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.

 

Gun Control, use both hands. From a Democrat!

page: 2
28
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by hangedman13
 


I think you're right that more capital punishment would make a big difference as well.

If people knew they wouldn't have a chance of getting off "scott free", it may be a very good deterrant.




posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by homeslice
reply to post by SerialVelocity
 


Not from the US, so I imagine I will be told me to butt out soon. I am from NZ, so its obviously a much different story here. It is just amazing to me why people think they should be entitled to carry a weapon on them at all times for "protection". I guarantee you are more likely to get shot yourself or shoot someone else accidentally rather than successfully defend yourself from a life threatening situation.
Really? Such knowledge and insight from someone who knows squat about guns. I have carried almost daily since leaving the military over 20 years ago. Since leaving active I have shot myself exactly 0 times. I have shot my children or other family members exactly 0 times. I shoot at least twice a week at an outside range where long guns are permitted as well as pistols. You know how many people have been shot at that range? 0. I have twice needed to use my weapon for self defense since leaving the military. Neither time did I shoot myself or someone I cared about. Both times I broke the primary rule of armed combat by not shooting to kill. Both times, just the mere presence of the weapon out and aimed at the idiot causing trouble was enough to prevent further violence. GUNS DO NOT KILL PEOPLE, people do.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 08:12 PM
link   


Owning guns, collecting guns and stockpiling guns are very different things. Gun collectors don't go around buying tons and tons of ammunition and planning the end of the world scenarios. Gun owners don't try to find armor piercing bullets or stockpile tons of ammunition because of a zombie apocolypse. The people who go on and on and on about guns, have more than they could ever use and have boxes upon boxes upon boxes of ammunition are the people who cause such opposition to guns to begin with and those are the very people who wouldn't pass the exam needed to carry one to start with. They are the people who commit these shootings, they are the people who finally flip out and end up killing innocent people, they are the people who are the problem, not the solution.
reply to post by NinjaKitteh
 

You do know that you described quite a few law enforcement officers with that don't you? Here is a fun fact for you. Police officers have to pass a psyche exam before being hired. Corrections officers don't, yet the CO's get to carry on their badge as if they were police. Most CO's join because they failed the police psyche evaluations. And having a badge smooths things for getting your pistol permit.


edit on 14-12-2012 by hangedman13 because: hit reply to quick



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Originally posted by NinjaKitteh

Originally posted by homeslice
Ha, yeah make sure everybody has a gun. Everybody will be so much safer. Ridiculous.


No, make sure it's legal for law abiding citizens to have guns.


I'm not picking on you, I promise. I just have a problem with this phrase, even though I've caught myself using it.

I despise the term "law-abiding citizen". It is an overdefined term meant to infer something that I'm not entirely sure of.

There are citizens. Law-abiding by default. The moment you are not, you are a criminal.

Citizens. Criminals.


Yes, it is a very open ended term.

People with more legal skill and verbage than I have would need to be responsible for setting the standards that would be acceptable. I guess my terminology expresses my desire that it be open to "most" people who aren't aleady determined to be a threat due to their past behaviors and actions in breaking other laws.

Even though many could slip through the cracks, there will be people there who are armed who can at least minimize the damage that they could possibly do when they slip through instead of having huge body counts due to nobody being able to defend themselves.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by DarthMuerte
 


Thank you for your service.

Thank you for being a responsible gun owner who can protect yourself and those around you.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by hangedman13

You do know that you described quite a few law enforcement officers with that don't you? Here is a fun fact for you. Police officers have to pass a psyche exam before being hired. Corrections officers don't, yet the CO's get to carry on their badge as if they were police. Most CO's join because they failed the police psyche evaluations. And having a badge smooths things for getting your pistol permit.


edit on 14-12-2012 by hangedman13 because: hit reply to quick


Wow, I didn't know that.

That's a bit frightening. They should be required to pass the same evaluations as a police officer does since they have the same rights to firearms that an officer does.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarthMuerte

Originally posted by homeslice
reply to post by SerialVelocity
 


Not from the US, so I imagine I will be told me to butt out soon. I am from NZ, so its obviously a much different story here. It is just amazing to me why people think they should be entitled to carry a weapon on them at all times for "protection". I guarantee you are more likely to get shot yourself or shoot someone else accidentally rather than successfully defend yourself from a life threatening situation.
Really? Such knowledge and insight from someone who knows squat about guns. I have carried almost daily since leaving the military over 20 years ago. Since leaving active I have shot myself exactly 0 times. I have shot my children or other family members exactly 0 times. I shoot at least twice a week at an outside range where long guns are permitted as well as pistols. You know how many people have been shot at that range? 0. I have twice needed to use my weapon for self defense since leaving the military. Neither time did I shoot myself or someone I cared about. Both times I broke the primary rule of armed combat by not shooting to kill. Both times, just the mere presence of the weapon out and aimed at the idiot causing trouble was enough to prevent further violence. GUNS DO NOT KILL PEOPLE, people do.


Can I ask you how you feel about countries such as the UK, NZ etc. not being able to carry guns and arm themselves? Do you see it as a restriction on their rights?



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by NinjaKitteh
 

I will add that is how it works here in NY, one of the shining beacons of the gun control crowd. A good friend of mine got his hand gun permit due to his job and I know of a guy who failed the evaluation for multiple police exams, yet was able to get a job as a CO like nothing. To further muddy this issue I also would like to point out that people like Bloomberg the NYC mayor loves him some gun control
The only people who should have guns in his mind are cops and his personal security detail. Hmm a game of favorites as to who can legally own and carry? Create a distinction between who can and who cannot have firearms and what happens?



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by hangedman13
reply to post by NinjaKitteh
 

I will add that is how it works here in NY, one of the shining beacons of the gun control crowd. A good friend of mine got his hand gun permit due to his job and I know of a guy who failed the evaluation for multiple police exams, yet was able to get a job as a CO like nothing. To further muddy this issue I also would like to point out that people like Bloomberg the NYC mayor loves him some gun control
The only people who should have guns in his mind are cops and his personal security detail. Hmm a game of favorites as to who can legally own and carry? Create a distinction between who can and who cannot have firearms and what happens?


I think gun ownership in large cities is very different from gun ownership in more rural areas. There isn't a lot of hunting that goes on in cities, but there is more need for handguns for protection. In this area, rifles are much more prolific than handguns because most gun owners are hunters and the crime rate is much lower.

I wonder what kind of studies are out there for large cities and gun ownership and its effect on the crime rate? I'm sure they're out there, I just don't wonder quite enough to do the massive reading and searching that would be involved to gather the information.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by NinjaKitteh
 


Ehh I'm not in NYC itself but a short distance from Albany. Believe it or not some parts of NY are rural, we have coyotes makin a comeback and it's just a matter of time before they start attacking people. [Food issues aka population pressure] I come from a hunting family so I can get what you are saying though!
Again excellent thread!



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by hangedman13
reply to post by NinjaKitteh
 


Ehh I'm not in NYC itself but a short distance from Albany. Believe it or not some parts of NY are rural, we have coyotes makin a comeback and it's just a matter of time before they start attacking people. [Food issues aka population pressure] I come from a hunting family so I can get what you are saying though!
Again excellent thread!


Good point. I always think "NYC" when NY is mentioned and forget about the more rural areas.
Thank you



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 09:08 PM
link   

edit on 14-12-2012 by davjan4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by NinjaKitteh
 


Very good point on the difference in ownership in a rual vs city enviorment. Most "city slickers" dont have to worry about bears, mountain lions, wolves, etc!!!!! Heck, just earlier this week/last week a young girl shot an 11ft python in her yard! Im pretty sure that it could have turned out worse for her if she didnt have access to that 4 10!!!



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Computron
reply to post by NinjaKitteh
 


Very good point on the difference in ownership in a rual vs city enviorment. Most "city slickers" dont have to worry about bears, mountain lions, wolves, etc!!!!! Heck, just earlier this week/last week a young girl shot an 11ft python in her yard! Im pretty sure that it could have turned out worse for her if she didnt have access to that 4 10!!!



I'm glad there aren't many pythons around here or I may quickly become one of the hoarders with tons and tons of ammo!


Although we do have very large cow-snakes and many venomous species here. I own more snake-shot than hollow-points.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by NinjaKitteh
 


I live in NW FL, pythons ARENT supposed to be up here. Thats the scary part

edit on 14-12-2012 by Computron because: i done goofed up



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by NinjaKitteh
reply to post by hangedman13
 


I think you're right that more capital punishment would make a big difference as well.

If people knew they wouldn't have a chance of getting off "scott free", it may be a very good deterrant.


I disagree. Capital punishment is not a deterrent because it is rarely used, special circumstances need to apply before it is even considered, and it takes years and years to carry out because of all the appeals.

You want a deterrent? Life sentence, no parole, HARD LABOR. Oh, wait, that's not humane treatment, is it? Yeah, inmates who kill other people have more civil liberties than anyone.

What would be more of a deterrent to these parasitic lowlife animals than HARD WORK.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by homeslice
 

Well no not everyone would be safer. Just the law abiding citizens. Not the criminals, not the crazy's. They would soon be on an endangered species list. Of course if YOU are a criminal or crazy I can see your point. If everyone carried a gun they YOU would probably die.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Originally posted by NinjaKitteh
reply to post by hangedman13
 


I think you're right that more capital punishment would make a big difference as well.

If people knew they wouldn't have a chance of getting off "scott free", it may be a very good deterrant.


I disagree. Capital punishment is not a deterrent because it is rarely used, special circumstances need to apply before it is even considered, and it takes years and years to carry out because of all the appeals.

You want a deterrent? Life sentence, no parole, HARD LABOR. Oh, wait, that's not humane treatment, is it? Yeah, inmates who kill other people have more civil liberties than anyone.

What would be more of a deterrent to these parasitic lowlife animals than HARD WORK.


Capital punishment as it exists right now is a bit of a joke. They need to return it to what it should be. If it's murder, as opposed to causing a death that isn't murder, they need to be put to death. There should be a list of crimes that are automatic execution when they are proven guilty and lose their first appeal and the trials need to be quick, not stretched out over three or four years.

I do agree that prison, as it is right now, isn't a good deterrant either. It's more like vacation than a punishment for many of them. Hard labor would be a great idea. Loss of freedom and ability to go anywhere they want just isn't enough. It needs to be an experience they don't want to return to under any circumstance. Hard labor, little rest, no "free time" or gym or tv or internet or anything else that provides enjoyment of any kind. It's prison, not the Hilton.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jerk_Idiot
reply to post by homeslice
 

Well no not everyone would be safer. Just the law abiding citizens. Not the criminals, not the crazy's. They would soon be on an endangered species list. Of course if YOU are a criminal or crazy I can see your point. If everyone carried a gun they YOU would probably die.


We could have "hunting season" for gang members, drug dealers and the like too. They wouldn't be the ones in charge anymore.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 09:50 PM
link   
In today's world, when the shooting starts, everyone runs, everyone tries to get away. They aren't armed and that's their only choice. They are picked off one by one. If the law abiding citizens were armed along with the criminals, when the shooting starts, they would be able to defend themselves as well as protect others. The gunman would still be a gunman, lives would still be lost, but if was quickly brought under control, many lives would be saved.

You lost me here. There is upto 250-1mill individuals per state whom carry a concealed license and pack. Check the stats, these gunners always pick the safest places and would dare do it in other than a school campus. Hmm... thinking about campuses, has there been any other attacks besides this "safety" zone of campuses? I think not, thus your question



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join