Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Hypocrisy of Gun Control Advocates

page: 18
129
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 
I am well versed in history my friend Britain had it well before America! Maybe you should read up on some history! There are only years between the two and it was wrong of both countries; so don't try that crap. It does not hold true with me; I care not what color a perons skin is; my wife is differnt than me and my daughter is bi-racial so pound salt!




posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by LPOPranger
 


Please locate this quote then, I'm happy to be proved wrong.

However, it did not come up in this search

In fact, everything I find says that the government wanted the people to go into the subway, and that Churchill spoke with the people to find out how to keep them safe.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by LPOPranger
reply to post by exponent
 
I am well versed in history my friend Britain had it well before America! Maybe you should read up on some history! There are only years between the two and it was wrong of both countries; so don't try that crap.

Uh, we'd ruled that slavery wasn't an acceptable position before your constitution was enacted. You then segregated people up until the 60s.

The two aren't comparable, so perhaps learn a little bit.


It does not hold true with me; I care not what color a perons skin is; my wife is differnt than me and my daughter is bi-racial so pound salt!

So you have an obligation to learn about the mistreatment of these races and ensure it never happens again. Please spend your time researching, demanding the segregation of troops fighting on your behalf is one of the worst things I can imagine.
edit on 16/12/12 by exponent because: Changed 'country founded' to 'constitution enacted' to be less ambiguous



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 



You are completely off topic and your logic is flawed. I suggest others no longer engage in discussion with exponent.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
reply to post by exponent
 

You are completely off topic and your logic is flawed. I suggest others no longer engage in discussion with exponent.

This is quite off topic but the topic was essentially a personal attack so I'm not too bothered. My logic is quite clear, I have bothered to read history and understand how your country works. You have listened to saturday morning cartoons instead of learning about the reality.

You are a secular nation, you split from the UK after we asked you to pay for your defence. You continued to keep slaves and then segregated black people right past the second world war.

Deny Ignorance.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 05:23 PM
link   
The Gun/Mass Murder issue will never go away in the U.S. as longs as guns are still available.

I can understand that many Americans want to have a Gun as a means of protection, but the issue will never, ever go away as longs people can buy guns in the U.S. The government knows this, but to ban guns would mean such a massive headache that I doubt they will ever try to.

All you can do is damage limitation by stopping the stupid mass medication of Teenagers on all kinds of weird and wonderful prescription drugs, and doing full on background checks for every single person who ever buys a gun.Even then, it will not stop these events happening, but it may reduce the likelyhood of it happening so often.

The U.S. is in such a deep hole with this, there's really no turning back.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Jocko Flocko
 


Somehow I dont think you need an assault rifle!!



The medical examiner in Newtown said that all the murdered children he examined suffered gunshot wounds from a rifle, believed to be a .223 calibre Bushmaster.

Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy said that the weapon was so powerful he was literally able to shoot an entrance into the building.

"That's what an assault weapon can do for you," he said.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 
What??? What?? and What???? It is like talking with a two year old who can't read. Goodnight! I am done Ignorance is bliss so I am sure yopur are the happiest person on Earth; at least for today.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by LPOPranger
reply to post by exponent
 
What??? What?? and What???? It is like talking with a two year old who can't read. Goodnight! I am done Ignorance is bliss so I am sure yopur are the happiest person on Earth; at least for today.

Considering your response to facts was "What??" then I don't think you're in any position to talk about ignorance. Considering you callled the British cowardly and insinuated they hid in sewers instead of helping the war effort, you're not in any position to talk about ignorance.

Learn about your history or you are condemned to repeat it. You already have leaders calling for racial profiling and have even passed laws on it. You don't think that's a serious issue?

How about this?


You guys really need to learn your history or cruel sadistic people like Michelle Malkin will push you into doing exactly the same thing again.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
Are we talking criminals or the mentally ill here? Organised crime will always have firearms, but they are not morons, they understand that harsh firearm penalties are enacted and that the use of firearms guarantees that they will face endless pursuit.

This reduces their actual use of firearms to those situations where they feel it is essential. Generally this is inter-gang rivalries or drug deals gone bad etc. These do not affect the general public as much and so there is a double effect where firearms are removed from regular society.

We regulate the components of firearms just as we regulate the components of explosives. Nobody is suggesting that it stops all crime, but the statistics show that the UK has a remarkably low level of violence and gun use. This is partly caused by our more progressive social policies, and partly due to the unavailability of guns.

Once again, nobody is saying ban guns = fix everything, but by heavily restricting firearms you can reduce their availability and so reduce many types of killing.


Criminals AND mentally ill people. They're one and the same when they plan to kill people, but that part is just semantics.

I won't separate mass killing incidents where 10-20 people are killed/injured maybe once a year or every few years and every day crime related deaths where only 1 or 2 people are killed per incident per day.

Because hey...Isn't it the DEATHS we care about, opposed to how they were killed?

Let's compare the UK and the USA, just for fun.

In America, there are roughly 88 - 89 guns per 100 people.
In the UK, there are roughly.. what.., 6.5 - 7 guns per 100 people?

Granted, that was in 2007, and probably hasn't changed TOO much. Hell, America probably has a LOT more guns now.

Now, lets look at intentional homicides from the 2010s.
In America, there are roughly 4.8 homicides per 100,000 residents.
In the UK, there are roughly 1.23 homicides per 100,000 residents.

One could say that's the result of folks in the UK having -FAR- fewer firearms than Americans.
The current rough estimate for the population in America is 312 million or so.
The current rough estimate for the population in the UK is 63 million.

UK has some pretty darn strict gun laws. That could be why they have so few now. Then again. Multiply the population of the UK by almost 5 and you have the population of the USA. Multiplying the amount of guns per 100 by 5 at that point as well, would still result in less guns per 100 in the UK than in America. Still less guns.

Multiply the homicides per 100,000 residents in the UK by 5, and it's more than in America, and with less guns per 100 citizens.

Now, I'll give it to you. This is all quite a bit of theorizing, and I agree it's not accurate, but it's a very good way of eyeballing whether or not we think VERY strict gun laws will make things better. More people = more chance for crime and mentally ill to be present.

So even with stricter gun laws, let's get to the real issue here. Do you think homicides in the USA will be less overall even though guns would be much harder to get?

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



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 06:07 PM
link   
I believe the US has adequate laws pertaining to firearms. It seems as if every time there is gun violence, the legislature's only answer is to make more laws. The reality is that the Newtown shooter broke about every law in the book.

The creation of laws hinders no one but those who obey it. If the US bans guns, only those who obey the laws will surrender them.

If our government hadn't become so corrupted, we might be trusting enough to depend on them for our protection but so long as they are bought and paid for by the elite that deem us as their cattle, we have a hard time believing they have our best interest at heart.

Also, since it is equally as likely if not more likely that this shooting was carried out by a covert agency programmed (drugged) patsy, removing guns from law biding citizens would have no bearing on preventing it unless you can make the argument that once they have the guns banned, they stop these actions, and then there is no guarantee of that.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Qemyst
UK has some pretty darn strict gun laws. That could be why they have so few now. Then again. Multiply the population of the UK by almost 5 and you have the population of the USA. Multiplying the amount of guns per 100 by 5 at that point as well, would still result in less guns per 100 in the UK than in America. Still less guns.

Multiply the homicides per 100,000 residents in the UK by 5, and it's more than in America, and with less guns per 100 citizens.

Now, I'll give it to you. This is all quite a bit of theorizing, and I agree it's not accurate, but it's a very good way of eyeballing whether or not we think VERY strict gun laws will make things better. More people = more chance for crime and mentally ill to be present.

So even with stricter gun laws, let's get to the real issue here. Do you think homicides in the USA will be less overall even though guns would be much harder to get?

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

I do think that stricter gun laws would help reduce fatalities yes. It's certainly no magic bullet and it wouldn't solve everything. We are one of the more violent countries in Europe for example, but even we pale in comparison to you guys.

There's a number of reforms that have to take place at the same time though. Registration and mandatory safety and storage requirements are one thing, but you need improvements in mental health care, social mobility, welfare etc.

It is definitely a complex subject, but I think that looking at the statistics and even at this particular case it's hard to claim that stricter laws wouldn't have helped. This was a kid who took his mother's inappropriately secured guns, killed her and slaughtered a classroom. Without the gun he would have been a kid angry at his mother. Perhaps not even capable of killing her.

I think it's definitely worth looking at without prejudice.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
I do think that stricter gun laws would help reduce fatalities yes. It's certainly no magic bullet and it wouldn't solve everything. We are one of the more violent countries in Europe for example, but even we pale in comparison to you guys.


UK pales in comparison because it has 5 times less people.


Originally posted by exponent
There's a number of reforms that have to take place at the same time though. Registration and mandatory safety and storage requirements are one thing, but you need improvements in mental health care, social mobility, welfare etc.


I think the improvements in mental health care, social mobility, welfare, etc would take precedence over making guns harder to obtain.


Originally posted by exponent
It is definitely a complex subject, but I think that looking at the statistics and even at this particular case it's hard to claim that stricter laws wouldn't have helped. This was a kid who took his mother's inappropriately secured guns, killed her and slaughtered a classroom. Without the gun he would have been a kid angry at his mother. Perhaps not even capable of killing her.

I think it's definitely worth looking at without prejudice.


I definitely don't look at these situations with prejudice, I just look at the coin a different way than yourself and others.

The shooter was 20 years old, and was pretty smart apparently...he was just socially awkward. I mean.. Even if the guns were properly secured, I'm sure that if he really wanted to, he could have created a bomb just as easily or even found a way to get the guns. If guns have to start being properly secured in a house, even if there are no children under 20... where does the line stop? Does a 75 year old elderly couple have to properly secure their fire arms in their house, therein making the firearms pointless if, for instance, a burglar was breaking in? One of the purposes of a gun is to have it readily available to defend oneself from danger if necessary.

How is banning guns going to affect the tax payer? It cost Australia tax payers hundreds of millions of dollars for their government to get rid of the guns. I think the amount of guns they got rid of was only in the 600 thousands. The last best guess at how many guns Americans own was over 300 million. Would making Americans turn those guns in be something that same American would be paying for? Would each gun owner be reimbursed for the cost of the gun that they paid for with their own money that they worked hard for?

I just don't see tougher restrictions helping anything.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by MajorKarma
Even now, our enemies, the Luciferians, the Humanists, the Godless, the Marxist Globalist


Really? It beats Scientology, LOL. You are standing up to fight LUCIFERIANS ? Get a grip.


I must also add that after having read the bio on Adam Lanza; it is disturbing that many here remind me of him.


I first wanted to disagree, but when I read your passage on the Godless and Luciferians, Lanza all of a sudden seems almost normal to me.


Seems to me you are the one who can't get a grip.

Nevertheless, just stay right where you are.

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



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Qemyst

Originally posted by exponent
Are we talking criminals or the mentally ill here? Organised crime will always have firearms, but they are not morons, they understand that harsh firearm penalties are enacted and that the use of firearms guarantees that they will face endless pursuit.

This reduces their actual use of firearms to those situations where they feel it is essential. Generally this is inter-gang rivalries or drug deals gone bad etc. These do not affect the general public as much and so there is a double effect where firearms are removed from regular society.

We regulate the components of firearms just as we regulate the components of explosives. Nobody is suggesting that it stops all crime, but the statistics show that the UK has a remarkably low level of violence and gun use. This is partly caused by our more progressive social policies, and partly due to the unavailability of guns.

Once again, nobody is saying ban guns = fix everything, but by heavily restricting firearms you can reduce their availability and so reduce many types of killing.


Criminals AND mentally ill people. They're one and the same when they plan to kill people, but that part is just semantics.

I won't separate mass killing incidents where 10-20 people are killed/injured maybe once a year or every few years and every day crime related deaths where only 1 or 2 people are killed per incident per day.

Because hey...Isn't it the DEATHS we care about, opposed to how they were killed?

Let's compare the UK and the USA, just for fun.

In America, there are roughly 88 - 89 guns per 100 people.
In the UK, there are roughly.. what.., 6.5 - 7 guns per 100 people?

Granted, that was in 2007, and probably hasn't changed TOO much. Hell, America probably has a LOT more guns now.

Now, lets look at intentional homicides from the 2010s.
In America, there are roughly 4.8 homicides per 100,000 residents.
In the UK, there are roughly 1.23 homicides per 100,000 residents.

One could say that's the result of folks in the UK having -FAR- fewer firearms than Americans.
The current rough estimate for the population in America is 312 million or so.
The current rough estimate for the population in the UK is 63 million.

UK has some pretty darn strict gun laws. That could be why they have so few now. Then again. Multiply the population of the UK by almost 5 and you have the population of the USA. Multiplying the amount of guns per 100 by 5 at that point as well, would still result in less guns per 100 in the UK than in America. Still less guns.

Multiply the homicides per 100,000 residents in the UK by 5, and it's more than in America, and with less guns per 100 citizens.

Now, I'll give it to you. This is all quite a bit of theorizing, and I agree it's not accurate, but it's a very good way of eyeballing whether or not we think VERY strict gun laws will make things better. More people = more chance for crime and mentally ill to be present.

So even with stricter gun laws, let's get to the real issue here. Do you think homicides in the USA will be less overall even though guns would be much harder to get?

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


'Theorizing' and 'not accurate' being your important points here!

By your own admission 'more people = more chance for crime and mentally ill to be present'........and you think this combined with easily available guns is a good position for a country to be in?

Your 'not accurate' stats do nothing to absolve this most recent massacre.
edit on 16-12-2012 by kingmonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


this is how some brits think of all americans.


is god really an american?



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by kingmonkey
'Theorizing' and 'not accurate' being your important points here!

By your own admission 'more people = more chance for crime and mentally ill to be present'........and you think this combined with easily available guns is a good position for a country to be in?

Your 'not accurate' stats do nothing to absolve this most recent massacre.
edit on 16-12-2012 by kingmonkey because: (no reason given)


My statements were never intended to absolve this most recent massacre. They were merely food for thought.

Hows your info proving that less guns/harder to acquire guns will = less homicides coming along?



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by steve1709
 

I'm 32 miles from the hospital as well, and while we don't have the critters you have we do have copperheads, rattlers, coyotes, bobcats, black bear, and coywolves. As well, until you walk a mile in my shoes you can't determine whether I'm justified in keeping weapons or not, the same as I'd never make that determination for you.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 07:42 PM
link   
Broken society we live in right now. The main principle of PRESERVING LIFE has been lost.

Yes there are criminals
Yes, they break the law
Yes, there are crazy people out there
Yes, people who want to harm others will find a way to do harm

BUT

USA, you are making it extremely easy for all of the above to kill others by making guns widely available, blindly supported by an outdated "Right to Bear Arms", the principle of "Self Defense" and the idea of generalized gun ownership would deter/prevent further attacks.


2nd amendment issue:

The context and significance upon which the 2nd amendment was forged is completely different 200+ years later to our society's current situation. Technology has advanced, we have perfected guns and ammunition manufacturing and design. We have created specialized machinery which is highly efficient killing others. Not only that, we make lots of them, we make them legal and cheap enough so people can own more than a few. To think that guns do not require updated regulations and controls, is being blind.

If our nation's forefathers had the chance to chance to witness what is happening in the United States, today, do you think they would have still included the "right to bear arms" in the same way as it currently sits on the constitution?
edit on 16-12-2012 by tabov because: format



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Qemyst

Originally posted by kingmonkey
'Theorizing' and 'not accurate' being your important points here!

By your own admission 'more people = more chance for crime and mentally ill to be present'........and you think this combined with easily available guns is a good position for a country to be in?

Your 'not accurate' stats do nothing to absolve this most recent massacre.
edit on 16-12-2012 by kingmonkey because: (no reason given)


My statements were never intended to absolve this most recent massacre. They were merely food for thought.

Hows your info proving that less guns/harder to acquire guns will = less homicides coming along?




Simple logic would suggest that no guns would equate to 26 people in Connecticut still being alive today. Not really difficult to fathom.

More food for thought if you can stomach it.....since the Columbine school massacre more people have been killed by guns in the US than the number of soldiers killed in WWII. Are you happy to continue with this insanity?

If only the perpetrators mother had been a gun owner and all this could have been prevented!





new topics

top topics



 
129
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join