Blame the shooter, not the gun

page: 6
26
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 11:43 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.




posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 11:59 AM
link   
"an armed town is a polite town"
My grandfather told me this many years ago. Criminals will always fear armed law abiding citizens. I remember seeing a video right here on ats some years ago where an inmate was interviewed. When asked if he feared police he responded with a flat out no. When asked what he did fear? Armed homeowners.

Guys it really does come down to the person holding the weapon. There will always be good and evil, sane and insane. The only thing we can really do about it is make sure decent humans have the right and ability to meet criminals and psychopaths with equal force. Banning weapons, or types of them will only limit law abiding citizens. Perpetrators of violent crimes are normally found with weapons, there victims are not.

Ill stray from any speculation on coulda woulda shoulda's, but had Holmes been unable to procure his s&w mp 15 "semi auto" ... (i saw someone referred to it as "automatic") with his level of education he would more than be able to produce a large explosive. Actually it would have neen easier and less expensive to obtain the materials. This, at least to me, screams depravity. He wanted to be there witnessing the carnage of his design. To me proving he is a sick individual who would have killed people gun or none.
edit on 23-7-2012 by conspiracyrus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by lambs to lions
 


What about...blame the shooter ...AND...the gun..?

Take one out of the equation and voila....less gun related deaths..murders...killings.

Taking up a gun and killing someone with it is IMHO so much easier than with a knive, baseball bat or any other weapon. Even women and kids have a good chance to kill a grown man with a gun.

In a state of confusion, furious blind emotion it is a done deal when there is a gun in the house and the trigger is pulled...

IMO taking a knife or any other potential weapon other than a fireweapon the victim has at least a chance to defend himself/ herself or a chance to escape. It is harder to escape a bullit with your name on it.

Although I love guns and wish I could buy one..but can't because of legislation here in The Netherlands...I say..if you want to reduce killings...taking away guns from society will most certainly help.



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   
People bring cars and pencils and whatnot into discussion when comparing guns...

Those things are not meant to be used as a weapons, but it has potential. Gun is bought with the intention to shoot and kill, whether you want to call it being defensive or protection is bs. If a guy with a gun want to shoot you, whether you have one on you or not, you are already dead, he wanted to kill you and you have no way of knowing beforehand.

People who wants rules on gun dont want to take it out from your hands, YOU HAVE TO EARN THE GUN. If some people i know had access to gun, lot of people would have been dead.

But, when comparing countries without gun and America, its totally different. i get you guys, there is already millions of guns in the citizen/criminals alike, taking it back now means criminals won;t hand over, but it could be reduced. police could check all the records and people's background, crime history, age limit, whether they need a gun or not etc etc.

But defending murder with guns is not the fault of the gun is just stupid. Humans use guns, humans are easily swayed with emotion, and gun is easily used, and from a good deal of distance. I rather have a fighting chance with a knife then get killed by a gun.

And also, why do 99% of the criminals use gun as their primary weapons? anyone?

You can have your gun, i don't care, but don't justify it as being something good for the economy/country. heck, i could say that about nuclear weapons, anyone want to debate that?



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by zatara
 


Lest we forget the time before guns when wars were fought with blades. Violence is inherent in all of human society. Weapons will always be used. The sofistication and ability of the weapon are the only thing that changes.

Banning firearms would only force those who wish harm to become more ingenious in their craft to accomplish their goals. You simply cannot regulate violence.
edit on 23-7-2012 by conspiracyrus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 12:37 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.

Someone had to put that bullet in the chamber. Who might that be? The magical gun fairy?



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Themanwithnoname
reply to post by lambs to lions
 

Maybe it'll take some of your family being shot and
killed like this for you to think differently.

If he ran out of bullets and started to stabbing people to death with a knife, would you consider taking them away as well?



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Propulsion
 


There are many people that are not capable of thinking rationally when it comes to guns. It is because of ignorance that they do not understand. I have never met someone who has experience around firearms, that also believes in a more strict gun control law. Ignorance breeds fear.



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Wongbeedman
 


Cowards? I guess we were cowards when our young men stormed the beaches of Normandy? Is it cowardice that allowed us to successfully revolt against the English to win our Independence? Is is cowardice that drives us to want to intervene on the behalf of the needy or oppressed? We may be a lot of things here in America, but the one thing we aren't is cowards. It isn't in our blood, it never has been.

Everyone hates us until they need us.



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by lambs to lions
 


Of course not, but when it comes to a one on one confrontation then yes, unless theyre armed too. Then youd both be screwed really



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Propulsion

Originally posted by Themanwithnoname
reply to post by lambs to lions
 

Maybe it'll take some of your family being shot and
killed like this for you to think differently.

If he ran out of bullets and started to stabbing people to death with a knife, would you consider taking them away as well?


Your are letting it clouds your judgement(another bad human emotion when handling guns). A knife attack can be countered without any weapon in hand, unless the attacker is precise, he can;t kill a person with one stab. If someone comes into a house with a gun, i would run, if i knew he had a knife, i would take something to protect myself knowing i have a chance.



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by luciddream
 


...you are assuming everyone is a trained martial artist. Violence will always be perpetrated. It is not the fault of a weapon. We could even debate that society as a whole is culpable simply because society molded them. But it should never be debated that an inanimate object is responsible. To say a weapon is responsible is to do a great disservice to future generations who can hopefully learn from this incident that violence is the cause of lost lives, not a tool.
edit on 23-7-2012 by conspiracyrus because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-7-2012 by conspiracyrus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by muse7
If people want to go on a rampage they will. But why should we make it easier for them?

If people want to go on a rampage they will. but, why should we make it harder for people to protect themselves?



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 01:22 PM
link   
One properly trained person in that theater legally carrying a concealed weapon and I believe this sad story would have had a somewhat different ending.

Of course, I believe the same thing about Virginia Tech and most other mass shootings.



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by clayb2004
 


I agree. Just look at the older gentleman who prevented an armed robbery at that internet cafe. Anti-gun proponents always miss the stories where a gun was used to save lives.



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   
A hammer is designed to strike a nail into a board or also pull one out, but it could be used by an individual with free will to bludgeon another individual to death. Is the hammer a weapon of death and destruction? No. A wrench is designed to tighten a fastener or bolt, but could someone with free will use that wrench to kill someone? Most certainly, yes. Does that make a wrench a violent weapon. No. Knives, baseball bats, gasoline and a lighter, explosives, crowbars, etc. etc. etc. What do these items have in common? A person that freely decides to use them as a weapon. That individual is the only thing you can blame.

A gun is a tool, just like the above. When used properly, can provide protection and safety. However, when used wrongly as with any other item, has potential for danger. Responsibililty lies with the flesh attached to the trigger that made the choice to use that gun as a weapon to harm others.



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 01:55 PM
link   
Saw this post on WhatReallyHappened.com and thought it was well written and wanted to share it,


Gun control is the theory that a dozen dead movie goers in a Colorado theater is morally and politically preferable to a live patron explaining to the police how James Holmes got shot.


So true!

whatreallyhappened.com...



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 02:00 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nspekta
Saw this post on WhatReallyHappened.com and thought it was well written and wanted to share it,


Gun control is the theory that a dozen dead movie goers in a Colorado theater is morally and politically preferable to a live patron explaining to the police how James Holmes got shot.


So true!

whatreallyhappened.com...


Yes...because 3-4 other guys pulling their guns would have definitely made the chaos in there better


I'm sure the cops would have enjoyed walking into a cinema where more people shot eachother thinking they are the attacker...makes total sense.

What a nonsense argument


The issue here isn't guns...it's that he was able to get them WITHOUT BACKGROUND CHECKS!! That's just crazy...
edit on 23-7-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 02:29 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Seriously, is there ever any cause to require a 100 round drum, or a 40 round clip?
How about paramilitary AR-15 style weapons?
What are these used for anyway?
Certainly not for hunting or home defense.
If you need that many rounds for either of these things, you need to spend more time on the range practicing.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.





new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join