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.


ATS Street View 05: Gun Control and Jared Loughner

page: 6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 04:24 AM
Here's something for you all to think about. All weapons used in US gun massacres have been legally obtained. Restricting gun owndership wouldnt stop the killings? I can already count 40 Saved lives. And that was just from the virginia tech and Loughry shootings. Not an American just so you know.

posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 04:26 AM

Originally posted by wlffmn27
reply to post by skeptic_al

True, but the point I'm trying to get across here is that if most people in this country had a gun, would an unarmed criminal really want to break into a house, not knowing if anyone was home, in order to steal a gun and risk being shot by an armed citizen protecting his house and family? I know I wouldn't. But let's say that the criminal is successful in stealing a gun from someones home. He goes down to the corner shop and tries to hold it up. Your average, everyday, law-abiding citizen walks by and happens to see the store being held up or about to be held up. This law-abiding citizen also happens to be a legal gun owner and is legally carrying a concealed firearm. He goes into the store and does one of three things.

1) He walks into the store, takes aim at the criminal and tells him to drop his weapon before he is forced to shoot. The criminal obeys and puts his gun down.
2)He walks into the store and shoots the criminal somewhere where he won't be killed, for example the arm or the leg. The criminal drops his gun, crime prevented.
3)He walks into the store, and he shoots and kills the criminal. The criminal is dead and there is no more innocent lives in danger.

In all three scenarios, the crime is stopped and innocent lives are saved. Of course there is always the possibility that the criminal could kill the armed civilian and get away with his crime, but personally, I would rather have the chance for a crime to be stopped, then have no chance at all.

Now back to the point you made about breaking into someones house and stealing the gun from the top drawer. Most gun owners that I know keep most, if not all, of their guns locked in a safe when they are not at home. When they are at home, they tend to keep one firearm near their bed or in a drawer so that if someone does try to break into their home, they can protect themselves.

I think the World already went down this track in the 60's,70's.....80's mmmm 90's
Only it was called Mutually Assured Destruction. If all countries had Nukyellar Bombs the world would be a much safer place.

At least the Public in Oz are not scared of their own Military, unlike the US, which is only reason for having Guns in the US Constitutiuon in the first place.

posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 04:31 AM
reply to post by arbitrarygeneraiist

They were all responsible gun owners until they went and massacred civilians bro.

posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 05:04 AM
The only thing I don't like about firearms,is that too many do not realize the consequences of pulling the trigger until it's too late.

People are generally unaware of how far firearms project power or damage.

If everyone had the choice to arm themselves,massacres would happen less,because those irresponsible enough to lose control would find out rather quickly that some may take control of the situation and stop them.

One cannot rely on governments to be there all the time,it's supposed to be up to the people to defend themselves.

The entire issue is about responsibility.

posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 05:09 AM
One little tidbit....

Everyone was once,or is innocent.

Everyone dies regardless.

If the penalty for being immoral or corrupt is death,we must all be guilty.

posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 05:53 AM
Im pretty sure the guys name is Loughner not Laughner

Might want to fix the title of thread.
edit on 19-1-2011 by skull_bones because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 06:01 AM

Originally posted by chiponbothshoulders
The only thing I don't like about firearms,is that too many do not realize the consequences of pulling the trigger until it's too late.

People are generally unaware of how far firearms project power or damage.

I've kind of noticed the opposite. Too many movies make people think a 12 gauge will launch a person through the air, along with a 45 acp.

Anyways, like others have said, stricter restrictions accomplish the opposite. This is not a theory, because we have dozens of cities and years of data to look at. Here in MD you have to jump through flaming hoops to get a gun, and they even banned hi-cap magazines...but guess what, we still have one of the highest murder rates in the country. In DC guns were banned outright, and yet multiple persons are shot daily. The common sense solution is obvious. The law needs to smash to pieces anyone that has a gun illegally, or uses it in a crime. When applying for a gun, you should need 2 witnesses to verify that your not looney tunes (this would unfortunately prohibit many here on ATS from purchasing a firearm). If you qualify to purchase a gun, you should not have to register any future purchases, and having taken a course allowed to at least open carry.

posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 06:05 AM
I think there should be a program put in place where you can trade your gun in for a pony covered in sparkles and glitter, and if you have 2 guns you can get a saddle that lights up, and if you have 3 guns your pony has wings and can run fast and glide, and if you have 4 guns you get a special communicator helmet so you can talk to people in your house while youre gliding, and 5 guns gets you jet packs on the ponies legs, 6 guns gets you glitter launchers so you can make rainbows while you soar around, 7 guns gets you another pony so your first pony can have a friend and rest while you continue flying around spreading dream magic, and 8 guns gets you membership into the donut club,
I love donuts, sign me up.
Wait, where to I get jet pack fuel?
edit on 19-1-2011 by HappilyEverAfter because: add

posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 06:41 AM
reply to post by Terms777
Ummmm............Perhaps when governments give up their weapons FIRST. When entropy dies and stars no longer collapse and implode. When carnivores/omnivores/herbivores, evolve beyond the physical and no longer compete/consume for energy or existence.
You make the same empty assertion of enlightened evolution that all progressives make. You think that you have transcended the "HUMAN", that your somehow better, more advanced than the rest of the herd. You've not gone "beyond" continue to masticate, to injest the dead, "killed" flesh of another expired lifeform in order that produce such unenlightened, uninformed, unevolved, nonconsidered, emotional, pap. Finally, after you ignored your part, you have chosen to NOT consider precisely who are, the intrinsic ingredients of your humanity slowly remind us, if not you, of an innate need. In reality and in truth you are forced by your humanism to deficate, like any animal.
Please, in the confine said defication, to it's proper place and not in the internet where it's............"effluvia"...........tends to linger............always.
Perspective and place, combined with intelligent consideration is an extremely humbling process that reminds me, I am NOT a.......... herd......... animal. You might want to consider the same, you might also want to consider how..........on......... topic, my response is.


posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 08:36 AM
reply to post by coolottie

Sounds like the doctor did not take steps to educate his child, nor did he take the steps as a responisble gun owner and make the firearm safe when not in his possession.
This is a sad story, but it does not prove that guns are bad.

posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 08:39 AM

Originally posted by njh1988
Gun control is indeed a problem, just flat out taking them away would not help anything. People should not be allowed to just go buy guns as long as you have money and your clean. They should have to take mandatory classes, training sessions, behavioral evaluations. Then after a year or two they should have something like you do with your drivers license. Would be a hassle and in most peoples minds a waste of money and time. But think at that point people will be knowledgeable, "better" people would have guns, and it could be watched closely. Raise the price on them or have a nice price to renew the license.

Nothing like social engineering via Govt mandate.
I think that we should do the same for people having kids. You know, go to programs, education and so on.
Your statement goes against basic liberties and freedoms guaranteed by our founding documents, given to us by our creator.

posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 09:00 AM

Originally posted by Terms777
reply to post by

I feel guns should be banned. I don't own one and never will. Why you ask? They are evil. I know by 2020 they will be banned planet wide. Any one found with one will get manny years in international jail. This is my prediction!
edit on 18-1-2011 by Terms777 because: (no reason given)

Either your in government or you are worried that someone is going to steal all your money. The more you try and control people, the more they will rebel ....

posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 09:08 AM

Originally posted by kwakakev
This is an issue for America to decide. As an Australian we have had guns banned except for a few tightly regulated areas. They are still available on the street if you are in those circles, but quality can be an issue and is not a big part of society. As someone who has worked in security it does feel a lot safer knowing there is a very small chance that you will be confronted with one. As a citizen society also feels safer as it is a lot harder for any lose cannons or people having very bad days to just lose it. We still get idiots, but a knife or crow bar is a less damaging. In terms of national security and having an armed population, the days of boarder conflicts are nearing an end and there are plenty of other tools for that job. The reduction in fatality rates says a lot for what tight gun regulation can do to a county.

Knowing that a given government and there security/police/whatever are the only ones that have the guns scares me worse than the criminals do.

I also just read up on Australian guns laws. Doesn't sound much different from America's guns laws, Your argument if flawed.

posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 09:35 AM
Yea lets ban guns!
Banning guns will not solve anything it will hurt responsible gun owners. I for one will not leave it up to the police to defend my life or that of my families, no way.
as a matter of fact I just went and applied for my ccw yesterday.I figure with all these people jumping on the lets ban guns bandwagon I better get a few handguns before stricter laws are being implemented.
edit on 19-1-2011 by Evil3unnie because: can't spell

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

-I can understand owning hunting rifles and some handguns, but guns that can shoot multiple rounds in just a few seconds, why would the general public really need them?

Handguns are not the magic weapons they appear to be in movies and books. Rarely do they stop a person with one shot. If one shot stops an attacker it is usually because the attacker ran away or gave up.

A bullet stops a a person mainly by causing a loss of blood pressure that causes a loss of consciousness, an interuption of the cenrtral nervous system that stops movement, or the inability to get oxygen to the blood stream because the lungs have been punctured. To do this usually requires multiple injuries. That means multiple bullets in a short period of time.

The average defensive shooting is at less than seven yards and takes just a matter of seconds. The ability to get off multiple well placed shots in two or three seconds can be the difference between life and death.

A three week thorough background check before owning a gun sounds reasonable. (It takes longer to get a background check for a passport than it does a gun).

In many states you have to get a purchase permit to buy a handgun. This means that you do have to wait while the police check your back ground. It can take anywhere from a couple of hours to a couple of weeks. If the state doesn't require a purchase permit - that requires a back ground check - you have to go through a back ground check that includes local state a federal information, The database is being upgraded with mental health information because of NRA supported legislation passed in 2007.

The NICS database is very thorough. The problem is that some local jurisdictions don't have the man power to update their information and send it in on a consistent basis. In other words your passport back ground check takes longer than it really should. With modern technology it shouldn't take more than a week to do your passport.

-Someone who wants to commit a murder or a crime will always find a way to get a gun.

Yep. In the 50s gangs would use car arials to make "zip guns" that fired a .22 or similar small caliber bullet. In England a guy was caught converting starter pistols in to functioning firearms. He was selling them to known drug dealers and gang members. Cops in England were caught selling confiscated weapons to gang members. Cops in America have been caught doing the same thing with guns ordered destroyed.

-Carrying guns seems like trouble waiting to happen. (What happens if someone goes to a bar and has one too many drinks and they get into a stupid argument with another patron? Their mind isn't thinking clearly and their temperament gets the best of them and they reach for their gun).

In most states carrying while drinking is illegal. Beyond that all we have to do is look at the states tha allow people to carry in bars. Take Tennessee for example. That passed a law saying you can cary in places that serve alcohol for consupmtion on premises. There has yet to be a case of a CCH permit holder shooting anybody in a bar.

People that carry tend to be about 8 times less likely to be arrested for any violent offense than the general population. So, it could happen, but the chances are very very slim. Most people that carry concealed - legally- are hyper vigilant to avoid confrontations. They understand the legal and emotional consequences of engaging in any fight, especially one that leads to lethal force.

People carrying concealed are not out there looking for a chance to shoot. We are training to protect lives and praying we never have too.

posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 10:13 AM
reply to post by macman

We are doing that either way, nor did it say in there when one gets mad go shoot him. People obviously cannot handle themselves appropriately, and most are not responsible enough in the first place to own them. The thing about kids, yea we should do something like that too. Cut down on some of the crime from kids who have no where to go, thanks to their parents who decided they wanted to mess around but not take care of anything.

posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 10:13 AM
Here in Canada, any long guns with pistol grips are prohibited. Fully automatic weapons are banned and if you need amunition you need a permit to buy any kind of bullets. Gun control in Canada are kind of strict but I like it that way. Too many people are given credit when most are not suited to fire a weapon. But all that doesn't matter. If I ever go nuts, do you think I will care if my gun is redistered or not? Of course I wouldn't and neither would anybody else. If they want to shoot someone they will shoot someone.
edit on 19-1-2011 by XLR8R because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 10:13 AM

Originally posted by backup
Here's something for you all to think about. All weapons used in US gun massacres have been legally obtained. Restricting gun owndership wouldnt stop the killings? I can already count 40 Saved lives. And that was just from the virginia tech and Loughry shootings. Not an American just so you know.

You'd better come up with some numbers and sources for that one.

posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 10:48 AM
reply to post by

In my opinion, it is not the gun that is the problem. It is not the lack of laws that is the problem. It is society that has the problem.
In all factuality, deaths by shooting have happened ever since gun powder was discovered, and the gun created.
I find it outrageous that it is deamed "OK" to kill someone with a rifle,shotgun,pistol as long as it is done during war, and no one raises a stink about it. Death by any means is still death. We sadly live in a society that is very lax in restricting our children from what they watch on TV or view on a computer, so that parents don't have to be parents and actually KNOW what their children are watching. Plus far too many parents would rather shower their kids with the latest gadgets than actually spend time with their kids. A society of "keeping up with the Jones's" is what is ruining our nation and world as a whole.
When I was a kid, I was held accountable for all wrong-doings I did. From telling a lie, to getting into a fight, to stealing something. Parents need to be parents...NOT friends with their children. The friendship happens when your kids are all grown up with their OWN families. I cannot believe that "his" (J.L's) parents didn't have a clue as to "what" was actually going through their sons head unless they ignored him completely. Then I say they should also be held accountable for what he did. There are plenty of mental health aides out there, for the rich AND the poor. No reason his parents couldn't have gotten him some help.
I do have "some" faith left for humanity. Sadly senseless crimes will always happen, because "man" has "free will".
But as an American, even though I do not own a gun, I believe the right to own one should still be allowed, providing one can prove they are Not a threat to society. A comedian once said, don't make tougher gun laws...just make bullets cost $10,000 grand a piece, that way, people will think twice BEFORE firing.

posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 10:57 AM
reply to post by projectvxn

Cho and Loughner both legally obtained their guns. That's what he's getting at.

For whatever reason the handful of "mass murders" are what occupy peoples minds. They just ignore or dismiss the thousands killed in illegal often gang-related activity.

Headlines rule popular opinion. Camden, LA, Boston, Atlanta all at war with themselves other over drugs, territory and using stolen and smuggled firearms doesnt even register to them.

Think of all the outrage over Dunblane and Port Arthur while ignoring completely the ongoing violence that was occurring before these headline events and continues to this day at constantly increasing levels.

It's the biggest hole in the whole "to save lives" argument they use. Most of the lives by far are lost to the ongoing criminal element. Lives lost to the occasional psycho are up there with lighting strikes and terrorism while the typical street gang deaths are closer to swimming pools and automobile accidents.

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in