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.

 

Florida gun deaths suspect named as Shawn Tyson

page: 7
6
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by descartes90
 


That mother should have taught her son better then.




posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 06:51 PM
link   
On Switzerland ... I think the reason it's so safe is not because of guns, but because it is such a prosperous, functional society.



edit on 18-4-2011 by descartes90 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by descartes90
 


Doesn't that go against your argument that more guns equals more violence?

Maybe it isn't the guns or the free availability of guns that fuels violence...Maybe it's something wrong with our economics, our education, and the overall fearful culture that demands the banning or severe restricting of OBJECTS any time there is a problem they don't have the intellectual honesty or guts to deal with?

Maybe...



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by descartes90
 


Doesn't that go against your argument that more guns equals more violence?

Maybe it isn't the guns or the free availability of guns that fuels violence...Maybe it's something wrong with our economics, our education, and the overall fearful culture that demands the banning or severe restricting of OBJECTS any time there is a problem they don't have the intellectual honesty or guts to deal with?

Maybe...



It might seem like it does, but really, it doesn't.

If Switzerland got rid of their guns, and crime went up, now that WOULD be evidence.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 

I hate it that anyone got killed, but it seems especially pointless when two international visitors get murdered.

You're right. There's a difference between a gun and a knife.

The knife is so . . . messy.

You don't like our gun laws - you keep urass home.

And for God's sake - stay out of the hood!



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by descartes90
 


So wait the argument is only valid if your assumptions are correct? Hmmm.

Well, on that note, I'm glad I live in Reno, NV. High ownership rate here and very low crime overall. Especially compare to California who have restrictions on every type of firearm and can't seem to keep them out of the reach of criminals.

Your assertions are that guns cause gun crime..

If Switzerland has a higher ownership rate than the US(and they do) then by your STANDING ARGUMENT there should be more crime. There isn't.

Your argument fails.
edit on 18-4-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-4-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Originally posted by Crunkman919
The country was founded on the principles of individual rights and the rights of the private citizen to protect those rights against tyranny and oppression by the government.


I would normally reply to your post in its fullest extent, but sadly, I didn't read past this first paragraph.

Anybody who quotes the slave-owners, drunkards, rapists, and obnoxious hypocrites who penned the US constitution, is clearly not interested in logical appraisals or critical commentaries.



If you didn't read the whole post then your response is invalid. In order to have an orderly debate you must consider the whole of the oppositions argument. Anything less is ignorance.

Taking digs at the Founding Fathers for their personal traits as opposed to judging their political character is juvenile and immature. At the time, slavery was accepted. You cannot criticize someone for partaking in a legal endeavor at the time of its doing , even though that endeavor may now be illegal or frowned upon. That would be like me not taking any of the British laws or treaties or politicians/royals seriously and calling them sexist murderers for what King Henry VIII did to his wives.

And criticizing those who came up with the ideas of the US Constitution is indirectly criticizing the US Constitution which in turn is criticizing the US of A because the US was and still is founded on the Constitution. That means that you don't take the US seriously.

If you're still sore over losing the Revolution, and the War of 1812, there's nothing I can do about that. The US won, so therefore we earned the right to be taken seriously based upon the laws that it was founded upon.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by descartes90
 



That's amazing it didn't work on you!!! Maybe you just have some kind of super-human immunity to it?


You missed my point there. It isn't effective on anyone. There is nothing amazing about me. It does hurt, it does irritate your eyes, makes you cough, etc., but it is not disabling, and if someone were in a rage, it would not be something you would want to depend on.

My buddies and I have maced, peppersprayed, and tazered one another, and I can guarantee you that none of us would depend on anything other than a real live bullet!!

I have never been hit by the 3 prong police taser, but I did know a LEO that was killed in central Florida this year after tazering a suspect. I also knew two deputy sheriffs that were killed near Destin, FL after using a taser on a suspect. The suspects guns were at his side, the deputies had theirs drawn, they tazed the guy, he dropped to the ground and then shot them both from one knee, and then escaped in his truck. (The complete story is on ATS somewhere.)

Non-lethal force is un-reliable.
edit on 18-4-2011 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by descartes90
 


So wait the argument is only valid if your assumptions are correct? Hmmm.

Well, on that note, I'm glad I live in Reno, NV. High ownership rate here and very low crime overall. Especially compare to California who have restrictions on every type of firearm and can't seem to keep them out of the reach of criminals.

Your assertions are that guns cause gun crime..

If Switzerland has a higher ownership rate than the US(and they do) then by your STANDING ARGUMENT there should be more crime. There isn't.

Your argument fails.
edit on 18-4-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-4-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



Well it's only one factor. Of course there are others. If Switzerland had a large criminal element, like America does, you WOULD frequently hear about shootings in Geneva and Zurich.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by descartes90
 



That's amazing it didn't work on you!!! Maybe you just have some kind of super-human immunity to it?


You missed my point there. It isn't effective on anyone. There is nothing amazing about me. It does hurt, it does irritate your eyes, makes you cough, etc., but it is not disabling, and if someone were in a rage, it would not be something you would want to depend on.

My buddies and I have maced, peppersprayed, and tazered one another, and I can guarantee you that none of us would depend on anything other than a real live bullet!!

I have never been hit by the 3 prong police taser, but I did know a LEO that was killed in central Florida this year after tazering a suspect. I also knew two deputy sheriffs that were killed near Destin, FL after using a taser on a suspect. The suspects guns were at his side, the deputies had theirs drawn, they tazed the guy, he dropped to the ground and then shot them both from one knee, and then escaped in his truck. (The complete story is on ATS somewhere.)

Non-lethal force is un-reliable.
edit on 18-4-2011 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)


Well you and your buddies are total badasses then.
nah, i see what you are saying, but still, that is only anecdotal evidence.

but give me some real, scientific evidence that self-defense is only possible and effective with a gun, and I will re-consider my position for gun control.
edit on 18-4-2011 by descartes90 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by descartes90

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by descartes90
 


So wait the argument is only valid if your assumptions are correct? Hmmm.

Well, on that note, I'm glad I live in Reno, NV. High ownership rate here and very low crime overall. Especially compare to California who have restrictions on every type of firearm and can't seem to keep them out of the reach of criminals.

Your assertions are that guns cause gun crime..

If Switzerland has a higher ownership rate than the US(and they do) then by your STANDING ARGUMENT there should be more crime. There isn't.

Your argument fails.
edit on 18-4-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-4-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



Well it's only one factor. Of course there are others. If Switzerland had a large criminal element, like America does, you WOULD frequently hear about shootings in Geneva and Zurich.


The criminal element in America cannot be tracked and the government here is unresponsive to the threat that illegals are posing to law abiding citizens. The drug war is spilling over and TPTP are turning a blind eye.

Here's a thread from today addressing the issue:
Previous thread

Plus here's another factor that you did not assess. A high gun ownership in Switzerland is a deterrent to organized crime because they can't bully people around, extort small business owners, and commit petty crime because the entire populace is armed and trained in the use of their weaponry. Criminals always prefer the easy way of doing things. Setting up shop in a place like Switzerland would be too difficult.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by descartes90
 


I did give you two current examples of trained police officers being killed after using their tasers. One of them happened to be an acquantence of mine, and I had met the other 2 a couple of times.

The criminal with the gun beat the taser both times, even though the cops had the training, and got the first shot off,

I gave you my personal examples of being able to function after being maced and pepper sprayed.

I posted the example earlier of the couple murdered in Pensacola. Those assailants didn't even have guns, but they still defeated the security system and secure home and killed the charitable couple.

I don't know if any statistics exist about bringing a knife to a gun fight, but I think the cliche kind of speaks for itself.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crunkman919


Plus here's another factor that you did not assess. A high gun ownership in Switzerland is a deterrent to organized crime because they can't bully people around, extort small business owners, and commit petty crime because the entire populace is armed and trained in the use of their weaponry. Criminals always prefer the easy way of doing things. Setting up shop in a place like Switzerland would be too difficult.


Perhaps it does make sense, but like I said, that's still not proof, even though it makes sense logically. If Switzerland banned guns, and corruption skyrocketed, it would be proof more or less guns save lives, but do you think that would actually happen?

I just think the thing is Swiss people are not a violent society at all even though they love guns.

www.abovetopsecret.com... read this



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 07:26 PM
link   
In the US if you keep and bare arms legally by registering them, you are on a list. If you try and circumvent the laws by buying through a private dealer and not registering you may be in double trouble, dealers talk and auctions are taped. If I were looking for a mark to steal a gun from, auctions would provide plenty of candidates.

A gun is not much protection if someone breaks in to steal it in the middle of the night. They could threaten your family till you give them the key to the gun safe. What do you do if your gun gets stolen and they bury it in grease somewhere, worry about it being involved in a violent crime? In neighborhoods where there are large numbers of felony offenders, guns really are more trouble than they are worth. The low crime numbers in communities with high numbers of registered firearms is more indicative of the social stability of the community.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 07:26 PM
link   
I was going to post a reply slamming the OP but it's unnecessary thanks to my fellow Americans. Thank you.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by descartes90
 


I did give you two current examples of trained police officers being killed after using their tasers. One of them happened to be an acquantence of mine, and I had met the other 2 a couple of times.

The criminal with the gun beat the taser both times, even though the cops had the training, and got the first shot off,

I gave you my personal examples of being able to function after being maced and pepper sprayed.

I posted the example earlier of the couple murdered in Pensacola. Those assailants didn't even have guns, but they still defeated the security system and secure home and killed the charitable couple.

I don't know if any statistics exist about bringing a knife to a gun fight, but I think the cliche kind of speaks for itself.


I am sure there are individual cases of guns saving lives, but it's not worth it unless they are proven to save more lives than they take. The evidence, so far anyway, does not back this up.

It's related to the death penalty thing. If deterrence was proven, I would reluctantly surrender my anti-death penalty views, but there's no evidence for deterrence, it seems like the death penalty has more or less no discernable effect on crime (Singapore and Islamic countries have low crime and love the DP, yes, but I attribute that to their community-oriented culture, and the fact a lot of violence and murder in Islam is not considered crime).



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by descartes90

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by descartes90
 



That's amazing it didn't work on you!!! Maybe you just have some kind of super-human immunity to it?


You missed my point there. It isn't effective on anyone. There is nothing amazing about me. It does hurt, it does irritate your eyes, makes you cough, etc., but it is not disabling, and if someone were in a rage, it would not be something you would want to depend on.

My buddies and I have maced, peppersprayed, and tazered one another, and I can guarantee you that none of us would depend on anything other than a real live bullet!!

I have never been hit by the 3 prong police taser, but I did know a LEO that was killed in central Florida this year after tazering a suspect. I also knew two deputy sheriffs that were killed near Destin, FL after using a taser on a suspect. The suspects guns were at his side, the deputies had theirs drawn, they tazed the guy, he dropped to the ground and then shot them both from one knee, and then escaped in his truck. (The complete story is on ATS somewhere.)

Non-lethal force is un-reliable.
edit on 18-4-2011 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)


Well you and your buddies are total badasses then.
nah, i see what you are saying, but still, that is only anecdotal evidence.

but give me some real, scientific evidence that self-defense is only possible and effective with a gun, and I will re-consider my position for gun control.
edit on 18-4-2011 by descartes90 because: (no reason given)


Scientific evidence is hard to come by but how about some historical evidence. Switzerland has never been invaded, and neither has the US.

You can make an excuse for the US not being invaded because of the two oceans on its borders. Both the Soviets and the Japanese refused to invade mainland America because they feared that they would not be able to control the population.


You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.


Nazi Germany during WWII invaded and conquered almost every country in Europe except for Switzerland. OF course there were other reasons for not invading Switzerland, but Hitler had drawn up plans to invade Switzerland. The Swiss made their country an impregnable fortress.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
When will the USA get over its primitive, fearful gun-toting culture ?


When will the U.K. get over it's primitive, fearful knife-toting culture? From what I've seen, is that the U.K. has ridiculously high knife deaths a year.


Originally posted by Sherlock HolmesThere is nowhere in Britain where the possibility of being shot in the 'wrong part of town' is a serious consideration.


No, you won't get shot but knifed.

Seriously, when will people like YOU realize that this isn't a gun owners fault? The gun in question is illegal to begin with, probably stolen or imported illegally. And if stealing or importing guns isn't an option, they'll do what you Brits do, resort to knives. If not knives then screwdrivers, if not screwdrivers hammers... The problem is the people doing the crime, not the tool being used.

Look at Norway. Oslo was just struck today by some lunatic shooting wildly around with a hand gun. And owning a gun in Norway is a strict "No-No" unless you're an active member of a shooting club. So bans on firearms do NOTHING.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Bordon81
 


Who cares about the "list?" That is just paranoia. There are far more people on the lists than there are to do any collection. If everyone is on the list, then the list isn't really effective anyway is it.


As for breaking into your home in the middle of the night, you are supposed to keep one handy!! You don't lock them all up at night, you keep one by your bed. You are absolutely right, if the guns are in the safe, they aren't very effective.


I have a 4 year old and a 3 year old. They wouldn't dream of touching one of my guns, but I do still keep the guns either locked in the safe, or in my direct control. It is all about honesty, parenting, and precautions. Both of my boys know the guns are deadly, and they don't want to kill anything, even by accident, so they won't go near the guns.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 07:35 PM
link   
meh nvm its 7 pages later...
edit on 18-4-2011 by Lysergic because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join