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.

 

Armed bystander almost shot hero that disarmed AZ shooter

page: 8
13
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by felonius
 


What because i think that guns are wepons of destruction and not wepons of peace.. I am a troll...
More like because you are making personal attacks because you have left to do..
Please remember it is only a debate there is no need to get upset because i have different views to you
on this subject. I am sure there are plenty of subjects we would agree on....

happy days

kx



It has been proven time and time again throughout history that the "Pen is far mightier than the sword".

Time and time again what prompts people to violence whether it's fists, pitch forks, bayonets or guns is words that incite people to violence.

Which is why in reality your argument, based on a lot of mis-charachterations and blatant false assertions is far more dangerous than you imagine.

People are not the only things murdered, the truth is also quite frequently the victim of murder, and that is always done through words, words written by a pen.

Whether it's an intellectual lack of thought on your part, or just the machinations of someone with a political agenda who imagines any ploy becomes justifiable in it's pursuit the irresponsible way you have formed your arguments, and in fact continued to pursue your arguments represent an inherent danger, because it revolves around first murdering the truth, to paint a false picture for political gain.

The pen is in fact and always has been and always will be the most dangerous weapon, and while you fret over the risks of allowing people to own firearms, I fret over the risk of teaching people who lack real integrity how to read and write!




posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by spookfish
 





NO. That's like saying I nearly got run over by a car today but luckily I used a crosswalk and the car was a mile away.


No it more like omg i just fell down my iced up steps. Im luky i never hurt myself real bad..I had better take the ice off them...

kx



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 



The pen is in fact and always has been and always will be the most dangerous weapon, and while you fret over the risks of allowing people to own firearms, I fret over the risk of teaching people who lack real integrity how to read and write!


And I fret that our Freedom of Speech and other liberties are being eroded so quickly that the pen has become useless. What good is a gun, when the crimes against your neighbors are being covered up and hidden by a corporate press corps with the primary motivation of selling adspace instead of reporting the news.

I agree with you 100%, the pen is mightier, and currently the pen is receiving a full court assault to isolate and separate the population. We are driven apart by our differences, and our education level is dropping, and our reliance on 15 second sound bites, and 9 word headlines has replaced fact checking. The pen is thoroughly defeated for the general population, and because of that, the guns have become useless.

I have a Thread up about a clear violation of a man's rights, and not even his local news is covering it.

The power of the pen, is also the reason behind censoring and shutdown scenarios for the internet. The press is thoroughly controlled, but the internet is still dangerous. Once they get a handle on the net...................

I fear the mighty pen has been silenced!



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Usually the first step towards complete censorship is the fostering of a 'group' think amongst the public to create the 'peer pressure' mechanism that will allow censorship to become popular and a reality.

It historically revolves around taking a 'crisis' and expounding on it with political twists to create a false sense of 'inherent' danger through it's misrepresntation.

To keep exploiting that and playing off of it until you get a critical mass that appears to be a majority, though in most cases it's really just a very vocal minority making itself try to appear to be a majority.

As peer pressure sensitive individuals percieve their is a growing majority against them, like the lemmings most people seem to emulate, more and more people end up going along with the herd, not so much always because they agree, but because they believe it's better to get along, to get on, which will often lead other people in staunch disagreement to simply reserve their opinions to themselves.

Politically oriented pieces like this are part of a information war that the people who make these false arguments do so, is because of that attempt in trying to reach a critical mass.

Look at the rediculous words that the Original Poster is using as they try to make it appear that 'gun control' is a inevitible and forgone conclusion, that we should just start 'preparing' ourselves for.

The easiest way for censorship to succeed is providing more tollerance to those who are espousing politically correct dogmas a free unchallenged ride in the falsehoods they are deliberately propogating in their efforts.

You and I and most sane and rational people know that no, the man never came close to shooting anyone, but the language of emotion the politically correct typically rely on, is all about trying to conjure up emotion through paiting a false picture, because getting people to react along emotional lines, instead of responding along intellectual lines, is in reality the only way to get people to not employ a critical and logical thought process.

The reality is the original poster has as much right to use free speech in that pursuit as the rest of us have in calling them out in regards to motive and veracity.

As long as enough of us, are willing to perform that vital function to preserve free speech it will endure, and as the information wars heat up, we are going to have to steel ourselves to do that more frequently and more resolutely or risk waking up one day to a very vocal minority often driven by fears and emotions, dictating to the rest of us, because governments have long ruled by exploiting blind fears and base emotions.

Our best defense is simply for people, all people, to honestly share what they think and believe on every salient issue just as often as they can, and to the best of their ability.

Thanks my friend.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 


Instead of addressing my much longer post filled with facts and stats you go back to the first page.

If you need proof that a thread about this incident is allready up here you go.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Asktheanimals
 


We did have nuclear war. Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki...does that ring a bell... and I agree.."almost" does eventualy produce results.

I tell ya pawdna, I recon that one of them day, the streets of the good ol' U.S. of A. will be a blarin' with gun fire and the likes. And if you be willin' to stand by leaning up against the post by the horse troff while your nation reenact the show down at the OK Corral, then you be as much to blame as the city folks that run your country. But that's just my opignion, of course.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by 46ACE
 


Yes ,my friend it is a fact.... eat it and weep....

In a first-of its-kind study, epidemiologists at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine found that, on average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. The study estimated that people with a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun.

scienceblogs.com...

kx


edit on 21-1-2011 by purplemer because: (no reason given)


1300 people in one city is not a large enough sampling to draw a conclusion from. Especially when it doesn't explain how many of the ones that are assault victims are felons assaulted in the commission of a felony. That ratchets up the probability of them being shot in a violent crime.

ETA:
From the blogs source,



As identified by police and medical examiners, they randomly selected 677 cases of Philadelphia residents who were shot in an assault from 2003 to 2006. Six percent of these cases were in possession of a gun (such as in a holster, pocket, waistband, or vehicle) when they were shot.


So out of 677 people shot in three years only six percent of them were in possesion of a gun at the time of the crime. It doesn't tell you how many people had the gun on them and how many had a gun tucked away in the car. So, it actually doesn't account for how many people could actually get to their gun and how many couldn't.

Also, if only six percent of all the assault victims had guns, it seems to me that simply put 94% of people shot by violent criminals didn't have a gun. So, the result is actually that 94% of "gun crime" victims are unarmed. It didn't help them at all.

Now lets see, 5 people per day are shot in Philly, that is 1825 shootings per year. Out of those less than 110 were armed. It seems to me that the study is counter intuitive. It seems to me that 1715 people were shot and didn't have a gun. According to their own methods these are the exact results. So, how do you figure that you are more likely to be shot in an attack if you carry a gun?
edit on 21-1-2011 by MikeNice81 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 


And women aren't a part of the "rape" of this planet.
Why do feminists have such distaste for the nature of man (as in male)?
I will never understand.
It's off topic so I'll probably just excuse myself from the thread now that I see where this is coming from.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer


Well this is another death knell for the pro gun movement. This guy could have shot the guy that disarmed Jared Loughner
"I carry a gun so I was -- I felt like I was a little bit more prepared to do some good and then maybe somebody else would had been," Joe Zamudio told MSNBC's Ed Schultz Monday.
so for all you peeps out there saying that guns are a good thing and keep us safe. Bare this im mind, guns make it too easy to kill people.
The shooter was disarmed without the use of a wepon and the guy the disarmed him was nearly shot but a good citizen legaly carrying his wepon.
Guns do not make peace. They make war zones...

kx

www.rawstory.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


Is the anti-gun movement so desperate that you cling to petty ideals like this?

So you're anti-gun because a gun wasnt used to shoot and KILL another human being?

Your logic is as baffling now as it was 30 years ago.

Live in anger by knowing that you people will NEVER disarm this country.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 


Yes, he however had the know how and intelligence not to.

Every day you drive you nearly kill someone weather you know it or not. That is not sufficient reason to ban cars.

Now do try to keep above the influence of ignorance.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 11:18 AM
link   
Could of should of would of. This is a stupid argument. I could of killed a bus load of people if i did not remember to hit the brakes.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Really......it's getting comical. Now a guy with a gun almost shot the hero who wrestled the shooter down to the ground????

What's next? Somebody who almost shot the guy who almost shot the guy who wrestled the shooter to the ground?


Give me a break!

Peace



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Randall07
I don't understand why guns have to be carried around like we're in the old west? Why can't we just keep them in our homes in case someone breaks in?


While there are those who i believe sincerely carry for their safety, another extremely important reason people carry, i think, is that it makes the weak feel empowered. Pretty simple.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Liquesence
 


And that is the security of a republic.

Pretty simple. It's insurance.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 


Then maybe you shouldn't be walking on those steps in the first place. But people who are not dumb and can see the ice should have the right to walk on it if it is public space.

Suck it up. You're idocracy is not mine.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 12:53 PM
link   


14-Year-Old Boy Gets A Gun For His Birthday & Kills His Whole Family! (Even Granny)


wtf....how many more people will have to die before you see the stupidity of your argumments!
This is not right, it is not normal...guns make it too easy to kill people and it is spreading like a cancer.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 





Then maybe you shouldn't be walking on those steps in the first place. But people who are not dumb and can see the ice should have the right to walk on it if it is public space.


it was a metaphore and in that metaphore your answer would translate something like maybe peep should not have guns in the first place. so you are agreeing with me. But there are guns...so lets deal with them and get rid of them..

kx



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeNice81
 





1300 people in one city is not a large enough sampling to draw a conclusion from. Especially when it doesn't explain how many of the ones that are assault victims are felons assaulted in the commission of a felony. That ratchets up the probability of them being shot in a violent crime.


it is pubished science and i trust its opinion over yours...uness of course you are a scientific statastician. Even when confonted by facts you deny the truth...

kx



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 


The metaphor was flawed. For your metaphor to have worked, since sometimes people slip on ice on their doorsteps, we have to logically conclude that all ice should be banned. This includes ice in your freezer and ice at the Northpole.

Since some people get killed by guns, we have to ban all guns, including the 100s of millions of guns that are used responsibly.

That was your metaphor, and that is how it plays out. The OP was silly, nobody "almost got killed." The armed man considered the situation, considered his options, and made the right choice. We all do this everytime we make a left turn in traffic. Some people choose unwisely and people get killed. People make deadly left turns in front of my motorcycle everyday. I "almost get killed" everyday by poor drivers. Should we ban all cars? Or all left turns?



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


cars provide a postive purpose in life.... they transport people... guns do not....

kx




top topics



 
13
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join