Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

To all the people who want to ban guns.

page: 39
224
<< 36  37  38   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 11:11 AM
link   
I will add that in the UK it's even closer to midnight for banning guns and placing further restrictions on what lawful citizens can own!

It's so bad here there is ZERO defence laws for armed citizens, even a pocket-knife carried can be construed as an 'offensive' weapon!

Here's a good video that lists the systematic roll-back of gun rights in the UK.
DON'T let it happen in the US, as once it's in place, it's almost impossible to shift!





posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 01:18 AM
link   
I have no idea where you get your facts. If one checks the US Statistical Abstract at www.census.gov... it will be readily apparent that Texas has only a marginally lower violent crime rate than NY: 516 to 435 per 1,000 people. The states with the lowest violent crime rates are those with the least population and the least number of urban areas. This suggests that violent crime has little to do with guns or gun control and everything to do with large numbers of people living close together in urban areas. This makes perfect sense if one thinks about the subject rationally. Yet, even this is too simplistic analysis because the state with the highest violent crime rate is South Carolina. Number 2 is Tennessee and at 3 is Nevada. One wonders if perhaps the level of poverty has a significant impact on violent crime since South Carolina and Tennessee are rather rural and poor. In any event, attempting to argue that presence or absence of guns affects crime rates is wrong or at least at least overly simplistic. Crime, violent or otherwise is a complex sociological phenomena and it can't be magically resolved by giving everyone a gun so they can shoot it out in the streets when they have an inclination to do so. I don't know you but would it be too invasive for me to ask if you have every had to defend yourself with a gun? Have you ever shot at anyone? Do you hunt? Most people regardless of the circumstance cannot kill another person, while others can do so only in the most extraordinary of circumstances. This is the mistake pro-gun advocates make whenever they argue for eliminating gun control. Gun ownership does ipso facto mean that a gun owner can or would be willing to kill another human being.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 07:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Kellyct1987
 


Not to mention that the people in these urban areas are unemployable becasue they don't speak a the english look like scumbaggios are drug additcts who are collecting disability to pay for their drug habbits.


Who would cut grandma's throat to take the ten bucks the goverenment left her out of her 250$ living expenses.

I cannot believe that if you go to the socialsecurity office and tell them your a drug addict and you cannot keep a job becasue of it you get to sign up for benifits.

but the poor woman in her fifties who worked since she was 19 supporting her family of three when diagnosed with cancer cannot collect disablility or social security.

Only once the mother is dead was her kids able to get her social security and free medical isurance provided by mass health.

This is a facty of a freind of the family who got diagnosed with terminal brain cancer.

She couldnt get any assistance from uncle sam until 2 years after when she died. But them uncle sam jumped in and tried to make my family pay for her death expenses.

My mother and father were best friends with this woman and when all this happen she lost her job and her ability to pay her rent and got evicted. She was unable to coolect any social security or and other state benifits. She had to move into our house with her kids. And I still remeber my father flipping out when he got a bill for the death. Well the only way you get the body is if you pay the bill.


But the gang banger gets a free ticket.


What is wrong with society.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by rockoperawriter
 

dont forget the ubiquitous "boxcutters."
and there are lots of other potential weapons including common carpentry and garden tools (but not 'assault styled' garden hose spray nosels.........despite the apparent fear that they engender in some members of the police).



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Kellyct1987
 


I have lived in South Carolina. I lived in Greenville and North Charleston. I can tell you, the one problem that made both places dangerous was police corruption. Cops were not afraid to take bribes in broad daylight when I lived there.

The cop pulled up and the guy that ran a notorious gambling house walked out. The guy handed the cop a big yellow envelope and talked to him for about five minutes. That night they moved everything out of the gambling house. The next night our business (two doors down from the gambling house) was raided by four cops in "tactical" dress. They claimed that there were reports of a loud argument and gun shots. There had been neither gun shots or an argument. When they realized there was no argument and nothing illegal they could see they asked to search the whole building. The next day they moved everything back in to the gambling establishment and went right back to work.

Greenville and Charleston are also both major hubs in drug importation. Charleston has huge ports and processes thousands of cargo containers every day. When I lived in Charleston I met two people that worked on the docks. It was not exactly secret information that for the right price you could get anything in or out of the country. There was a guy fired for rerouting containers full of BMWs and Porsches to South America and Asia for the black market. By the time he as caught he had rerouted in the neighborhood of $2,000,000 worth of cars. Another guy was arrested for taking part in a drug smugling ring that had imported literally tons of drugs in to the country. When you have crime with that kind of pay off violence tends to follow close behind.

Greenville is right on Interstate 85. It is about three hours north of Atlanta, two hours south of Charlotte, three hours from Asheville, and five hours from Nashville. That makes it a prime location for distribution. You can get from there to several large cities, multiple college towns, and the rural parts of southern Apalachia quickly and easily. There are drug dealers in Greenville driving brand new Porsche SUVs and living in upscale condos. It really was not uncommon to see dealers with $15,000 or $20,000 in their pocket at the club.

Now, if you are a criminal and you know the only way to move up to that kind of money is for the other guy to die or go to jail, what do you do? Do you sit around and wait for fate or the corrupt police? Chances are, if you are in that line of work, you get proactive and help matters along.

Another problem with South Carolina is the criminal justice system. Honestly, the courts down there are a joke. Two guys beat an Iraq War veteran to death in a club. It was an unprovoked attack according to everyone that saw what happened. One of the guys was caught two days later. He was let out on bail less than three days later. He had a previous conviction for attempted murder. The second guy went on the run.

Guy number two was on the lamb for seven days before he was caught. The judge gave him bail the next day. He was on the streets less than 48 hours after being caught. He then ran again. The judge granted him bail despite the fact that he had previous convictions for drug posession, posession with intent to distribute, assault, theft, and was the lead suspect in two other shootings.

When the court system keeps dumping repeat offenders, with a history of violence, back on the street the crime rate goes up.

Another example of how much of a joke the system is in South Carolina. Two club owners were caught on tape trying to burn down a rivals club. The police arrested them and they were released on bail that same day. When it went to court the judge dismissed the charges. He said that there wasn't enough evidence to hold them responsible. I know the guy that had his club burnt up and saw the tapes. You could clearly see the faces of both guys. Another camera caught their license plate as they left.

South Carolina is one of the poorest states in the country and it has one of the worst educational systems in the country. So, when you have lucrative crime on the ports, and cities like Greenville that serve as large drug hubs, then violence will ensue. When there seems to be no other outlet, and the police are complicit, then there is less incintive to avoid crime. Especially when you know that the court system is going to release you before your heels even cool.

In South Carolina the vast majority of violence is criminal versus criminal, or drug related. However assaults, robberys, home invasions, and rapes are side effects. If the criminals are allowed to get that far out of hand their will be collateral damage. If you don't want to be collateral damge the best thing to do is make sure you can deter force, or answer in kind.




Gun ownership does ipso facto mean that a gun owner can or would be willing to kill another human being.


What it means is, if a person attempts to perform a criminal activity against a person, or their family, and places them in imminent fear of serious bodily injury, death, or sexual assault they will respond with the necessary force to stop the threat. It isn't about killing another person. It is about protection from predators that are willing to destroy your mind, body, and soul. It is about protection from people that put no value on your life and will kill you to take what you have.

In many self defense cases the mere presence of a gun deters or stops the crime. That means that not a shot is fired. In 80% of shootings with handguns, the person lives. In other words gun owners are not trying to kill the predator. They are trying to respond with an approtpriate level of force, or threat of force, to stop the predator. Yeah death is a possible result. However, I don't lose sleep over that. If I was at the point I felt the need to shoot that means it was me or him. And I will be damned if I'm going to let some criminal determine my life expectancy.
edit on 10-2-2011 by MikeNice81 because: (no reason given)
edit on 10-2-2011 by MikeNice81 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by CosmicCitizen
 


personally i think guns are not as scary as a sickle or scythe or a chain saw. lets take a look at some of the most gruesome serial killings in history; ted bundy used charisma, a crowbar a baseball bat, a handy weapon. he didn't spend a whole lot of money on a pistol. jack the ripper could have used a gun but instead used a knife. (anybody catch him?) sporting goods, farming implements, lamp fuel, cooking implements, can cause slow painful death or instantaneous death at the behest of the one who wields the weapon. draino in a syringe, sulfuric acid in a jar, a rear naked choke with one hand and digging your knuckles into someones back the right way= death. so a gun being an impliment of war by initial design in europe (pre renaissance era?) might be banned because of it's single specific purpose rather than having multiple uses like the aforementioned items above. that and if america is armed with no practical use for things like fema, homeland security, etc. and whoever else wants to give us "safety" we'll have to find some other way of mooching off of other countries. did i say mooch? i meant invade, take oil and leave a few mcdonalds in their wake and a sympathy card saying "sorry for the invasion better luck next time when we're really really off guard"





new topics

top topics
 
224
<< 36  37  38   >>

log in

join