albisguetli (range) for 12 to 16 year-old boys and girls and a colorful three-day fun-fair." The event has been held since 1657, and attracts thousands of teenage participants and spectators.

While many shoot for sport, all males aged 20 to 42 are required by militia system regulation to keep rifles and/or pistols at home. In addition, gun shops abound. Yet firearms are rarely used in crime.

Homicide is tied to a willingness to resort to violence, not the mere presence of guns. The prevalence of firearms in the home and the participation of youth in shooting matches bind youth to adults and discourages a generation gap.

By contrast, homicide rates are highest in the underdeveloped countries, many of which ban private firearm possession. In some, private murder does not compare to the genocidal murder committed by governments against their unarmed subjects.

In America, firearms take on a sinister reputation from the nightly news and violent movies. But in Switzerland, firearms symbolize a wholesome, community activity. The typical weekend shooting festival brings out the entire family. Beside the range is a huge tent where scores or hundreds of people are eating, drinking, and socializing. With cantonal and rifle club banners fluttering in the wind, the melody of rifle fire blends with Alpine music and cow bells.

Since its founding in 1291, Switzerland has depended on an armed populace for its defense. William Tell used a crossbow not only to shoot the apple from his son's head, but also to kill the tyrant Gessler. For centuries, the cantonal republic defeated the powerful armies of the European monarchs. Machiavelli wrote in 1532: "The Swiss are well armed and enjoy great freedom."

This coincidence has not escaped the notice of those who oppose liberty.

Monarchist philosopher Jean Bodin, writing in 1606, denounced free speech and arms possession by commoners. Subjects must be disarmed to prevent democratic sedition, he said. The Swiss proved, Bodin wrongly averred, that arms bearing was "the cause of an infinite number of murders."

The Swiss militia model, however, preserved democracy and held Europe's despots at bay. In fact, it inspired the rebellious American colonists.

John Adams praised the democratic Swiss Cantons, where every man was entitled to vote on laws and to bear arms. Patrick Henry, another American Founding Father, lauded the Swiss for maintaining their independence without "a mighty and splendid President" or a standing army.

The Swiss influence is clear in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which provides: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Today, it has become fashionable to hate this orphan of the Bill of Rights.

However, a quick glance at history shows that tyrannical governments kill far more than do private criminals. But first, governments must disarm their victims. In 1933, the

Nazis seized power via massive search-and-seizure operations for firearms against "Communists," i.e., all political opponents. In 1938, during the Night of the Broken Glass, they disarmed the Jews. When the Nazis occupied Europe in 1939-41, they proclaimed the death penalty for any person who failed to surrender all firearms within 24 hours.

There may be various reasons why the Nazis did not invade Switzerland, but one of those reasons is that every Swiss man had a rifle at home.

For this we have no better record than the Nazi invasion plans, which stated that, because of the Swiss shooting skills, Switzerland would be difficult to conquer and pacify.

European countries occupied by the Nazis had strict gun controls before the war, and the registration lists facilitated confiscation of firearms and the execution of their owners.

By being able to keep out of both world wars in part through the dissuasive factor of an armed populace, Switzerland demonstrates that civilian firearm possession may prevent large numbers of deaths and even genocide. The Holocaust never came to Switzerland, the Jewish population of which was armed just like their fellow citizens. In the rest of Europe, what if there had been not just one, but two, three, or many Warsaw Ghetto Uprisings?

Traditionally, the Swiss Cantons had few firearm regulations. The first federal firearms law was recently enacted. Certain firearm purchases require a permit, and others do not. On retirement, every soldier may keep his rifle or pistol. Surplus assault rifles may be purchased by any Swiss citizen from the Military Department.

The bottom line is one of attitude. Populations with training in civic virtue, though armed, do not experience sensational massacres or high crime rates. Indeed, armed citizens deter crime. Switzerland fits this mold. Similarly, America's lawful "gun culture" is peaceful. Sadly, some of its subcultures are not.

From The Wall Street Journal Europe

Last Updated : 04/11/2000 05:28:16

edit on 16-1-2011 by TimBrummer because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 11:00 AM

Originally posted by wayno
Since Americans feel the need and responsibility to defend themselves I am wondering what the limit is, or should be?

Should individuals be able to own anti-aircraft missiles? tanks? armoured cars fitted with machine guns?

Where's the limit and what would the rationale be??

Weapons are regulated by federal law, it's very specific on what civillians can and cannot have. You sure seem to know a lot about what you don't know.

top topics

<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in