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.

 

Ban the Gun, Repeal the Second Amendment.

page: 38
45
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flow101
I would start with banning assault rifles and other powerful guns, there's NO reason to have these type of guns available to the public.


Most people who yell "ban assault rifles", haven't the faintest clue as to what an assault rifle is. So define "assault rifle" using your own definition. (AR-15s and AK-47s are not assault rifles FYI)

Also, in regards to the second amendment; it is better to have it and not need it vs. needing it and not having it. The second amendment is the people's power. And beacause the government works for us, they do not hold the authority to ban our weapons.




posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 12:50 PM
link   
Don't ban guns. Enforce stricter gun control.

Or, get used to madmen running around shooting everybody.

And to all the people hiding behind their right to bear arms - if somebody close to you ever gets killed in a massacre, don't go looking to others for sympathy. YOU have the power to do something about it, but are choosing not to.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by Boomer1941
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


So how did you celebrate your rising crime rate in Britain when they gave up their guns???


Crime rates are falling in the UK :-

www.guardian.co.uk...


You do realize that the crime rate in the US today is lower than it was in the 1970s 1980s 1990s and 2000s?



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by FluffyCannibal
Don't ban guns. Enforce stricter gun control.

Or, get used to madmen running around shooting everybody.

And to all the people hiding behind their right to bear arms - if somebody close to you ever gets killed in a massacre, don't go looking to others for sympathy. YOU have the power to do something about it, but are choosing not to.


There are OVER 200 million guns in the United States. For every 100 people in the US, 90 are said to be armed. With those astronomical numbers, why haven't more mass shootings happened? Why are cities with strict gun control laws in the US facing high crime rates?

Stricter gun control policies will only make it harder for law abiding citizens to arm themselves, not the criminals. You essentially are saying that you need to punish the majority because of a very tiny minority. You can't regulate stupid, insane people by passing laws that effect everyone else. It just doesn't work.
edit on 16-12-2012 by rock427 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by tysondenon
Someone early on in the thread said that the Connecticut already has an assault rifle ban, so gun reform is a moot point. What I'd like to know is, how is a gun like the .233 Bushmaster not considered an assault rifle? Why was that gun legal? It seems like such an excessively powerful gun, relative to, say, a small, concealable handgun.


I have no idea if the rifle was illegal in Connecticut. I suspect it was. Perhaps it was, perhaps it wasn't.

As to the justification for its legality vs a handgun, check the stats. Any given homicide is about 20 times more likely to be committed with a handgun than a rifle, and its precisely because it is concealable. About 80% are committed with handguns and 5% with rifles (and assault rifles are some portion of that 5%).

Myself, I'd much rather people could carry an AR-15 than a pocket 9mm. At least then I'd know who was armed and who wasn't.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by FluffyCannibal

And to all the people hiding behind their right to bear arms - if somebody close to you ever gets killed in a massacre, don't go looking to others for sympathy. YOU have the power to do something about it, but are choosing not to.



If someone from my family was shot and killed tomorrow, I would still support the use of guns. My beef is with the INDIVIDUAL that pulled the trigger,not the gun itself.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by FluffyCannibal
And to all the people hiding behind their right to bear arms - if somebody close to you ever gets killed in a massacre, don't go looking to others for sympathy. YOU have the power to do something about it, but are choosing not to.


I'd blame the person pulling the trigger. The firearm is an inanimate object. The people in my town own thousands of them I'm sure. The thought of that doesn't frighten me in the least.

I actually did have several extended family members present as students and staff who escaped uninjured at a major incident that made national headlines about 10 years ago. Happened about 30 miles away in a town of about 60,000.
edit on 16-12-2012 by vor78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin


Stop hiding behind that ancient bit of paper, your constitution, you all need to grow a set and sort out your gun problem before you have anoter 18 dead kids, who knows next time it could be one of yours, I pray it is not and i pray for the families of those affected



Very Rarely will i respond to threads of this nature But let's get something clear here. Banning Guns in the UK did not put an end to gun related crimes. Last year gun crimes ROSE by 35% in the UK. Source: www.dailymail.co.uk...

It's laughable when you Brits get onto us about OUR crime considering your own native news media states in black and white terms that your crime rate is worse than ours. www.telegraph.co.uk...

Maybe it isn't guns or a lack of gun control or too much gun control. Maybe it is because people, no matter what laws or what nation are freaking crazy for various reasons?



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by rock427
 



1) By your reasoning, there should be the same levels of gun crime in every first world country, regardless of their gun control. There isn't.

2) It SHOULD be harder to get a gun. If ordinary law-abiding people can't be bothered to go out of their way to make their home a safer one then that's their problem.

The fact of the matter is, less guns means less gun crimes.

edit on 16-12-2012 by FluffyCannibal because: Because I love Unicorns



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by FluffyCannibal
The fact of the matter is, less guns means less gun crimes.


That hasn't proven to be true here in the US. Most of the rural states west of the Mississippi have homicide rates that are actually quite low, but in fact have the highest rates of gun ownership in the country. By contrast, many of our major cities have very strict gun laws, but homicide rates as much as ten times the national average. Connecticut had some of the toughest state level laws in the country.

The direct correlation, at least in this country, doesn't really exist.

One other fact that throws cold water on that possible correlation? Gun sales in the US have been off the charts for the last several years. Compare that to the homicide rate and the total number of homicides. Both have dropped significantly. I'm not saying that more guns is the cause, but that the two can co-exist and we're actually proving it, despite the headlines when something like this occurs.
edit on 16-12-2012 by vor78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 01:55 PM
link   
If we banned everything that increases the likelihood of crime, then the amount of laws would be neverending and we may as well do away with the whole "freedom" thing. Find a way to prevent crime without restricting the people. Better care for the mentally unstable would be a good start.
edit on 16/12/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by FluffyCannibal
reply to post by rock427
 



1) By your reasoning, there should be the same levels of gun crime in every first world country, regardless of their gun control. There isn't.

2) It SHOULD be harder to get a gun. If ordinary law-abiding people can't go out of their way to make their home a safer one then that's their problem.

The fact of the matter is, less guns means less gun crimes.


So your second argument is that it's the victims fault? Intriguing.

Gun crime in the UK has increased massively since the handgun restrictions. What about Charlene Ellis and Letisha Shakespeare, gunned down by a type of firearm that has been banned since 1937?

Edited to ask: what do you mean by "it should be harder"? If you meanit should be harder to obtain illegal firearms then I would absolutely agree. If you mean it should be harder to legally obtain a firearm then I disagree, as very few firearms offences are committed by people who are licensed to possess them.

I would also agree that there have been some notable failings in the licensing system - for instance, the attacker at Dunblane was already known to be a danger and his licence had already been revoked on those grounds at least once, the reasons why he successfully appealed are still rather... murky.
edit on 16-12-2012 by EvillerBob because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by vor78
 


I understand and accept your point, but something has to be done to stop crazy people getting hold of guns. The simplest form of this is to limit the number of guns, basic maths. And the overall statistics speak for themselves - America has little gun control compared to alot of other countries, but alot more gun crime. Even if the number of homicides is dropping (although that could be irrelevant - it's the number of gun-related homicides that count).



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by FluffyCannibal
1) By your reasoning, there should be the same levels of gun crime in every first world country, regardless of their gun control. There isn't.


For the comparison to be true, other countries would have to have similar ratio to the US in terms of guns per one-hundred people. So the point you're attempting to make is moot in that regard.

en.wikipedia.org...

Additionally, the crime rate for legal US gun owners is dramatically lower than/when compared to everyone else in society. People who have weapons are less likely to commit crime, and less likely to be a victim of crime. But lets only focus on one side of the issue while ignoring the other...


2) It SHOULD be harder to get a gun. If ordinary law-abiding people can't go out of their way to make their home a safer one then that's their problem.


The killer who massacred those kids already broke at least six different laws before he shot the first victim in the classroom. Wishful thinking and politely worded laws written on paper don't "prevent" a determined attacker from carrying out his crime.


The fact of the matter is, less guns means less gun crimes.


Correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation. You might want to keep that in mind. Crime has fallen over the past 30 years in the US, yet gun ownership has steadily increased during that same time period. So, according to those facts, it could be argued that more guns = less crime.

You also might what to look at this link: Gun Crime Soars 35% in UK

But clearly, banning guns prevents gun crimes...



edit on 16-12-2012 by rock427 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by EvillerBob


So your second argument is that it's the victims fault? Intriguing.


Ummm...no....my argument is that if American citizens want to keep their guns as badly as they claim, a little extra paperwork and stricter gun controls shouldn't be an issue. It was in reply to arguments about how stricter gun controls would 'punish' responsible law-abiding citizens.




Edited to ask: what do you mean by "it should be harder"? If you meanit should be harder to obtain illegal firearms then I would absolutely agree. If you mean it should be harder to legally obtain a firearm then I disagree, as very few firearms offences are committed by people who are licensed to possess them.


I mean that it should be harder to obtain any firearm. The number of weapons in circulation should be reduced. I would clarify my point further, but I have a broken elbow and typing's pretty awkward right now.



I would also agree that there have been some notable failings in the licensing system - for instance, the attacker at Dunblane was already known to be a danger and his licence had already been revoked on those grounds at least once, the reasons why he successfully appealed are still rather... murky.


British gun control laws have been tightened since then - it was in the wake of the Dunblane massacre that our control laws became as strict as they are.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by FluffyCannibal
 


Sorry to break it to you, but it's simply not going to happen.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by FluffyCannibal
reply to post by vor78
 


I understand and accept your point, but something has to be done to stop crazy people getting hold of guns. The simplest form of this is to limit the number of guns, basic maths. And the overall statistics speak for themselves - America has little gun control compared to alot of other countries, but alot more gun crime. Even if the number of homicides is dropping (although that could be irrelevant - it's the number of gun-related homicides that count).



US gun related homicides have been dropping. Its usually around 65% of the total, so as the total drops, it does as well. If the trend of the last 20 years continues, the US will be approaching Western European homicide rates within another 10-20 years. In light of that, I don't think a drastic reduction in individual rights is necessary or prudent.

But yes, I completely agree with you that something needs to be done, but we disagree on what. My solution would be to raise the legal age of ownership of semi-autos to 30 (the nutters will probably end up on a ban list for some reason or another before that time) and put the same restrictions on households with a dangerously mentally ill occupant as exist on households with a convicted felon in order to minimize easy access. Additionally, I think its well past time that we had something resembling armed security in our schools. Finally, if you've been diagnosed with a mental illness in the past and have been prescribed mood altering drugs in the last 5-10 years, you'd be required to pass a psych exam before being cleared to buy. This requirement would expire after so many years.

The point being, I think we can take reasonable, common sense steps to greatly reduce the risk without trampling all over the rights of 100 million responsible gun owners.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 02:23 PM
link   
Ban the guns. Might as well take away all the other amendments and ban the right to sleep longer than 3 hours.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeathShield


Very Rarely will i respond to threads of this nature But let's get something clear here. Banning Guns in the UK did not put an end to gun related crimes. Last year gun crimes ROSE by 35% in the UK. Source: www.dailymail.co.uk...



You do know that article is from 2003?

So it wasn't last year.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   
I'm all for banning guns from stupid men. Women don't have the same problems with guns. Maybe a gun permit and test. You can swap, either liquor license or gun license, but you can't have both at the same time. Pick your freedom.

Oh I know! Let's put RFID tracking on guns. That way when a gun gets too close to a school, or a mall, or a movie theater, something goes bezerk on the gun and it doesn't work. Put some rfid on bullets, make them trackable by satellite.

Oh wait, knives hurt people too. Forks, sporks, spoons and chopsticks. Dishes and bottles. And cars, and planes, and buildings. Subways. Even pillows hurt people, and marshmallows. Everything can hurt people! Have you seen how many electrical outlets are in your home lately? How much hazard do we live in daily that we prevent with being smart?

This is why we charge people with crime, not their tools. What are we going to do, ban teeth because someone bit someone? We have this thing in our civilization, it's called self control and common sense. Get some, make some, and use some common sense. Don't let your emotions get the best of you through this tragedy.



new topics

top topics



 
45
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join