Ban the Gun, Repeal the Second Amendment.

Originally posted by Shark_Feeder
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

 

So when shall you dismantle your own nation's military defences? It's guns are not needed for defence then lets see that first...

Time for you to start your campaign to disarm the british military, or as you said above remove all of the military's assault weapons, tanks, aircraft, and naval forces?

Start in your own backyard buddy...or do you realise that the UK would then be defenceless?

It's not about disarming anyone's military. The population of the US disregarding the military, isn't the military is it? You're not super army soldiers, you aren't military, if you want a gun maybe you should join the military.

So hand in your guns and stop killing each other.

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by detachedindividual

 

You really think those countries in the ME and African continent don't have high gun ownership???

You really have no clue and it is embarrassing, as you usually hold your own pretty well during debates.

Oh, Africa, where there are guerilla attacks on villages as routine, women gang raped at gunpoint, child soldiers... yeah, that's a real valid comparison!

Other nations are irrelevant, they clearly don't have the culture that breeds violence and mental instability as the USA does.

It doesn't matter how many countries allow guns, how many there are in the population, or who owns them. It matters that in the USA there are military grade weapons on the streets, and that idiot Americans excuse that by quoting outdated statements written by people who could not have possible foreseen how their country would develop, or how those weapons would develop.

Originally posted by macman
Both areas have a gun culture even more so then the US.
Ask any returned Vet that has been there.
Children carry AKs in mass in those areas.

Or, how about this little creation www.foxnews.com...

Yeah, no guns huh?

So you think war zones are an adequate comparison? You do realize that many African nations are in a state of meltdown with gun violence and guerilla warfare?

So what's your point here? You're suggesting that it's okay for Americans to own these kinds of weapons because unstable and violent countries have them?

You're really not making much sense here, almost contradicting yourself in your scramble to defend the Second amendment.

America is not Africa, and it's not a war zone.

reply to post by theclutch


You could fix that. Anyone that does not register there guns will be fined and lose their right to have them.
Im actually surprised that you do not have to register the guns you own in the U.S.
Well not that surprised I guess.

reply to post by IkNOwSTuff

You, not having any clue or experience in this shows me just that.

Kind of like reading books on Disneyland and then thinking you know about Disneyland while having never been there.


So, again. All has been answered from you that is needed to really determine just how viable your opinions are of firearms in the US.

Originally posted by DAZ21
reply to post by ZiggyMojo

 

Violent crimes don't always result in death. Now lets look at the deaths created by these violent crimes and watch the US come top trumps.

edit on 14-12-2012 by DAZ21 because: (no reason given)

Intentional Homicide By Country


Actually you're wrong. The US is quite low on the list compared to many countries. Go down to the table organized by country and arrange it by the "Rate" column. You'll see that the US is nowhere near the top. It ranks lower than Russia and many other European countries.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
The UK anti-gun people have conveniently ignored my point.

How safe would their little island be, if it bordered on Brazil?

I think I would know the answer.

They keep trying to use their island, which is the size of one of our states, and compare it to the US.

that would be like trying to compare Tibet to China.

How many people have you had to defend yourself against with a gun?

How many times has anyone on ATS ever had to use a gun to defend themselves?

I'll bet that none of you have, apart from maybe some vets here.

I'll bet that many of those who defend their right to own a gun don't even have one, because they've never actually had cause to genuinely need to defend themselves. It's just the typical right wing response that anything that threatens anything in the constitution be attacked (unless it's something their fellow right wing president does though, right?)

reply to post by MysterX


Any civilized nation understands you cannot rule by force, it must be ruled by the people themselves. You want to have some sort of red communist government, then you do it through slow indoctrination of ideals set forth, and eventually, its not some government guards that is holding you back, its popular on the street thinking, media, etc..your neighbor, not a soldier..and it will be defended through nationalism.

And the few people that do act out against the government will be seen as heretics, fanatics, and anti-country...each time being painted as a traitor more and more.

And again, the best defense against this isn't a gun, its a lawyer and a free and open internet to counter philosophies...a gun will only play into the hands of those you oppose, strengthening their arguement whenever a shot is fired.

-I am not anti-gun..but I am anti-crazy..and crazy people have tons of guns..so, bit of a no win situation-

reply to post by Jerk_Idiot


To be fair, it is not entirely based on whether or not there were other guns in the situation. What there needs to be is a small group of individuals willing to give their lives to save others. This would apply regardless of whether or not they had guns themselves. It also essentially means that scenarios like this will play out pretty much the same every single time regardless of location, gun legislation, or laws in general.

To stop such a tragedy from happening once it has begun, there needs to be at least a couple/few people who are willing to give their lives to save others, regardless of whether or not they have a gun in their possession at the time. Because of that, 99% of these scenarios will play out exactly the same way, with many people dead and voiceless, but still used to push personal agendas (from both sides, mind you).

It is a tragedy on so many levels. I guess it could be said that we need more heroes in this world. But in the end, everyone will just wait until others move first. Resulting in zero movement whatsoever. I still have faith that we, as a people (HUMANS), can start to actively explore these things rather than prove some point at the expense of peoples lives.

The op has posted that in his opinion that if there was stricter gun control laws, that the events that happened in Conneticut would not have happened, and that it would ultimately save lives.

To that end the following can be stated:

While that ancient bit of paper, the Constitution of the US. But what the op fails to realize it that this piece of ancient paper, no more than 14 pages long, has goverened this country for for the length of time. While the US is a realitively new country, and one that has endured the tests of time and problems the issues that affect one country, does not necessarily affect other countries.

While there are those that are going to state that we need to get rid of guns, and yes the cliche does stand, that guns do not kill people, people kill people. An unload gun, sitting on the kitchen table is not going to harm anyone. It will sit there, gathering dust and probably rust or deteriorate. While there are gun enthusiasts out there, the reality is that in order for a collection to be valuable and for a gun to have any worth, it has to actually work.

To that end, what the op is suggesting, and it has been shown time and time again that it does not work, is to regulate human behavior. In the document that was mentioned, the Constitution, there are 2 admendments, one that made it illegale to consume and purchase alcohole and one to repeal it. Oh the arguments were there, think of the children, the social responsibilities, the moral imperatives, and the medical aspects. But as we are banning things that can kill people, the following can be propesed to go as well:

All food that causes heart disease, sugar of all kinds, fish, cheese, nuts, honey, automobiles, alcohol, potatoes, hops, cell phones, modern compounds, antibiotics, caffiene, tobacco, narcotics, travel, immigration, knives, sticks, bows and arrows, crossbows, sworts, fire, electricity and free thought.

All of those causes death and disease, so should we do away with them, or perhaps we should take a look at the gun control laws and ultimately come up with a solution that does not mean banning something cause we view it is as bad and try to control human behavior.

The bottom line is that if someone wants to committ murder, they are going to do it.

Originally posted by detachedindividual

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by detachedindividual

 

Yeah, because no society has EVER taken on and held their own against an over powering Govt that had them out gunned.

Sure sure.

Love to hear the Progressive Liberal ideals here.

What are you talking about?

People overthrow their governments WITHOUT mass gun ownership. Libya, Syria, Egypt... none of those countries had gun ownership like the USA. And yet they managed.

So what's your argument?

If the American people ever did overthrow their government it would be with outside help, not with a few million nutters with high powered assault rifles.

I don't know why I'm bothering, because all you rabid Republicans are the same - ignore the facts and common sense, just wave around outdated scraps of paper in defence of your own insanity, but only when it suits your own freedoms and screw everyone else.

Tell me, when does your right to own a gun you'll never need less important than the rights of other Americans to live in peace and security without the threat that someone might burst in and kill them all at any moment?

While I agree with you for the most part, the "you'll never need" part I don't.
If a armed burglar kicked your door in and you we're defenseless you'd be so screwed. So yes there are some instances where you WILL need one.

Originally posted by detachedindividual]

Oh, Africa, where there are guerilla attacks on villages as routine, women gang raped at gunpoint, child soldiers... yeah, that's a real valid comparison!

Oh, so NOW they do have gun ownership there.
Which is it???

Originally posted by detachedindividual]
Other nations are irrelevant, they clearly don't have the culture that breeds violence and mental instability as the USA does.

Oh, so NOW other nations aren't relevant.
Again, which is it???
You are going to compare the US to other nations, but don't like it when it is turned onto you in retort.

Originally posted by detachedindividual]
It doesn't matter how many countries allow guns, how many there are in the population, or who owns them. It matters that in the USA there are military grade weapons on the streets, and that idiot Americans excuse that by quoting outdated statements written by people who could not have possible foreseen how their country would develop, or how those weapons would develop.

Oh, so it is just due to American Made Weapons that are reflective of Military style arms.
Or, now it doesn't matter about other countries. Again, I am embarrassed for you. Would you like to start your statements over in this thread?

Hey, got a question for you. How many violent crimes are committed with the Military style rifles that you seem to have a hard on about, over say a pistol?

Originally posted by detachedindividual]

So you think war zones are an adequate comparison? You do realize that many African nations are in a state of meltdown with gun violence and guerilla warfare?

SO they DO have guns.
That is nice.

Originally posted by detachedindividual]
So what's your point here? You're suggesting that it's okay for Americans to own these kinds of weapons because unstable and violent countries have them?

Nope.
All that is needed is the pesky 2nd Amendment you despise.

Originally posted by detachedindividual]
You're really not making much sense here, almost contradicting yourself in your scramble to defend the Second amendment.

How do? By stating it matters what other counties do, and then stating it doesn't matter. Or things of that nature??

Originally posted by detachedindividual]
America is not Africa, and it's not a war zone.

That is a great analysis.

reply to post by detachedindividual

I'll bet that many of those who defend their right to own a gun don't even have one, because they've never actually had cause to genuinely need to defend themselves. It's just the typical right wing response that anything that threatens anything in the constitution be attacked (unless it's something their fellow right wing president does though, right?)

Awesome!

Really liberal to take guns away from people isn't it?

New flash milspec weapons are not in the streets of America no matter how some like to say they are, it clearly shows that when a person says that tripe they know nothing about firearms.

reply to post by blupblup


I will reply to both...

Actually no they would not get on a podium and demand gun control...


They would all run for office and I think we would have a much better country... Gun control... these people just fought the British who used the tactics you are mentioning... removing guns from homes to protect...

George Washington would announce he is running for president in 2016 ... party less

The founding fathers would be upset that the current Government is a failure (both liberal and conservatives)


As for the specific issue of gun control it would go founder by founder... In the end they would be most upset that your are not doing everything you can... Instead you are falling to the politics that Washington warned us about.. The solution is cheaper and simpler... Arm the citizens and ensure that all are protected...

(most of you seem to forget that the founding fathers liked to duel... oh wait thats not part of your agenda..)

History disagrees with your claim... The founding fathers would not like the gun control laws... they wrote the document that is clearly being violated... In fact they would call out the modern politicians for using there offices to enrich themselves at the expense of the citizens...They would see this as a massive powerplay that it IS!!!


Nice try... pick up a history book... let me help you

google-- Common Sense as a primer

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by Shark_Feeder
a state’s ability to defend itself is necessary to secure its sovereignty

Wait though, you said that guns can't be used in defence?

Can't you not see the foolishness of your statement above? Here let slightly rephrase what you said...

A person's ability to defend themselves is necessary to secure thier sovereignty.

See in the US each and every individual is sovereign, and responsible for themselve...slightly different than the UK I know. We are citizens, not subjects....in the US the government is considered beneath the rights of the individual.

So you are saying a massive military is needed to defend a nation, but a man needs nothing to protect himself? WOW.

So no I will not be calling for the disarmament of British Armed Forces.

Then perhaps you should have a look in the mirror....maybe you can get rid of blaring hypocrisy.

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff

 

You, not having any clue or experience in this shows me just that.

Kind of like reading books on Disneyland and then thinking you know about Disneyland while having never been there.


So, again. All has been answered from you that is needed to really determine just how viable your opinions are of firearms in the US.

Not having a clue or experience with some small town

Still dont see how having been or not been there is relevant.

Let me ask you a question, have you ever left the USA?

reply to post by detachedindividual


I have numerous times.
While in the Military.
As a LEO.
And in my personal life.

Originally posted by TheElectricAnt

Originally posted by ZiggyMojo
This isn't about guns. This is about people growing callous and desensitized. Humanity, or this sort of violence will continue to happen and probably at an increasing rate.

You say humanity, but in Europe, we have gun control and dont have these problems in that scale...
So if its not the guns, it must be the american people, is that what you are saying?

You have MORE violent crime in Europe. Obviously you'll have less GUN DEATHS because less people have guns. You however have much higher mortality rates with other deadly weapons than the US. Also the US intentional homicide rates per 100,000 are comparatively low to most of the world and only marginally more than somewhere like the UK. We also have a culture and society far more mixed than just about any other country in the world. There is going to be violence, but the point everyone seems to be missing is that it isn't the Guns that cause it. It is people. If a person decides to use a gun or a knife or a spoon for that matter as a deadly weapon, then it becomes a deadly weapon. If they don't, then it merely remains an object.

Originally posted by DAZ21

So hand in your guns and stop killing each other.

Your army first pal ....your military are overseas killing people right now, yet no outrage.

reply to post by ZiggyMojo


Its quite low….

If you want to play with those statistics then fine, that same page shows that America has a higher homicide rate than Afghanistan, Palestine and Niger.

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff


Not having a clue or experience with some small town

Still dont see how having been or not been there is relevant.

Having never been to the US, not being from here and having never been to that town in GA.


Still dont see how having been or not been there is relevant.

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff
Let me ask you a question, have you ever left the USA?

Sure have. Point being?