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.

 

Tucson Shooting Survivors Appear in New Ad Demanding Plan to End Gun Violence

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by muse7
 



And armed society is safer?

America has 88 guns for every 100 people

We seem to have a mass shooting every week lol


Look at the murders in Chicago, you know,the city run by Rahm Emmanuel that already has outlawed guns???
Also, look at the lack of violence in cities where people are allowed to carry guns!

Your liberal agenda is so apparent!





posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Domo1
 


cowards. traitorous cowards. i will not waste anymore energy typing about these spineless traitors.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 08:00 PM
link   
Did these 'survivors' write, create, produce and direct this commercial? Did they do it all on their own?

Or were they paid to appear in the ad and who instigated the idea?

Peace



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 08:03 PM
link   


A new ad featuring survivors of the 2011 gun massacre in Tucson are calling out President Obama and Governor Romney for not doing more to prevent gun violence.


The very purpose of the Constitution and therefore the second amendment is to withdraw these subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy and personal feelings.

If Americans want gun control or want to weaken the second amendment then they should be petitioning THE PEOPLE to enact an amendment to our Constitution that actually enumerates the power to congress to mandate such things.

At this time congress and the executive have zero constitutional power to decide anything pertaining to citizens and arms.
edit on 5-8-2012 by METACOMET because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Domo1
 

I have only one suggestion on this one. Guns laws wouldn't help...New criminal sentences wouldn't have mattered. He was a few cans short of a six pack but others should have noticed his shortage. I believe people did, actually

We're spending billions after billions on prisons for people after they snap and hurt people. Enough are in there that likely showed signs before ever getting to the point they hurt others. The Arizona one is just a BIG example for the outright body count.


So the solution? A fundamental shift, and in this, a shift backward believe it or not. I think we need to shift back toward the Mental Health support system that existed before Reagan gutted it as one of his first orders of business. A great President he was, in many ways...but the proverbial pooch screamed from that one!

Make voluntary services something that are open, available, cheap or free for basic services and WITHOUT automatic records and stigma at the initial walk-in and chat level. If people won't come in at that level....the whole system exists for itself and to fix problems, not prevent them. Loughner? Who knows...Maybe he would have taken help if available. His Video showed he was off well before the shooting.

The other half of what Reagan took out though was the EASE of which a person could be committed on a 72 Psych hold for evaluation. Involuntary. If the walk-in wouldn't have done it....maybe a 72 hold by someone who noticed would have gotten him seen by people who'd have recognized a problem when they saw it.




posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 08:05 PM
link   
Well, I think a great plan would start with the following:

An in depth analysis at how we treat mental illness and the support structure available for people who need help with metal illnesses.

A serious plan to get America back to work.

Media fostering the ideals of what we want this country to be (fair, giving, involved), instead of a porn like addition to fear and horror.

I think those three would be a great start!



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 08:06 PM
link   
You really can't have a conversation with someone about "Gun Control" because they will instantly assume you want to ban everyone from owning weapons.

Sadly these types of incidents will continue to happen more often as the American population continues to get addicted to anti-depressants and many other types of drugs.

Sure an armed society might be a polite one

But a society that's hooked on drugs and obsessed with weapons is just a mass shooting spree waiting to happen



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeadSeraph

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
Arm everyone. Add weapons training to middle school curriculum. Statistics show that areas with loose gun laws have fewer attacks. An armed society is a polite society.


Statistics show that pretty much every country in the world that has gun laws also has much lower incidents of gun related crime.

An armed society is a dangerous society - especially an american armed society.


Doctored and/or biased statistics, perhaps.


Got any actual evidnce for that other than wishful thinking??

Gun death rates by population



There are plenty of statistics to demonstrate the opposite,


such as?



even within the U.S.


I wasn't talking about "within the US" - I was talking about other countries.

I fully recognise the whole of the USA is a special case of psychopaths with a religion of gun worship that entitles them to kill each other with firearms at any opportunity.

apparenty it is also the only country in the world where gun control will not make any dent in criminals having firearms.
edit on 5-8-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Domo1
 


i have only ever held a gun twice
[both cases of my bringinging a knife, or fists to a gun fight, PS: they lived]

i have never used one, and never needed one

but not everybody can defend themselves from violence barehanded,
with various other types of weaponry, or using magic

the right to bear arms IS the right to SELF-DEFENCE.

so i bear with the gung-ho types, especially those who think
a gun can trump anything.

this is disgusting.




"Words of condolence are not enough,"


my condolences are for the victims, and their loved ones.

not people who made it in one piece,
and are now demanding that others risk having to suffer what they went through
cause those will be the consequences of these

whatevers...

getting their way


F&S
good of you to draw attention to this.



edit on 5-8-2012 by DerepentLEstranger because: added edit and comment



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by muse7
 


Black Ops ..

for the record ..



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by muse7
 


I'm actually all for background checks. If I were to sell a gun to someone I would only do so if I were shown a CPL and I would report the sale even though I'm not required to. As far as mental health checks go, I dunno. How would we determine who is sane enough to have a gun? I know a number of people that suffered from depression and owned guns that I never worried about. I've also seen a few folks I would like to have banned from ever getting near a firearm that probably would pass as perfectly sane.

As far as owning at least a pistol or shotgun, that's a good start. I own a number of pistols, rifles and shotguns and the majority are just used for different things. I have my carry pistols (I like to outfit coordinate lol), my target pistols, my cheap ammo pistols, I have my home defense rifle, my target rifle and my fun and cheap to shoot rifles. I have a few shotguns, one from my Grandpa the others for hunting. I don't think it's the number or really even the type of guns.

The assault weapon ban didn't really do anything at all except ban things for cosmetic reasons. Assault weapons were used in something like 5% of all gun crimes (not just murders).

I think we have a problem, but that it doesn't lie with individual ownership of guns, more with our culture. It's a tough one.

While I disagree with people who wish to ban or further regulate firearms, I understand the desire is to keep people safe so I respect the opinions.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Komodo
reply to post by muse7
 


Black Ops ..

for the record ..
I wouldn't put it past bammy, that is for sure. This tin pot dictator wants Americans unarmed and at his mercy.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Domo1
reply to post by muse7
 


While I disagree with people who wish to ban or further regulate firearms, I understand the desire is to keep people safe so I respect the opinions.
I don't believe that at all. I think anyone who really does is naive at best. The liberals in our nation are hell bent on disarming the rest of us.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I think it really is a shame that we don't do more for people with mental health problems. Now I'm no sure it would actually curb any of these unfortunate events, but it very well could if we started offering care.

I don't know how I feel about making it easier to hold someone for 72 hours for mental evaluation. I don't have really any experience or knowledge about what it takes to get someone evaluated. From what little I understand it is almost impossible even for a family member to have someone committed unless they have already done something violent. Again, not sure.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarthMuerte

Originally posted by Domo1
reply to post by muse7
 


While I disagree with people who wish to ban or further regulate firearms, I understand the desire is to keep people safe so I respect the opinions.
I don't believe that at all. I think anyone who really does is naive at best. The liberals in our nation are hell bent on disarming the rest of us.


I don't think the average person you talk to that is opposed to gun ownership has any other motives most of the time. I have a number of family members who dislike guns and as far as I know only because they fear for others safety. I've tried to educate, but no dice.

Now politicians are a different story. I think there are many motivations for gun grabbing.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Domo1
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I think it really is a shame that we don't do more for people with mental health problems. Now I'm no sure it would actually curb any of these unfortunate events, but it very well could if we started offering care.

I don't know how I feel about making it easier to hold someone for 72 hours for mental evaluation. I don't have really any experience or knowledge about what it takes to get someone evaluated. From what little I understand it is almost impossible even for a family member to have someone committed unless they have already done something violent. Again, not sure.


This is the crux of the issue. It's why I end up questioning if there isn't a conspiracy with all these shootings, because the end result is always a debate on gun control, instead of a focus on mental illness. We have seen recently an increase in awareness in anti-bullying campaigns (which may or may not be having an effect), but it would be nice for once to see the focus shift from gun control to mental health awareness. This is a hugely loaded issue, as it comes with all kinds of social tabboos.

We live in a society where you are considered weak for reaching out or even asking for help. Mental health will remain a problem until that stigma is eliminated and we stop pumping ourselves full of pharmaceuticals and start talking to each other.

Gun's aren't the problem. WE are.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarthMuerte

Originally posted by Domo1
reply to post by muse7
 


While I disagree with people who wish to ban or further regulate firearms, I understand the desire is to keep people safe so I respect the opinions.
I don't believe that at all. I think anyone who really does is naive at best. The liberals in our nation are hell bent on disarming the rest of us.


With respect as somebody who is neither a liberal or living in the US, I think you are projecting - because you are unwilling to compromise one bit, you believe that everybody else on is the same. Most people are pretty rational when they think a bit.

Not everybody holds an extreme viewpoint. I believe that criminal / mental health checks should be increased because common sense tells me that if just a few murders a year are prevented it would be worthwhile. No doubt your interpretation of your consitutional rights (which would not be infringed by some more checks unless you are mentally unstable or criminal) are more important than people's lives.

In the end if you care about other people you realise that something should be done to reduce these crazies...
edit on 5-8-2012 by freethinker123 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarthMuerte

Originally posted by Komodo
reply to post by muse7
 


Black Ops ..

for the record ..
I wouldn't put it past bammy, that is for sure. This tin pot dictator wants Americans unarmed and at his mercy.


Waht a load of rubbish - as I pointed out above "liberal western democracies" with quite strict gun control still ahve millions of firearms in circulation - New Zealand - over 1 million for 4.5 million people, Australia - 2.5-5 million for 22 million people, UK about 1.8 million for 62 million people, Canada maybe 7.5-11 million firearms for 35 million - so "ownership rates" of about 1.5 - 35%

and yet somehow they remain "liberal western democracies"



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeadSeraph
[
Gun's aren't the problem. WE are.


Well said!



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 08:26 PM
link   
Victims need to get healthy.

They do not need to be used to further the policed state agenda.

Instead of helping them repair their psyche; we make commercials with em.

Merica.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join