Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Blame the shooter, not the gun

page: 16
26
<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


So you go through $1200+/month in ammo?
(and that's $.20/round, which is on the cheap side for most ammo)
I think that most people would find that you be an excessive amount of ammo for the average person to be using in a month.


During peak comp season yeah.

In the winter I shoot .22's mostly to balance the expense.

I once went in on an entire pallet of 5.56 with a couple of buddies. Was something like $20,000. Lasted us the year.

The look on your neighbors face when he sees a pallet of ammo being forklifted into your garage is priceless.

People who shoot shoot a lot. I can go into anyone of my shooting buddies house right now and count at least 6,000 rounds of various calibers. Guaranteed.

Besides, why does ammo amount matter? Out of 6,000 rounds he got off less than a hundred.
It's like making a big deal out of somebody owning fifty guns. A human only has two arms.

It's just a big number to get all uppity over that in reality makes no difference whatsoever in a subject being a threat or not.
edit on 24-7-2012 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 





That is not the point, the point is that this type of equipment only serves one function in the public sector.


Actually I have friends that use AR-15 style rifles for hunting groundhogs, skunks, coyotes and other smaller animals that damage crops or carry off their livestock. The guns are lighter, easier to carry, and stand up well to the dusty and dirty life of a farm. They are made to be work horses and excel at that job.



There is no need to have that level of ammunition capacity, nor to have weapons that mimic military weaponry.


Actually one point of large capacity magazines for civilian use is, to make practice easier and less time consuming. It actually makes owners want to practice more. That means when they are shooting at those pests they are more likely to hit their target and less likely to send rounds flying off where they can do damage.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


Actually that is not a large amount if you are competing. It is unusual to buy that much instead of reloading when you are competing. However, literally tens of thousands of Americans have that kind of ammo on hand just for practicing and competing.

I usually buy 500 rounds at a time for practice because it is cheaper. I go through somewhere between 1,200 and 1,500 rounds a year. I'm not training to kill, I'm practicing my marksmanship to protect my family. I'm also doing it because it is relaxing. It becomes an almost zen like state of concentration. Some guys build boats in a bottle or fly planes. I safely put lead and copper through paper and in to a back stop.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


Sure, you can have the opinion that so much ammo is excessive. However, in America, it is our right to own as much ammo as we would like. We have the right to do anything we wish in this country, as long as it does not harm or impede another citizens rights. Last time I checked, owning thousands of rounds isn't hurting anyone. It only takes a single round to kill someone, so quantity is not important. We are talking about inanimate objects are we not? The common denominator is still humans. It is their capabilities, not the gun's, that we should be considered the threat. If I was afraid that my shotgun would decide to shoot me in my sleep then obviously I would not own one. But, guns don't make decisions, they are predictable. If someone doesn't pick one up, load it, aim it at another person, and pull the trigger...then by and large, they don't murder people.

The second that guns organize and decide to revolt against their human captors.....I'm out!



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by muse7
 


I am a new member of ats and your post caught my eye, So what you are saying is we should put more strict controls on gasoline and matches every time someone starts a house fire? The way I take peoples comments when they say stuff like this is if he wouldnt have had access to the guns NOTHING would have happened and in a way you are taking up for them and blaming the guns.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by lambs to lions
 


How about blaming both?

And how about blaming the people who sold him those guns too? One owner of a shooting range has stated on record that he refused him membership because he couldn't contact him, and the answerphone message he heard was "disturbing".

So why didn't he report that a potentially mentally unstable person was trying to become a member of his range/club?

There are a lot of things that need to change. For a start, I think there could be compromises on the weapons available to people in the USA. Yes, you have the right to have a gun, but nowhere does it say that you have the right to own a gun that can kill a hundred people within 60 seconds.

Does anyone really think that this would have been enshrined in the constitution if it had been written in a world where such a thing were possible?

That would be like us writing a constitution now where every person in the country can have access to nuclear weapons if they like, just in case.

It's a ridiculous argument, and if the people who decided back then that you should have the right to own guns were alive today they would be sick to their stomachs at the kind of firepower people can buy. You know that's true.

For the record, I do believe that people should have the right to own guns. But, people should not have the right to own guns capable of killing on such a scale, at least not in the general community. I don't care if that goes against what some on here might say. Not so many were screaming about the constitution when Bush was wiping his ass with it!

Guns kill people, people with guns kill people - the fact that Americans can legally collect weapons capable of killing so many people so quickly IS A PROBLEM. And no amount of highly selective constitution waving will change the simple fact that without those weapons in the hands of the public none of this would be possible.

I think a lot of Americans need to grow the f up and learn how to compromise for the good of their communities. You don't need these insane weapons in the hands of the people, able to be bought over the counter.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by lambs to lions
reply to post by defcon5
 


Sure, you can have the opinion that so much ammo is excessive. However, in America, it is our right to own as much ammo as we would like. We have the right to do anything we wish in this country, as long as it does not harm or impede another citizens rights


Including their right to safety and security?

I could argue that your right to own a machine capable of murdering hundreds of people within minutes is a direct threat to the safety and security of my family. Where do you stand on that?

If my neighbor likes to collect weapons capable of such violence surely he is infringing on my rights to safety and security.

Rights are a two-way street. Why is your right to own weapons capable of such violence more important than my rights to safety?



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 07:43 PM
link   
everybody gets to voice there say that is what makes use free..after all the ranting bullet prices will go up with gas & all this will blow over and we will find somethang els to rant about but theres nothing you can do about someone owning a gun or not thats what makes it america



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by detachedindividual
 


Sorry to let a few facts get in the way...but...

Machine-guns are illegal. A normal citizen can not own a fully-automatic firearm, you must have a FFL, or federal firearms license to sell, buy, or own one.

President Bill Clinton enacted the Brady Bill under his watch. It banned selling of new high capacity magazines, as well as the sale of many semi-auto paramilitary fire-arms. Gun related crimes did not go down. Thus, when the 10 year ban expired, it was not extended, nor was it reintroduced.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 07:55 PM
link   
the thread topic is blame the shooter not the gun i agree blame the shooter,,,,they had guns on the roof at the court house to protect the shooter from a shooter if antone wanted him realy bad go in after hours and place your gun in the court room when its just the janator then the happy jocker would be gon and you would be on trial for murder or wate untill all this is over like they did jefery dawmer dawmers last words were eat me lmfao



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by detachedindividual

Including their right to safety and security?



Exactly, which is why it is illegal to intentionally maim, threaten, or kill another person. It is not illegal to own a firearm because it is only a potential threat. So are the knives in your kitchen drawer. You mentioned your neighbor owning firearms is a threat to your security? How so? Unless, your neighbor has bad intentions towards you. If that is the case, there are many other items in his/her house that are a threat to you.

On the other hand, perhaps your gun owning neighbor may be your guardian angel someday, when you are in need of protection, and do not own a gun. I hope that is not ever the case, but better to have one and not need it, than the other way around.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by lambs to lions
 


LTL you forget making people feel uncomfortable or offended is not allowed these days. It doesn't matter that millions of people own guns and never harm anyone. It makes him uncomfortable so it violates his rights.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by lambs to lions
 





Blame the shooter, not the gun



If it was the other way round you might as well blame spoons for making people fat..



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Taupin Desciple

Originally posted by lambs to lions

To blame guns on gun-related violence is ridiculous.




Taken by itself, I hope you realize just how silly that statement is.

You're right, guns have nothing to do with a bullet leaving the chamber, barrel and nozzle and then lodging itself into the target. How silly of us to think otherwise.



No.

What is silly is the notion of "gun related violence" period. people have been brainwashed to believe that one form of violence is somehow better or worse than another simply by virtue of the implement used by the violent.

Where are the threads on "crowbar violence", "tire iron violence", "axe violence", "baseball bat violence" "car violence" "knife violence" and "screwdriver violence"? Why do they not deserve a category of their own as well? What makes one act of violence more heinous or more virtuous than another? Is not the problem the violence itself, irrespective of the chosen implement? the answer is to deal with the offender, rather than the implement. Violent people are going to exercise their hobby regardless of what implements you choose to attempt to ban.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by detachedindividual
 





Rights are a two-way street. Why is your right to own weapons capable of such violence more important than my rights to safety?


My gun is not a threat to your safety unless you become a threat to my safety. My gun has saved my life four times without even firing a shot. I would say my gun really isn't a big threat to those threatening and show intent to do me seriously bodily injury. Then again I was able to continue on safely because my gun made them turn and run.

So, your right to feel comfortable in your illusions doesn't trump my right to stay alive or keep my family alive. Because a small hand-full of legal gun owners messed up doesn't mean that 90 million Americans should lose their rights.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 08:44 PM
link   
punish the shooter not every gun owner i know a little old lady who family tryed to say she was to old they sent the cop to take her to a nursing home she shot there dog,to make along story short the old girl won the cop was trespassing she held down the police for a week shes still takeing care of her self my point she isnt to old and isnt in a nursing home be cause a gun



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by madenusa
 


Is English your first language? I'm just curious because of the lack of punctuation and spelling. I'm not trying to offend you.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 09:08 PM
link   
Im surprised that some neighborhood watch guy, protecting himself and his "fellow law abiding citizens," hasnt went door to door killing anyone with guns because they may or may not have criminal intentions.

It dosnt take much to go from the good guy in a situation to the villain. Were all animals ladies and gentlemen. How can we judge between who should be trusted with these weapons when it comes to split second decisions. Each of us are able to go nuts one day. I just home someone dosnt blow my brains out one day because I drew a pencil from my pocket thinking I was a threat to them and their family.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by lambs to lions
reply to post by defcon5
 

It only takes a single round to kill someone, so quantity is not important.

You're correct, quantity is not important...
Reload time and bulkiness are what's important!

When you were given the “right to bear arms” the founding fathers envisioned this:

Where at best, a highly trained soldier could get out three shots a minute.

Not this:

Where any idiot with a few bucks to spare can pump out am impenetrable wall of lead.

If we were limited on the ease of wielding (bulkiness/ ability to conceal), rate of fire, and quantity of ammunition, then when something bad happens, at least you limit the number of weapons that can be carried, and the amount of damage that can be done before the person has to reload and becomes vulnerable to being attacked in return. It gives innocent people a fighting chance to get the hell out of harms way.

If he had been carrying one of these:

Max damage here would have been one shot, before he would have been mobbed in return.

With this:

Roughly 5-12 shots before he would have had to reload.

With this:

70 wounded, and 12 dead in under a minute.

The unpredictable public sector just does not need access to this level of hardware, sorry...

Limiting this is not a violation of your, “right to bear arms”, anymore then it is to deny public ownership of one of these:



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 09:34 PM
link   
The anti gun people need not worry since the military and police will always have more firepower then the citizen. They can wipe gun owners out anytime they choose and find the courage.






top topics



 
26
<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in

join