The Hypocrisy of Gun Control Advocates, page 10

Pages: << 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 129 times

reply posted on 15-12-2012 @ 11:55 PM by exponent

reply to post by MagicWand67

Because you don't know for sure whether preventing this kid from accessing guns would have changed anything. Maybe he would have stabbed his mother and been caught by the police. That would have saved 20+ lives.

My point is that you can't just dismiss these factors as they are important and matter.

reply posted on 15-12-2012 @ 11:55 PM by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by exponent

yah or at least a society whose spirit of freedom and liberty is already broken and which has more surveillance cameras per capita than anywhere else. All in how you look at it I guess.
edit on 15-12-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

Even if you cite the flawed study that claimed this. It also noted that the vast majority were private cameras. Do you even know what you're talking about?

How would you know it was a flawed study without even knowing what it was and who did the study? Talk about a knee jerk reaction. No matter what study it was you won't accept the premise of my statement which is that the spirit of independence and Liberty in the UK is already broken by a combination of gun control and video surveillance.

I've read about the cameras that laugh at you and ridicule you if you throw trash in the park. And I thought Monty Python was strange. Do you just accept that society is going in that direction?

Anyhow it's something when video surveillance in the UK makes the mainstream news in the US.

news.yahoo.com...

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

reply posted on 15-12-2012 @ 11:57 PM by exponent

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
How would you know it was a flawed study wihtout even knowing what it was and who did the study? Talk about a knee jerk reaction.

There's only one study people talk about when they mention CCTV in the UK. It's been discredited for years but people still cite it. If you have something else to cite then please do.

No matter what study it was you won't accept the premise of my statement which is that the spirit of independence and Liberty in the UK is already broken by a combination of gun control and video surveillance.

Because I am British, and I know that it is not. We are more free than many Americans. For example, I can go visit Cuba! Can you?

reply posted on 15-12-2012 @ 11:57 PM by MagicWand67

reply to post by esdad71

I think we should try to celebrate hte life of some of the heroes in the stories coming out from the school.

There is a thread posted for that.

The heroic actions of those involved in the shootings at Newtown. A different kind of thread,

reply posted on 15-12-2012 @ 11:58 PM by GREENFOX74

reply to post by newcovenant

You know what is scary..... is that you may be right........ But personally I think the problem is not guns or the weapons used to kill others, the problem is that we as people can be so unattached from one another that when it comes to phycological and emotinal distress signals they are easily overlooked or out right dismissed, untill all hell breaks loose we just cant understand what has happened because it is so obviously complex on those two fronts. And blaming weapons is just foolish, The desire for weapons was always with us hell it is why they were invented, they are for killing ... And I definitely believe there is a sickness in this country and I call it FEAR.

reply posted on 16-12-2012 @ 12:02 AM by kneverr

reply to post by exponent

UK has zero business demanding Americans to do anything with our firearms.... you tried it once before, it didn't go too well for you.

...Then you question why we are so aggressive when you stick your noses back into our 2nd amendment affairs or have the audacity to demand that we give up/ban our firearms.

It will NEVER happen, get use to it and have some honor by minding your own affairs... especially when it comes to firearms.

BTW Exponent, you conveniently forgot to leave out a very important little piece of information with your so called facts on murder/gun crimes; the US has est 330 million people (not even counting our massive illegal alien invasion which bumps it up another 20 to 50 million more), compared to the UK's 63 million. Helps put things in a much better perspective, doesn't it.

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

reply posted on 16-12-2012 @ 12:04 AM by MagicWand67

reply to post by exponent

My point is that you can't just dismiss these factors as they are important and matter.

I'm not dismissing them. I just don't agree with them.

Last time I checked I am entitled to voice my own opinion.

Or do you want to ban that too?

My point is that you can't prevent crazy people from doing senseless acts of violence if they are committed to carrying them out. No matter how many laws are passed.

If you want to play the game of hypothetical scenarios and what ifs.

Lets suppose this guy was prevented from using his mothers weapons and instead he decided to make a suicide bomb.

Maybe instead of 20 children dead we'd have 40 or 50 maybe 100 dead.

reply posted on 16-12-2012 @ 12:04 AM by exponent

Originally posted by kneverr
reply to post by exponent

UK has zero business demanding Americans to do anything with our firearms.... you tried it once before, it didn't go too well for you.

Who's demanding? Our firearm controls have worked excellently. We have an average of 30-50 firearm murders per year, as opposed to thousand upon thousands in the US.

BTW Exponent, you conveniently forgot to leave out a very important little piece of information with your so called facts on murder/gun crimes; the US has est 330 million people, compared to the UK's 63 million. Helps put things in a much better perspective, doesn't it.

I didn't leave it out. You have a much much higher chance of being shot to death than I do. Higher from your own police in fact.

Perhaps you could look at the statistics and see for yourself.

reply posted on 16-12-2012 @ 12:05 AM by exponent

Originally posted by MagicWand67
reply to post by exponent

My point is that you can't prevent crazy people from doing senseless acts of violence if they are committed to carrying them out. No matter how many laws are passed.

That's not what I said, I said that it could have resulted in him being able to kill less.

Lets suppose this guy was prevented from using his mothers weapons and instead he decided to make a suicide bomb.

Maybe instead of 20 children dead we'd have 40 or 50 maybe 100 dead.

Which is why you restrict access to explosives exactly as you should to guns. You're not really helping your point here.

reply posted on 16-12-2012 @ 12:08 AM by ThirdEyeofHorus

reply to post by exponent

I don't WANT to visit Cuba, do you? They recently had a shortage of TOILET PAPER. The clinics for visitors is better than the ones the nationals end up in.

There is a reason why Cuban refugees came to the US. It was to avoid the Totalitarian Communism. So if visiting Cuba is your criteria for freedom, you can have it brother.

Also, the reason for American citizens to not visit Cuba was due to the Cuban Missile Crisis. Do I need to find material on that for ya?
So the nanny cams in private homes is discredited? I've heard that before but I don't recall any proof.

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

reply posted on 16-12-2012 @ 12:10 AM by esdad71

reply to post by exponent

My comment about muslims was not racist and I would think better of you to imply that. The IRA was the issue with protest and terror and know it is muslims that protest with some terror. Here is a simple find of a link. YOU said they were scary not me . I See watch you tried. You are almost as good as the MSM with putting words in someones thread...LOL...

www.dailystar.co.uk...

I am for integration of all not separation by race or religion.That is not racist, that is conversation. Would you not agree?

Over 20 killed in China with a knife this week. Yes, it happens.

I think we should have armed people at the entry and exit of each school. Seems there is a need to protect our children now more than ever. Gun control? Surely you jest. 2005 Census tells us there are just under 95,000 elementary/secondary schools in America. Means there is now a need to fill 200,000 jobs. At 75k per year, it would cost 13 Billion dollars a year or the cost of 20 F-22's to the taxpayer to put someone at one of two entrances in and out. Yes I said tax payer. If you can touch my healthcare than protect my children(or is that what they are after). You see the last safe place was elementary schools. Then,somehow, away went the pledge, and god,responsibility and a sense of community and filled it with selfishness, bullying , narcissism and fear. Not in all but many cases. These shootings have gone from once a decade to twice a week in America. All the while, slowly removing the last layer of who you are.

I hope that with the right connections I can start this as a non profit and it would not cost the taxpayer a dime. I am sure a retied cop/SOP would love to do this instead of great at WalMart.

Grancops. A friendly face for the kids and a concealed weapon out of sight. It would be over. Never agaain would this happen. Unfortuante, yes, but NOTHING is to much for the children of this world when there is evil like this.

edit on 16-12-2012 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 16-12-2012 @ 12:12 AM by exponent

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by exponent

I don't WANT to visit Cuba, do you? They recently had a shortage of TOILET PAPER. The clinics for visitors is better than the ones the nationals end up in.

So you don't care that you can't even travel to another country without your government poking its nose in? So much for freedom and liberty eh?

So the nanny cams in private homes is discredited? I've heard that before but I don't recall any proof.

Nanny cams in private homes exist where otherwise the person would have their children taken away for being unfit parents. Which sounds the better solution to you?

reply posted on 16-12-2012 @ 12:14 AM by exponent

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by exponent

My comment about muslims was not racist and I would think better of you to imply that. The IRA was the issue with protest and terror and know it is muslims that protest with some terror. Here is a simple find of a link. YOU said they were scary not me . I See watch you tried.

Saying that you want a gun because of 'the muslims' is racist. The rest of this paragraph doesn't make any sense.

Over 20 killed in China with a knife this week. Yes, it happens.

Really? It was 20 injured. So far I don't think any have died. What was your point again?

reply posted on 16-12-2012 @ 12:20 AM by MagicWand67

reply to post by exponent

Which is why you restrict access to explosives exactly as you should to guns. You're not really helping your point here.

Apparently you're not familiar with home made explosives.

They can be made with household chemicals that are readily available every where,

The Oklahoma City bomb was a van full of fertilizer.

Oklahoma City bombing

Oklahoma blast claimed 168 lives, including 19 children under the age of 6,[1] and injured more than 680 people.[2] The blast destroyed or damaged 324 buildings within a sixteen-block radius, destroyed or burned 86 cars, and shattered glass in 258 nearby buildings.[3][4] The bomb was estimated to have caused at least $652 million worth of damage

McVeigh and Nichols purchased or stole the materials they needed to manufacture the bomb, which they stored in rented sheds. In August 1994, McVeigh obtained nine Kinestiks from gun collector Roger E. Moore, and ignited the devices with Nichols outside Nichols' home in Herington, Kansas.[34][35] On September 30, 1994, Nichols bought forty 50-pound (23 kg) bags of ammonium nitrate from Mid-Kansas Coop in McPherson, Kansas, an amount regarded as unusual even for a farmer. Nichols bought an additional 50-pound (23 kg) bag on October 18,

edit on 16-12-2012 by MagicWand67 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 16-12-2012 @ 12:25 AM by Qemyst

Originally posted by exponent
Which is why you restrict access to explosives exactly as you should to guns. You're not really helping your point here.

Extremely powerful explosives are VERY easy to manufacture with materials that would never be banned.
If guns didn't exist and a psycho wanted to kill a ton of people, no-one would be able to stop him from making a bomb.

Bath School Disaster

This is the worst school massacre in US history.

This guy used dynamite he purchased, which was apparently loosely regulated back in the day, as it says he purchased it at sporting goods stores.

Nowadays, one simply can't go out and nonchalantly BUY dynamite, but components to make equally, and even more devastating explosives can be bought by anyone without any suspicion.

Where there's a will, there's a way. Ban guns and that saying will still be true. If someone has the will to harm others, they will.

reply posted on 16-12-2012 @ 12:26 AM by esdad71

I would guess the violence in England ended with the IRA I would think...ended officially around 97 or so... There is your violence slide along with the gun ban but now it is Muslims there. I would arm myself without question.

Again, where is anything racist in the above statement. That is the problem. You asked about a decline in guns. I pointed out the IRA that tore the hell out of your 'racist' county that was occupying Ireland and killing people based on religion. I simply pointed out terror used to come from the IRA and now it is Sharia law. In either case i would be armed and safe. Even if you were a group of Japanese ninjas.

You choose not to read or try to understand it because it does not fit your argument. What does not make sense. That there are no radical Muslims in England. That would be like calling Prince Harry gay and I saw the Vegas pics...

You asked if someone could attack a large group of people with a knife and i gave a case. I am not comparing apples to apples but just two FU'd situations.

Just what is your point in all of this?

edit on 16-12-2012 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 16-12-2012 @ 12:28 AM by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by exponent

I don't WANT to visit Cuba, do you? They recently had a shortage of TOILET PAPER. The clinics for visitors is better than the ones the nationals end up in.

So you don't care that you can't even travel to another country without your government poking its nose in? So much for freedom and liberty eh?

So the nanny cams in private homes is discredited? I've heard that before but I don't recall any proof.

Nanny cams in private homes exist where otherwise the person would have their children taken away for being unfit parents. Which sounds the better solution to you?

I do care, but I know the reason for the ban on travel to Cuba and it is reasonable. I can travel to Tunisia now for instance, and in fact I have been three times. I would rather visit Tunisia anyway, as it is Mediterranean and very beautiful. It is too bad our POTUS supported the overthrow of the pro Western leader there, but nobody liked him and he was President way too long. Still it is dangerous for Americans to travel to muslim states where civil unrest is happening but there are no bans on it.

The travel ban on Cuba is only important to people with a latent desire to experience Communism and toilet paper shortages or perhaps refugees who fled and haven't seen their family.

Ok so either the Nanny Cams in private homes was discredited or they prevent children from being taken from their families. Which is it?

Was the laughing cams in the parks also discredited?
Would you care to find the proof that it was disciredited?

How about the surveillance cams in the school toilets?

More than 200 schools across Britain are using CCTV cameras in pupils' toilets or changing rooms, according to figures obtained by anti-surveillance campaigners, who warned that the research raised serious questions about the privacy of schoolchildren.

www.guardian.co.uk...

To my knowledge, we don't have those yet. We do have our share of red light cameras though.

I do hope you understand that my point of view is primarily that the Orwellian society is fast approaching, and gun control is an essential part of that.

Oh and one more thing, while I was in Tunisia we saw a BBC program being aired on Tunisia TV discussing Biritsh muslims becoming radicalized.

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

reply posted on 16-12-2012 @ 12:33 AM by NogardNarad

First I would like to apologize for my grammar. English has never been my strong suit growing up but, I really wanted to share my opinion.

I think there should be a combination of law and technology in terms of this gun control argument.

The difference between a gun and a weapon is in how it is used. You also have to factor in skill and ability into the lethality of any object in terms of its killing potential. I think that objects with killing potential should be divided by the number of people that could potentially be killed and licensed accordingly. We have to realize that there is a difference between people and weapons that can kill en mass and those who can simply injure en mass.

Can we truly say that it is better to have 20 injured vs say 5 dead and 15 injured? That comes down to an argument of personal philosophy in the end. It is also important to think of the difference between say 50 people killed all at once vs 50 people killed over a week, month, or year.

If someone wants to injure and/or kill someone bad enough Im sure that they will find a way to do it one way or another and this is true but, the fact that there are weapons out there that give anyone an advantage in the ability to kill is a grave danger to society as a whole. Out of the commonly available weapons, guns top the list in capability of killing considering the range at which people can be targeted, the amount of people that can be struck within a given amount of time, and the fact that guns can practically only be fought with something of equal or stronger power. Sure skill can can make weapons such as bows, blades, or bludgeoning weapons more effective in killing but, they all lack the raw largely overwhelming power of guns. Mass murders by fire or say drowning are murders that youd have to have the targeted people in the right place at the right time and hope that there arnt extinguishers or vents, or what not to limit the causality number. Going down to using choking to kill someone, besides chemical agents, I havnt heard of a killer committing mass choking.

Guns have their use in society and with people who can use them responsibly. I agree with this whole heartily but, I think that even the most sane people can be led to mass violence given the right circumstances.

Perhaps to curve this technology should be implemented into every gun so that only the registered owners can use them. Smart gun technology exists in some forms and I think it is really worth researching. Guns could be made in the future to only fire a certain amount bullets for example. Perhaps even guns could be made so that they can read vital signs for mental distress, instability, or mood so that they can only be used for defense and never for offense. They could also be made to analyze targets so they can only kill game or suspects for crimes. All possibilities while not violating the 2nd amendment except in spirit.

The 2nd amendment should still exist but freedoms arnt there to be abuse them. Freedoms make this country great but, people must use these freedoms responsibly so that we can co-exist as a society. Just because you can do this or that or possess this or that dosnt mean that you have to or should.

Thanks for listening to my thoughts,
Nogard

P.S. - I can understand guns for self defense or home security but, for those who think that they stand a chance to protect themselves from a NWO/government takeover, considering the arsenal of RPGs, bombs, missiles, anti-tank/aircraft, laser, chemical, biological, radio-logical, nuclear weapons let alone all the other weapons that exist that we dont even know about, I dont think that we stand much of a chance of a serious effort by said powers. I respect that you may simply want to get taken down after a "fight" but, Id be more concerned about hiding and surviving if I was fighting against TPTB. ...Then came the A-Bomb

reply posted on 16-12-2012 @ 12:34 AM by undo

stick a whole bunch of impressionable minds into a school institution in which they are told how horrible their culture is, the crimes people from their religion or skin color have commited for the last 1000 years, and the racism in their culture for the last 200 years, and repeat this thru grade school, jr. high, high school and college, while also lambasting them with similar negatives in movies music books news and other popular media, and fail to mention that any other culture on the face of the planet or any other skin color on the planet, or any other racial group on the face of the planet, has ever had similar problems, and then expect them to leave the school system with good self esteem and a positive self image, cultural identity worth a plugged nickel, or anything resembling the foundation necessary for healthy social functions, is not only irrational but the probability is extremely low. we have whole sectors of the populace who now officially hate the color of their skin and have no self esteem. they literally hate themselves.

now stick those same people on neurological drugs that half the time cause more problems than they fix, in a jobless economy where even electrical engineers are working at mcdonald's restaurant, and expect a country under such hostile conditions to produce stable, happy people, is the probably the biggest fantasy land of all.

reply posted on 16-12-2012 @ 12:48 AM by exponent

Originally posted by MagicWand67
reply to post by exponent

Apparently you're not familiar with home made explosives.

They can be made with household chemicals that are readily available every where,

The Oklahoma City bomb was a van full of fertilizer.

Fertilizer that is now heavily monitored for exactly this sort of thing. The UK recently stopped a terrorist plot based around exactly this.

You're not helping your point at all.