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.

 

Thugs shoot up bus with A.K. 47

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Miraj
reply to post by kro32
 


I think that if the bus driver hadn't known to get out of the situation and those guys got on the bus there would have been a lot of dead people.

This is a unique instance in which no one gets hit.
Look at mumbai, how may were killed?
Look at Norway. 90 Dead, 2 hours. That would not have lasted if people had been able to fight back. You are failing to see the circumstances as unique.


Those are very good points but look at it from a numbers view. If you have 300 million people carrying guns around do you think you might see that number everyday just from random situations people get into everyday. Look at all the road rage crimes and now give those drivers guns.

Alot of people here say, "well people will shoot em back then", which is true but now you have firefights going on everywhere and lots of innocent kids in the line of fire.




posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by blackrain17
 


You didn't read the whole thread did you


If the people would have been armed they would have shot back thereby causing a firefight in the middle of the street with the odds going to the guys with the AK's. There were children on that bus who would have been caught in the crossfire.

No guns on the bus the thugs shot, it appeared they were looking for someone, and just bailed. They obviously weren't there to slaughter everyone. Had people shot back they would have also more than likely.


You have no idea. If people had guns, he wouldn't be that comfortable blasting away. Only reason why he did what he did was because he knew no one was armed around him.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by LightAssassin
reply to post by kro32
 


Actually, they were lucky they were young and wreckless. Nothing more, nothing less. If they had real bad intentions it would have ended far worse. We can only hope that if they decided to step onto the bus that someone actually did have a firearm.

They were intending to instil fear, maybe kill the guy intended but showed little care for accuracy and collateral damage.

This is an argument you wont win because that access to weaponry they have.

You can't disarm criminals. Especially when you cant even guarantee they aren't being supplied by your own government.
edit on 7-8-2011 by LightAssassin because: (no reason given)


I understand your point but most criminals don't intend to go around just randomly killing people. If all of a sudden people start trying to shoot them instead of letting em run away to get caught by the police later your going to have more deaths.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by blackrain17

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by blackrain17
 


You didn't read the whole thread did you


If the people would have been armed they would have shot back thereby causing a firefight in the middle of the street with the odds going to the guys with the AK's. There were children on that bus who would have been caught in the crossfire.

No guns on the bus the thugs shot, it appeared they were looking for someone, and just bailed. They obviously weren't there to slaughter everyone. Had people shot back they would have also more than likely.




You have no idea. If people had guns, he wouldn't be that comfortable blasting away. Only reason why he did what he did was because he knew no one was armed around him.


You don't know that. Possibly they would have brought more people with more guns in anticipation of people being armed.

edit on 7-8-2011 by kro32 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


You're ignorantly failing to realise the criminal element of america.

When all you have are seconds, the police are just minutes away.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by LightAssassin
reply to post by kro32
 


You're ignorantly failing to realise the criminal element of america.

When all you have are seconds, the police are just minutes away.


Your assuming criminals will not do their crimes if they think people will be armed. I think they will still do the crime but just bring a bigger gun to get through the opposition.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by 12voltz
 


That's exactly what they want you to think. Oh ya and btw all your soldiers are coming back drugged up or messed up from IEDs. Do you honestly think they are at any capacity to defend the home front? To drive my point home, have you seen the figures on civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan? These are not the kind of people you want defending you when the SHTF.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by kro32

Originally posted by LightAssassin
reply to post by kro32
 


Actually, they were lucky they were young and wreckless. Nothing more, nothing less. If they had real bad intentions it would have ended far worse. We can only hope that if they decided to step onto the bus that someone actually did have a firearm.

They were intending to instil fear, maybe kill the guy intended but showed little care for accuracy and collateral damage.

This is an argument you wont win because that access to weaponry they have.

You can't disarm criminals. Especially when you cant even guarantee they aren't being supplied by your own government.
edit on 7-8-2011 by LightAssassin because: (no reason given)


I understand your point but most criminals don't intend to go around just randomly killing people. If all of a sudden people start trying to shoot them instead of letting em run away to get caught by the police later your going to have more deaths.


Yes, and most citizens dont intend on doing harm with a gun, and have something called self-control. That is something lacking in these other individuals who will, regardless, end up causing chaos anyway, due to their mentality.

Same reason you have good cops and bad cops. It all comes down to a choice, but people shoud deserve the right to be able to make that choice rather than hand over that bag, or lay down and get raped, or wilfully submit to getting your head kicked in.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 11:55 PM
link   
Fair enough but I really doubt your going to see any of those crimes go down if everyone is armed and I also believe you will see a drastic increase in gun violence.

You will also see alot of innocent bystanders getting shot because of the "Oh i fired because I thought they were going for a gun" type of things.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by kro32

Originally posted by LightAssassin
reply to post by kro32
 


You're ignorantly failing to realise the criminal element of america.

When all you have are seconds, the police are just minutes away.


Your assuming criminals will not do their crimes if they think people will be armed. I think they will still do the crime but just bring a bigger gun to get through the opposition.


So, you've got situation A. Civilian with no gun, and criminal with gun. Civilian is defenseless.

Situation B. Civilian with hand gun, Criminal with hand gun. Civilian can defend themselves.

Situation C. Civilian with hand gun. Criminal with heavier weapon. Civiilian still capable of defense.

Conclusion. The mere percentage of risk goes up for the criminal when you introduce the civilian to the hand gun, therefore lowering the reward, for the risk, therefore lowering the capacity to want to do said crime.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


I think you're the only one doing the assuming, my friend, he has a very good point. I honestly can't speak for anyone but myself but I know of only two things that are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not to sure about the former if you catch my drift. I will defend myself with whatever means I have available at the time, whether the nanny-state mandates it or not. Take that as you will. If someone attacks me, I will not hesitate on account of the fact that I might get in trouble, they're gonna regret that poorly made decision. Period.



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by kro32

Originally posted by blackrain17

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by blackrain17
 


You didn't read the whole thread did you


If the people would have been armed they would have shot back thereby causing a firefight in the middle of the street with the odds going to the guys with the AK's. There were children on that bus who would have been caught in the crossfire.

No guns on the bus the thugs shot, it appeared they were looking for someone, and just bailed. They obviously weren't there to slaughter everyone. Had people shot back they would have also more than likely.




You have no idea. If people had guns, he wouldn't be that comfortable blasting away. Only reason why he did what he did was because he knew no one was armed around him.


You don't know that. Possibly they would have brought more people with more guns in anticipation of people being armed.

edit on 7-8-2011 by kro32 because: (no reason given)


This is where your logic fails. If robbers knew a place was armed, they wouldn't just bring more people. They would think twice before they try to rob that place. Same thing goes here, if those idiots knew people were armed they would think twice before they start shooting at an unarmed bus.
edit on 8-8-2011 by blackrain17 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by xXxinfidelxXx
 


Well that is certainly your right. What if you fire that illegally carried weapon and miss and hit that little 4 yr. old girl playing across the street though?

Or do you never miss?



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by blackrain17
 


Well this is where we disagree then and that's fine. I'm actually a huge supporter of owning guns but with some restrictions. I look to history with the point you just made.

In history, when it was legal to carry firearms, there was no drops in crimes. There were just as many bank robberies and murders and rapes so I believe your logic is flawed. People should have quit commiting crimes when all the citizens were carrying sidearms.



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by kro32
People should have quit commiting crimes when all the citizens were carrying sidearms.


Really? Are you this dense?



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


You never take a shot unless you have a clear target. Firearm safety 101. You should be able to control your weapon if you wish to own one. I have a military background so I cannot speak for anyone who does not. I only speak for me.
edit on 8/8/2011 by xXxinfidelxXx because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by blackrain17
 


Apparantly. Your saying crime rates would drop if everyone was allowed to carry weapons and I'm saying history doesn't prove your point. It proves the opposite in fact.



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by xXxinfidelxXx
 


Well I believe you but what about your neighbor who's a complete idiot but now get's to carry firearms wherever he goes.



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


See that's why I would have mine. lol. To protect me from idiots like that.



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by xXxinfidelxXx
 


Ahh I see your point


Can't blame you for that



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join