The Hypocrisy of Gun Control Advocates

page: 19
129
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 08:03 PM
link   
Just saying that there isn't anything wrong with a little "Gun Control". I'm a firm believer of the right to arm yourself and I know that the government doesn't always have our interests at heart, and I do know self defense and make sure my family knows it as well.

With that out of the way...Gun Control is a pretty big term that means a lot of stuff. It's not honest or fair or even very smart to just say that you are for or against Gun Control. That doesn't make any sense. You have to define what that means. Of course people are going to use mass shootings as a way to jump start the conversation and starting a conversation is never a bad thing. If we tighten up a few of the laws and procedures for purchasing guns, that's not a bad thing. If we ban assault weapons...that's not really a bad thing either. If you think one man with an AK-47 is going to stand up against an FBI assault team, you're mistaken. That man having or not having that assault weapon isn't going to make the difference. Same with a home invasion. a shotgun a few handguns...you're good to go. You don't need an assault weapon.

In regards to this shooting...it's not just about stricter laws or whatever gun control actually means.. It's about mental health and warning signs, school safety and security, community, family...a number of things. It really pisses me off when someone like Mike Huckabee says that those kids were killed because God is not in schools. that's a load of crap and doesn't address any of the problems or issues here. He just needs to shut up. Those that cry about Gun Control Advocates need to step back too. Of course that's going to come up with any mass shooting. Relax and let's have a serious discussion about what's really going on here, define gun control, show some compassion and take the Christian punishing God out of this discussion. Just my little rant. take it for what it's worth.




posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by MagicWand67
 


The problem is NOT guns, let me explain why. Guns, like baseball bats, golf clubs, fireplace pokers, samurai swords, bowling balls, potato launchers, cars - trucks - boats - RV's - airplanes, bows and arrows, kitchen knives and so on and so forth, are just tools that are used to do particular things. When these tools are used improperly, people get hurt. Now, its not the tools that are to blame. Its the IDIOTS operating the tools. So, please understand, it is NOT GUNS that are dangerous, they are only tools, it is the IDIOTS MISUSING them. For every group of statistics that you can quote that prove your position, I can give you 10x more that prove mine. So where does that leave us? At a stalemate of sorts. Who is right and Who is wrong?

Confiscation of Guns would make the founding fathers roll over in their graves. They gave us the 2nd Amendment so that :

0. We could hunt for food
1. We could defend ourselves
2. We could defend our families
3. We could defend our country
4. We could defend our property
5. We could take down TYRANTS and TYRANNY.

You fail to understand that when our families came here from Great Britian, King George did not allow them
to own weapons because if he did, they would have executed him for the rotten crap that he pulled on them in an abuse of power.
So, they wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights to guarantee that we would indeed never have to suffer the pain of TYRANNY again.

If every person age 18 or older were required to buy, register and carry a concealed weapon, we would have a lot less crime than we do today. Think of this, that 20 yr old is seen walking up to the school armed to the teeth. Teacher alerts other teachers and before he has a chance to enter the school, they've drawn their weapons on him and possibly disabled him or killed him saving 26 lives in the process. A guy walks into a bar or stop n go store and pulls a gun. 3 people inside are also armed. He backs down immediately or dies.

These are the things that we are faced with every single day. However, in states where guns are very prevalent, there is very little crime. Statistics on Australia after their forced gun grab indicate crime has risen tremendously since it took place. Before that, there was very little crime at all.

So you see, statistics are numbers meant to support which ever side they are made for.

The bottom line, if you give up your right to bear arms, you walk right into the hands of TYRANNY without a way to end it.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by kingmonkey

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!


There is NO way you will collect all the guns in America. Bad people will still be armed with very powerful guns and the normal citizen will not if we were to ban guns outright.

I suppose people will want to ban all guns, where does that leave hunters, which are a significant percent of the population 14+M hunt every year and 22M have hunted in the past 5 years.

Again it comes down to mental health to me. We walk by people in our own neighborhoods that very well could be one incident away from doing one of these mass killings yet we just brush them aside. Again I never hear it was a normal sane person who perpetrates these mass killings. They never say "he was a pillar of the community, I never saw that coming". We almost always hear that the person was disturbed for a long time before they snapped. I would be all for a psychological profile as well as a normal background check to own a gun or buy ammunition or body armor. That alone would do more than other type of gun regulation. It wouldn't infringe on the normal citizens rights and would be in the best interest of everyone. Sure it will cost more, but that is one additional cost I am willing to pay as it would weed out those seeking guns who are too unstable.

I don't own a firearm and I support my fellow American's right to bear them, as long as they aren't crazy. If I wanted to get a gun, I wouldn't be offended that I were to be subject to a psychological evaluation to determine if I was not a threat to others. It won't catch everyone, but I think it's a start.

Taking guns out of normal decent American's is not the correct solution to this problem.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by kingmonkey
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?


According to stats I'm seeing, Gun Homicides in America from 1999 - 2009 is close to 95,000. The max per year was in the 10,000's. So, let's add 3 more years on there. Hell. I'll even make it 20,000 per year for those 3 years. That's 155,000 since 1999.

Let's add in unintentional gun deaths, which is typically below 1000. I'll say 2000 per year though, just to be safe.
14 years times 2000 is another 28,000. We're up to 183,000.

416,800 died in WWII. That's AMERICAN military deaths alone. Not counting civilians.
I could go further though and say that you never specified the deaths of the soldiers in WWII had to be American. You simply said "soldiers". That would put the amount of soldiers dead in WWII in the 23-24 million range.

Care to enlighten me on how roughly 183,000 is greater than 416,800?


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


That same simple logic does not factor in the fact that humans are quite devious and adaptable and that they would still kill people.


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


She was a gun owner, but you already knew that when you made your attempt to be snide.

I can continue discussing this for as long as you can dish info. Granted, I might get bored and want to go play violent video games.


Originally posted by kingmonkey
Are you happy to continue with this insanity?


I'm happy to continue with my insanity if you're happy to continue with your own insanity.
edit on 16-12-2012 by Qemyst because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by kingmonkey
 


very astute. and i like your Brownie avatar.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 08:25 PM
link   
I was at a party yesterday, and while there, I ran into a couple liberals talking about how America needs harsh gun control laws to prevent horrific instances from happening. I could not help but join in on the conversation.

After listening to their bull$h!t for about 10 minutes, I told them to stop talking for a moment. (There were about 7 of us standing in a circle discussing the matter). While we were standing there, I took my beer and told them to imagine it was an AR-15 that shot 100 rounds a minute. I went ahead and put it on the floor in the middle of the circle. I then went ahead and asked the fine lady to the right of me for her drink. She gave it to me. I went ahead and told everyone in the circle that this drink was a pipe bomb. I went ahead and laid it in the middle of the floor. I than went ahead and asked the gentleman to the left me for his beer for a moment. Once he gave it to me, I went ahead and held it in the air and told everyone that it was a nuclear bomb. I than laid it in the middle of our circle on the floor.

Once I finished, I told everyone to be REALLY quiet and look at the AR-15, pipe bomb, and nuclear bomb I laid in the middle of the floor. I than looked at the 2 liberals, and then asked them….”What are those 3 items on the floor doing? The one then said, ”what do you mean”? I then said it again…”Look at those 3 items on the floor, and tell me what they’re doing”? I then whispered softly to the whole group and said….”They Are Doing Absolutely Nothing”.

The 2 liberals gave me a harsh smirk and walked away from the crowd.

It was a Kodak moment! I wish someone would have videotaped it. It was pretty awesome!

Those three items I laid on the floor would have been sitting there forever until someone actually picked them up to use them. Am I the only one who understands this?



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Propulsion
been sitting there forever until someone actually picked them up to use them. Am I the only one who understands this?


Correct, but he anti-gun advocates would say that if one of you 7 people were mentally ill, that you would have made it much easier for that 1 mentally ill person to have access to a deadly weapon and given him the potential to kill.

I say that if the other 6 of you were armed, that 1 mentally ill person wouldn't have gotten very far.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 08:33 PM
link   
I see no reason why all gun owners can not have a licence to own, carry and possess firearms.

On the conditions that:

Medical checks are done. Every 12 months

Mental health checks are done. Every 12 months

Apppropriate licence is valid. Every 12 months

Each person should be required to undergo medical and mental helath clearance every 12 months. Without exceptions.

If they fail to show up or fail the test, they hand in their guns. If they do not hand in their guns they go to jail.

A warrant will be automically raised for their arrest.



Pretty simple really.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by magma
I see no reason why all gun owners can not have a licence to own, carry and possess firearms.

On the conditions that:

Medical checks are done. Every 12 months

Mental health checks are done. Every 12 months

Apppropriate licence is valid. Every 12 months

Each person should be required to undergo medical and mental helath clearance every 12 months. Without exceptions.

If they fail to show up or fail the test, they hand in their guns. If they do not hand in their guns they go to jail.

A warrant will be automically raised for their arrest.



Pretty simple really.


I see nothing wrong with that. However, owning a gun is a right, unlike owning/operating a car.
If people are expected to get medical/mental checks every 12 months, then they shouldn't be expected to pay for it, since as I stated before, owning a gun is a right, not a privilege.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 08:59 PM
link   
well said, maybe as well we need to stop medicating children from birth, and go back to old fashion disipline. Another thing that has changed from days gone past, we have taken GOD out of every aspect of our lives,, if it feels good do it attitude has become the norm. we need to restore GOD in our lives and understand what true love is .........



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by MagicWand67
 


You've stated it, and you've stated it exceedingly well OP!! Star and flag! Everyone should read your words!

What morally correct person could disagree?



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Qemyst

Originally posted by kingmonkey
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?


According to stats I'm seeing, Gun Homicides in America from 1999 - 2009 is close to 95,000. The max per year was in the 10,000's. So, let's add 3 more years on there. Hell. I'll even make it 20,000 per year for those 3 years. That's 155,000 since 1999.

Let's add in unintentional gun deaths, which is typically below 1000. I'll say 2000 per year though, just to be safe.
14 years times 2000 is another 28,000. We're up to 183,000.

416,800 died in WWII. That's AMERICAN military deaths alone. Not counting civilians.
I could go further though and say that you never specified the deaths of the soldiers in WWII had to be American. You simply said "soldiers". That would put the amount of soldiers dead in WWII in the 23-24 million range.

Care to enlighten me on how roughly 183,000 is greater than 416,800?


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


That same simple logic does not factor in the fact that humans are quite devious and adaptable and that they would still kill people.


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


She was a gun owner, but you already knew that when you made your attempt to be snide.

I can continue discussing this for as long as you can dish info. Granted, I might get bored and want to go play violent video games.


Originally posted by kingmonkey
Are you happy to continue with this insanity?


I'm happy to continue with my insanity if you're happy to continue with your own insanity.
edit on 16-12-2012 by Qemyst because: (no reason given)


The WWII stat was taken from a Seattle Times article, but on further investigation gun death stats seem to vary wildly depending on the source. So for the sake of argument, lets go with your annual figure of 10,000 people. 10,000 people every single year, if that figure doesn't make you stop and consider your gun laws then I guess nothing will.

Your point about people still being able to kill without guns is a bit childish, however I'll respond. People have been killing other people since they first walked the earth. I'm sure you'll agree however that the chances of the perpetrator in this case being able to kill so many people so easily and in such a short period of time without the aid of a gun are hugely different.

I was well aware that his mother was a gun owner. That was sarcasm. Not intended to be taken as a personal snide remark. If you have taken it that way then I apologise. I often see arguments suggesting that a solution to these kind of events would be to arm the entire population, but here we have a gun owner killed by their own weapons.

If finding these very frequent and seemingly easily executed spree killings completely abhorrent makes me insane mate then I guess I must be.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavil

Originally posted by kingmonkey

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!


There is NO way you will collect all the guns in America. Bad people will still be armed with very powerful guns and the normal citizen will not if we were to ban guns outright.

I suppose people will want to ban all guns, where does that leave hunters, which are a significant percent of the population 14+M hunt every year and 22M have hunted in the past 5 years.

Again it comes down to mental health to me. We walk by people in our own neighborhoods that very well could be one incident away from doing one of these mass killings yet we just brush them aside. Again I never hear it was a normal sane person who perpetrates these mass killings. They never say "he was a pillar of the community, I never saw that coming". We almost always hear that the person was disturbed for a long time before they snapped. I would be all for a psychological profile as well as a normal background check to own a gun or buy ammunition or body armor. That alone would do more than other type of gun regulation. It wouldn't infringe on the normal citizens rights and would be in the best interest of everyone. Sure it will cost more, but that is one additional cost I am willing to pay as it would weed out those seeking guns who are too unstable.

I don't own a firearm and I support my fellow American's right to bear them, as long as they aren't crazy. If I wanted to get a gun, I wouldn't be offended that I were to be subject to a psychological evaluation to determine if I was not a threat to others. It won't catch everyone, but I think it's a start.

Taking guns out of normal decent American's is not the correct solution to this problem.


I completely agree with most of what you're saying.


I don't think it's possible to take every gun in America, but it must be a goal to aspire to as its been proven time and again that mankind simple aren't responsible enough to have them.

I actually agree with you that the main issue here probably isn't gun control but its the mental health issue. Why are so many people in America committing these kind of acts, that is the real question that I've yet to see debated in any great detail. However, a psychological evaluation would not have prevented this latest tragedy as he used someone else's guns.

I'm sure there are many sensible law abiding gun owners and hunters etc. but do you really need a fully automatic rifle to hunt deer? Is your sport more important than the lives of innocent children?

Sad to say but I'll no doubt discuss this further with you in a similar thread when the next one happens in the not too distant future!



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by magma
 


The mental health check is a good idea.
But who would be doing the evaluation? I wouldn't trust them. Too easy a target for those who want to plant seeds into the heads of known gun owners.
Then there's the problem of the hundreds of thousands/millions of people who could care less about registering their guns, much less having a CCL. I'm thankful that at least 99.9% of the population of gun owners are responsible, with good morals and the intention of protecting themselves, their families, neighbors and friends. These are the people I want to know. If they start acting "flaky," it's not hard to notice if you are paying attention. That's lots of peoples problems. . . They live life with the herd and never look up and take notice.



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

Originally posted by kingmonkey
The WWII stat was taken from a Seattle Times article, but on further investigation gun death stats seem to vary wildly depending on the source. So for the sake of argument, lets go with your annual figure of 10,000 people. 10,000 people every single year, if that figure doesn't make you stop and consider your gun laws then I guess nothing will.


So, the fact that 10,000 people are dying a year is enough to make you question gun laws. Rightly so. 10,000 people is a lot. I don't disagree. I even agree that some gun laws could be strengthened to make it more difficult for certain people, but they will never be completely out of the hands of the wrong people. You and I both know that.


Originally posted by kingmonkey
Your point about people still being able to kill without guns is a bit childish


I think it's a bit childish to deny the fact. Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people and injured over 600 more simply by driving a car bomb to a building, parking it and detonating it. No-one was the wiser. It's not even HARD to make a bomb such as his. Sure, the fertilizer is "monitored" but it's nowhere near as difficult to obtain as guns. Outside fertilizer, there are plenty of other ways to make powerful explosives where the materials are just as easily obtained.

In 1927 a guy drove his car up to a school and detonated a car bomb, killing 38 elementary school children, 2 teachers and at least 4 other adults and injured at least 58 other people.

So.. No. I don't think it's childish to bring things like this up when everyone is placing the blame on guns.
I am in total agreement that gun related deaths should be lower, but getting rid of guns is not the answer to that.



Originally posted by kingmonkey
I often see arguments suggesting that a solution to these kind of events would be to arm the entire population, but here we have a gun owner killed by their own weapons.


It's true. Many people do say arming the entire population would help. And it very well could. At the same time, it may not. No-one can say for sure. Both sides have equally compelling points to back their arguments. One side saying the other is wrong is just ignorant. I can think of a scenario.

Currently, there are like.. what.. 90 guns to every 100 Americans in the country. So... It's already to the point where if someone was going to go out and start killing, it would happen quite often. Let's say 90 out of 100 Americans were physically armed -AT ALL TIMES- (excluding children under 18). I'll use the Newtown school as an example. The assailant forced his way in. He was not buzzed in. That would have had to have taken a moment or two. I'm sure some adults were nearby as he was breaking in. If they had guns, and were trained, he could have quite possibly been dealt with before many lives were lost. Hell, some of the innocent people lunged at the guy WITHOUT guns to try and stop him. Imagine if that brave soul was trained with a gun and had one physically on her body. Instead of lunging at the guy and dying, she could have got to cover as he was clearly starting to break in, got her gun out, and started shooting at him. By this time, other trained adults in the building would have heard gun shots and would be arming themselves with their own guns...well.. you can see where this is going. I certainly wouldn't want to break into a school by myself where all the adults were armed.

Problems with arming everyone? Possibility of more 'unintentional' gun related deaths. Possibility of more day to day 'fights' ending with guns being drawn instead of simple fisticuffs. The shooter in the most recent massacre could have very well known that going into the school alone would have been met with failure, and instead may have used a bomb instead. Who knows.


Originally posted by kingmonkey
If finding these very frequent and seemingly easily executed spree killings completely abhorrent makes me insane mate then I guess I must be.


You and I both. I don't think banning guns will fix it though, and I won't tell you to see it my way. I will tell you that my way isn't wrong, and I won't say yours is either.
edit on 16-12-2012 by Qemyst because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by MagicWand67
 


I just want to say to those that claim that the pro-gun people are exploiting the event to read
2 Samuel 12:19-24
In it you'll see that even though WE ALL feel pain and sadness, but what's done is done.

Now, we (the Proud, the BRAVE American people) can't be paralyzed by our emotions, and fears...
What the pro-gun supporters are doing is remaining vigilant while everyone else has let down their guard and
is unable to think clearly.

just remember, evil doesn't take the day off.

Deuteronomy 31:6 Be strong and of a GOOD courage, fear not, nor be afraid of them: for the Lord thy GOD, he it is that doth go with thee; he will not fail thee, nor forsake thee.

- star and flag



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Qemyst
 


The 2 bombings you refer to happened about 70 years apart, extremely rare. Your average disgruntled Joe is unlikely to have the know how to carry this out. Your average disgruntled Joe can easily obtain a firearm and inflict maximum damage with little skill or effort. This is the truly frightening fact right now.

Similar scenario with everyone armed, firstly this means that there are now multiple firearms in every school across the country. Secondly, someone may have been trained in that they have spent some time on the range, but faced with something so horrific I doubt many people would fair well in a shoot out with a determined gunman.

Arming the nation and having a similar event happen in say, a shopping mall, I can imagine would have almost comedic results akin to a Mel Brooks film with the whole place shooting wildly all over the place. You yourself have pointed out the possible outcomes of such a move.......the fact that it would be possible, for me, makes the thought a terrifying one.

Mental illness issues clearly have to be tackled. You or I may be right, or neither with regards to gun control but one thing is 100% certain, another one of these things will happen in the not too distant future.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by kingmonkey
Mental illness issues clearly have to be tackled. You or I may be right, or neither with regards to gun control but one thing is 100% certain, another one of these things will happen in the not too distant future.


Right you are. I just happen to believe it will happen with or without a gun ban.

Cheers.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by MajorKarma
 


Anyway, what I was saying is, homo sapiens bring pain and suffering upon each other. We're so intelligent that it makes us scared and more selfish than our survival instincts. We're smart enough to invent our own "realities" so we can ignore our boring, yet tragic, eat, poop, and die life span. We can't deal with reality, and it makes us crazy and dangerous. I think a technological socialist utopia could be our destiny, but first we have to quit being selfish liars.
edit on 17-12-2012 by gentledissident because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 12:40 AM
link   
The recent Oregon Mall shooter who only killed 2 people with his AR-15 didn't kill any more because he was confronted by a concealed carry holder. Shooter saw the CCW holder take aim on him and was unable to take aim on the CCW holder lest he be shot. So, the evil mall shooter shot himself instead.

So... Because of a CCW holder, many more people were probably saved.

Again, not saying that if ALL eligible Americans were CCW holders that things would be better... but i'll be damned if this CCW holder didn't save some lives... with his GUN.





top topics
 
129
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join