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.

 

The Vetting - Holder 1995: We Must 'Brainwash' People on Guns

page: 5
42
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by freethinker123
 




...I'll tell you why shootings are going up - because there are more and more gun owners who are careless in securing their weapons and guns are too easily available to crazies.


And we have a winner! Nice summation.

When we have a shooting where I live in Upstate New York, its usually one of the following scenarios:

-An irresponsible hunter or gun owner "accidentally" shoots himself or his buddy; Cause: improper handling, lack of respect for firearms, education deficit. I hesitate to use the word "accident" in this scenario because shootings like these can be prevented and are unnecessary.

-Another common and tragic shooting is the child who shoots him/her self, either intentionally or unintentionally. Increasingly "popular" today is the mentally unstable child who intentionally engages on a rampage; this crime is usually well-planned; fatalities typically high. Again, this type of shooting is preventable. The problem is an irresponsible parent(s) and an educational deficit in the home. That child should have never had access to the weapon.

-The third most common type is criminal. Usually an unregistered weapon, typically used in the progress of a crime. Regardless of gun laws, this type of crime will perpetuate because it is criminal in nature.

The first two examples are the most tragic because it is a lack of education and respect that results in the shooting. For a weapon to be safe in the home there needs to be continual vigilance, never waivering; not even once. Children should never have unlimited access to a firearm or ammo. Period.

There are, of course, those families in which the children are well-practiced in the use of firearms. They have been educated on the use and safety of a firearm, be it a long gun, revolver, or pistol, etc. Even though this may be the case, I still would not trust that situation 100% because a kid is still a kid, therefore you can't foresee every possible scenario and any number of uncontrollable elements may factor into an incident. Introduce a neighbor's kid into your home and there you go, there's an uncontrollable variable.

Like many issues in this country, it comes down to the basics: education. If you're lacking it, you'll probably wind up dead.




posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by sageofmonticello
The argument that blows a hole in any anti-gun argument is very simple...
Guns cannot be un-invented.


Yes. Also guns represent a compact, powerful weapon one can use to defend himself if needed, or hunt for food. If guns did not exist someone would invent them because there's a need for them, a void. Maybe on a distant planet aliens are debating the need for laser guns.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by SM2

Originally posted by freethinker123

Originally posted by groingrinder

Originally posted by freethinker123


Good luck with arming your kids at school though if some crazy starts shooting...


We are trying to get schools to allow guns here in Arizona. But crazy liberals from la la land keep putting up excuses.


Thats a solution? How about making sure that no guns get into schools in the first place? Who would be allowed to use them? Where would they be kept? Metal detector or security guard?

Perhaps all the kids should be issued with weapons upon entering schools?



He is referring to guns in universities to students old enough to legally purchase said firearms. Not children, what kind of idiot would honestly think any child should be able to carry a firearm to school? What kind of moron actually believes that someone would actually propose a law to allow it?


Well when talking about schools in the rest of the world it means schools, not universities. Thanks for dropping in but nobody even mentioned the word university until you did.

And don't even bother trying to pretend that some of the extremists haven't claimed that if teachers in schools were armed then Columbine would not have happened. So yeah some are advocating weapons in schools, so my question stands, who would be allowed to carry and where would they be kept? Is it not true that a determined child could get hold of said weapon in the school and use it?



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by SM2

Originally posted by freethinker123

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by freethinker123

Well actually you can to a degree, by supporting measures to make sure that said crazies and irresponsible gun owners get reduced access to weapons.



No. There's that pesky "shall not be infringed" that leaves no room for disarming others without disarming myself. I'm supremely unwilling to allow someone else to determine if I should exercise MY rights, and so do not expect any lesser treatment to be accorded others.



We can't hope to stop these types of 'incidents' altogether, but people have a duty to reduce them.


I have no such duty if it involves "reducing" someone else's self-control or lack thereof until they present a real danger - not just on a "maybe". It's a slippery slope you trod when you start dosing out consequences before an action has been presented. It's not my job to control or restrict someone else on an off chance that they might be irresponsible.



Good luck with arming your kids at school though if some crazy starts shooting...


There's more to refusing to be a victim than merely arming up - getting armed up is the LAST resort, not the first, and it means you did everything else wrong up to that point. However, if they fail, and that point comes, rest assured that they will be armed where they were not scant seconds previously.

Your first weapon is between your ears - every other weapon comes from there.

School shootings are beyond rare around here - way beyond rare. they are non-existent. Kids here prefer poking knives at one another. Just eliminating guns will NEVER eliminate violence. Eliminating violent people, however, does seem to have that effect.





Not just a maybe though is it? The fact is that the vast majority of guns used in this type of crime are obtained legally. What you mean to say is that you wouldn't change your mind even if evidence contradicted your opinion isn't it? Be honest, even if murder rates from gun shooting through use of legally procured weapons by said crazies went up by 1000% it wouldn't bother you, or would it?

How on earth can your children be armed if they are at school when some crazed teenager who got the weapon from his uncle's drawer decides to take his rage out against his old school?

I don't know where you live but in the US school shootings are higher than any other country in the world. And there is no correlation between the availability of weapons on the legal marketplace and school shootings?

In the country I live in we have never had a school shooting.
edit on 19-3-2012 by freethinker123 because: (no reason given)



Well see a school shooting by students could not happen with legally obtained weapons. You have to be 18 to purchase a long gun (21 in some places) and 21 to buy a handgun. A student taking " his uncles gun from his drawer" is not a legally obtained firearm, that gun was stolen. So, instead of sensationalizing the facts here, use actual facts.


I realise that you probably haven't read most of the posts in the thread where I have already stated my opinion but my argument focuses on two things - stopping as many crazies carrying guns and responsible ownership / storage of guns by legal gun owners. In this particular case the uncle should be held responsible for not securing / storing his weapon. More seriously if he does that when there are children around concerning said nephew the idiot should be made responsible. If a minority of gun owners can't be responsible with their weapons, those weapons should be taken away from them at the very least.

My aim is to reduce gun crimes of this nature. What is your idea to reduce the amount of innocent people killed? Do nothing?
edit on 19-3-2012 by freethinker123 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 05:43 PM
link   
What a load of crap do tell how much education does it take to know a gun can hurt someone or kill them?


How many phd's are enough? Oh let's base gun ownership on intelligence tests while were are at it.

How much more totalitarian do people want to get on thought crimes.

Uterly ridiculous.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cosmic911
reply to post by freethinker123
 




...I'll tell you why shootings are going up - because there are more and more gun owners who are careless in securing their weapons and guns are too easily available to crazies.


And we have a winner! Nice summation.

When we have a shooting where I live in Upstate New York, its usually one of the following scenarios:

-An irresponsible hunter or gun owner "accidentally" shoots himself or his buddy; Cause: improper handling, lack of respect for firearms, education deficit. I hesitate to use the word "accident" in this scenario because shootings like these can be prevented and are unnecessary.

-Another common and tragic shooting is the child who shoots him/her self, either intentionally or unintentionally. Increasingly "popular" today is the mentally unstable child who intentionally engages on a rampage; this crime is usually well-planned; fatalities typically high. Again, this type of shooting is preventable. The problem is an irresponsible parent(s) and an educational deficit in the home. That child should have never had access to the weapon.

-The third most common type is criminal. Usually an unregistered weapon, typically used in the progress of a crime. Regardless of gun laws, this type of crime will perpetuate because it is criminal in nature.

The first two examples are the most tragic because it is a lack of education and respect that results in the shooting. For a weapon to be safe in the home there needs to be continual vigilance, never waivering; not even once. Children should never have unlimited access to a firearm or ammo. Period.

There are, of course, those families in which the children are well-practiced in the use of firearms. They have been educated on the use and safety of a firearm, be it a long gun, revolver, or pistol, etc. Even though this may be the case, I still would not trust that situation 100% because a kid is still a kid, therefore you can't foresee every possible scenario and any number of uncontrollable elements may factor into an incident. Introduce a neighbor's kid into your home and there you go, there's an uncontrollable variable.

Like many issues in this country, it comes down to the basics: education. If you're lacking it, you'll probably wind up dead.


I agree with you. I really believe its high time that action is taken on this issue. I find it really sad that nobody from the gun supporting camp has the courage to come forward with any solutions. In a responsible, functioning democracy (or Republic or however they want to describe the US) members of a group would look for solutions ie by isolating a tiny minority of gun owners, making it harder for those irresponsible, crazy or criminal to get hold of legal weapons.


SM2

posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by freethinker123

Originally posted by SM2

Originally posted by freethinker123

Originally posted by groingrinder

Originally posted by freethinker123


Good luck with arming your kids at school though if some crazy starts shooting...


We are trying to get schools to allow guns here in Arizona. But crazy liberals from la la land keep putting up excuses.


Thats a solution? How about making sure that no guns get into schools in the first place? Who would be allowed to use them? Where would they be kept? Metal detector or security guard?

Perhaps all the kids should be issued with weapons upon entering schools?



He is referring to guns in universities to students old enough to legally purchase said firearms. Not children, what kind of idiot would honestly think any child should be able to carry a firearm to school? What kind of moron actually believes that someone would actually propose a law to allow it?


Well when talking about schools in the rest of the world it means schools, not universities. Thanks for dropping in but nobody even mentioned the word university until you did.

And don't even bother trying to pretend that some of the extremists haven't claimed that if teachers in schools were armed then Columbine would not have happened. So yeah some are advocating weapons in schools, so my question stands, who would be allowed to carry and where would they be kept? Is it not true that a determined child could get hold of said weapon in the school and use it?



Bottom line on this as who can carry is simple. The second amendment is clear, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. So therefore, anyone who is legally allowed to own a weapon should be able carry said weapon wherever he/she is legally allowed to be. So therefore, any teacher that decides to exercise his/her constitutionally guaranteed right would be the ones armed. I should specify as well, that what I said about firearms in schools was referring to students under the age of legal firearm ownership in their location.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by safetyblack
 


Nice post Safety, and welcome to the board. Want some coffee or tea, or a pastry or something? Just being a good hostess here.

edit on 19-3-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by freethinker123

Not just a maybe though is it? The fact is that the vast majority of guns used in this type of crime are obtained legally.


Which "type of crime"? I'd have to take issue with the notion that legally obtained firearms are used more often in crimes than illegally obtained ones.



What you mean to say is that you wouldn't change your mind even if evidence contradicted your opinion isn't it?


No, what I meant to say was what I said, and furthermore no one has presented any such contradictory evidence, nor have I presented any "evidence". Opinion is not evidence. I'm willing to entertain the evidence, but all actual evidence presented in the thread so far has been in favor of firearms, and more specifically it pointed out and broke down, by the numbers, how vanishingly less likely one is to be involved in an "accidental shooting" than to emply a frirearm in genuine defense.

A few points, all anecdotal or subjective: While an "accidental shooting" is not a crime I believe there is no such thing as an "accidental shooting": Those are more properly called "negligent discharges", because they are the result of negligence with an intentionally pulled trigger. Triggers do not, and never have, pulled themselves.



Be honest, even if murder rates from gun shooting through use of legally procured weapons by said crazies went up by 1000% it wouldn't bother you, or would it?


It would bother me, but not in the way that you think, It would bother me that so many people willingly walked to slaughter rather than defend themselves. On the other hand, Darwin takes over in such circumstances. The crazies live on to breed more, and the suicidal people with the victim mentality contribute no further genes to the pool. Then you get a society which we are dangerously on the verge of - the crazies multiply to the point that they run the show, and of course the first thing they want to do is disarm the rest - to make of us all victims and to make their job easier and safer, without the possibility of getting shot themselves.



How on earth can your children be armed if they are at school when some crazed teenager who got the weapon from his uncle's drawer decides to take his rage out against his old school?


They have been taught to think, to react, and to employ strategy against the miscreant. Those are PRIMARY weapons. Secondarily, they have been taught to use a wide variety of implements in combination with those strategies to maximize impact. They have been taught not to freeze like a deer in the headlights and just wait to see if the miscreant is really going to shoot. he IS. Do something about that, don't just wait for the fire plume.

Then, after the dust settled, that uncle better hope the cops find him before I do. I have no qualms about thinning crazies and criminally negligent people from the gene pool.



I don't know where you live but in the US school shootings are higher than any other country in the world.


I live in the US. Our redwood trees are higher than in any other country in the world, too. That doesn't mean we have any redwoods in my area, either.



And there is no correlation between the availability of weapons on the legal marketplace and school shootings?


No, none whatsoever. Availability to miscreants attributes to other factors than "the marketplace". In your example above it's criminal negligence - firearms must be stored by law in a safe manner around here, and failure to do so is a criminal matter. Criminals will arm themselves some how, whether you make it illegal or not. They will either go to alternate weapons, or create their own underground marketplace, or both. The problem is not the implements, it is the criminals who use them.



In the country I live in we have never had a school shooting.


I'm glad you're happy there.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 07:19 PM
link   


How many phd's are enough? Oh let's base gun ownership on intelligence tests while were are at it.
reply to post by neo96
 

If that were the criteria for gun ownership, I would be very worried, at least if PhD's got them. I worked with many of them, and for the most part, their biggest problem was that they could not boil water, make sense of common day situations, or even explain to students the things they were rattling off in class, from memorization. In my dealings, PhD's in academia, are by far, the largest group of people with no common sense. There are a few good ones, but they are few and far between. Give them a one thousand page textbook, and they can make electronic presentations that will dazzle you, but ask them a question about the meaning of the material, and their answer is usually "Didn't you read the book?".
Sitting in a department meeting with them was sheer torture.I had to bite my tongue so many times, it bled. lol!



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by freethinker123

Originally posted by nenothtu

Why are you allowing crazies to roam free and unchecked in your society? As you say, you get the society you deserve.



I don't. In my society we don't have the violent crime seen in the US, there are no school shootings.
On the other hand the US has one of the highest instances of gun crime in the world. An armed society is a ... violent society so it would seem.


Crime is crime, independent of the implement used in it's commission. It's ridiculous to sort crime out by implement of choice, as if the object does it of it's own accord.

I'm really curious, now. I've been to several places in this old world, but I have yet to go to one where crime is non-existent.


edit on 2012/3/19 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Captain Beyond
 

Love the Carlos Hathcock Avatar.
LOVE IT.

And I agree. Doom on those that enter my house without permission.



Thanks macman, I highly respected Gunnery Sgt. Carlos Hathcock. He was a cut above the rest! Quite a few tactics of sniping now taught in the forces are as a result of his experiences in Vietnam.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 


From my experience the anti gun shill are by far the most common group that lacks common sense.

Second agrees.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by freethinker123
 


Your post reminds me of childhood (not THAT long ago, but mid eightis-ish...my older brother by 5yrs had a gun rack in the back window of his pickup w/ a 30.06 there at school everyday during hunting season. The principal even admired it. (It is a nice gun, I've hit a 10" target w/ it at 1,100 yrds) Granted, small, small community where hunting is a vacational business. But my, how the times have changed. Heck, I still remember the phrase/paraphrase "I may not like what you say, but I will defend to my death the right to say it" - Patrick Henry, I think, but I'm too lazy/busy to do it right now. Others ought to correct me if I'm wrong though. (One thing I've noticed about this site in the past few years are the disproportionate amount of "attackers". - sorry, just had to vent)
Thanks OP, and thanks Freethinker.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by babybunnies
 


No, it's a verifiable fact that when conceal/carry laws are in passed, violence by guns decreases considerably.
2nd. Not to be rude.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


I'm guessing everywhere you've been had a government.
Can't be crime free society with one as history(thestory?) has shown.
But i get your point.
Like a lot of your previous posts on this thread, BTW.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by jibeho
After watching that video clip of Holder, it is easy to see why Obama anointed him to head up the DOJ. Both of them share the same views on firearms. We've been warned before regarding Obama's veiled intent for the Second Amendment. If he wins a second term, he will hit it with the focus of a Trijicon Reflex sight.

Hearing Holder's 1995 words in the aftermath of Fast and Furious leaves me at a loss for words...


let's see....holder throughout the video is talking about getting guns out of young peoples hands and to quit them from carrying them around in public. he said NOTHING ABOUT OUTLAWING GUNS, or hunting with guns, or self protection of your home or property, or ending the 2nd amendment.....did you people listen to the words he said? he's trying to end gun violence....and all of you conservatives sound like you want MORE AND MORE GUN VIOLENCE in our schools, on our streets, kids packing heat, mom and dad packing heat,.....


By including the word "gun" in the phrase "gun violence", it is an assault on firearms. The focus is against the implement rather than the perpetrator.

Holder is against GUNS (in the hands of citizens - doesn't seem to have a problem with drug dealers carrying them) - he could give a crap about crime.

If he was against crime, his focus would be on VIOLENCE, without implement modifier, not inanimate objects which can't fire themselves.

Out of curiosity, do you think other forms of violence are OK, as long as they don't include guns? If not, WHY specify only "gun violence"?

Sure, I'd like to see everyone "packing heat". Miscreants would make their mistake ONCE, before 5 other people erased them from the gene pool. You can't get out of death on good behavior because some liberal thought you were a nice guy at heart who only turned mean because your mother made you wear red underwear.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ISeeTheFnords
reply to post by nenothtu
 


I'm guessing everywhere you've been had a government.
Can't be crime free society with one as history(thestory?) has shown.
But i get your point.
Like a lot of your previous posts on this thread, BTW.


Most places had a government of some sort, but some governments are more "there" than others, you know?



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by XyZeR



I don't. In my society we don't have the violent crime seen in the US, there are no school shootings.
On the other hand the US has one of the highest instances of gun crime in the world. An armed society is a ... violent society so it would seem.


I can't agree more, it's pure and simple logic.
More people with guns = More guns used.

I can even prove it
Chart 1:
Crimerates in the US involving guns

Chart2:
Gun sales in the US

If you see these 2 graphs next to each other, look at the Peak in gun sales around 1992-1994 and then look at the peak in violent crimes around the same period. taht's just one statistic that proves the logic used.

Can anyone tell me with a straight face there is no correlation or connection between those 2?




Yes.

Selective criteria. Your statistics are flawed by selection bias. While the crime chart and the production (not "sales") chart both show a sharp spike, the crime chart shows a steady increase leading up to that spike, while the gun production chart show a sudden, sharp rise.

That indicates that firearm production was spurred by rising crime rates, not the other way around. Note also the sharp DECLINE in crime rates after the gun production spike was reached.

Your own charts tell a different tale than the one you are trying to present.

ALSO: you are employing propaganda to attempt to make your point. The chart is titled "Violent Crime Rates in the United States". but YOU titled it "Crimerates in the US involving guns", attempting to place an emphasis, direction, cause, and correlation not present in the original.

For shame, trying to misrepresent data to make an otherwise un-makeable point!




edit on 2012/3/19 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by safetyblack
reply to post by XyZeR
 


Hello. I have been a LONG time reader of ATS and I joined just to reply to this comment.

These graphs show a "Total Violent Crime" increasing from 1984 to its peak of 1992. The crime graph does not state it is "gun related crime".

The other graph shows an increase in production starting in 1992 and peaking in 1994.

It would appear to me that these graphs show a rise in crime followed by a rise in demand of firearms. After the increase in production of firearms the crime rate drops drastically. Can you tell anyone with a straight face that these graphs show something besides this?

You appear to have made a very strong case for firearms as a means to lower crime rate.

Thank you I hope that my first post has been as exciting for ATS as it was for me!

sb


I should have read on before making my reply above. it seems that the points were already covered. I'll let mine stand as testament to how easily this ruse was seem through.




top topics



 
42
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join