Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Hypocrisy of Gun Control Advocates

page: 22
129
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 01:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by steve1709
reply to post by AussieDingus
 


You know as well as I do that anyone can belong to a pistol club or rifle club after a crim check. We can purchase firearms for that purpose and those of us that live on farms can apply for and get a licence for firearms from protection against dingoes or pigs etc. False flag by Bryant blahhh Where's your proof? You seem to me to be a scare monger. How many more multiple deaths like port arthur have there been ???? None by my recollection (sp)

Regarding knives and glassing, do we have semi automatic knives or glasses? sounds stupid hey? Well knives and glasses won't give the multiple deaths like any sort of semi automatic weapon. Maybe you should bring up bombs. oops none of those either.

I do agree with you that if someone wants to do harm then they will find a way, but without guns and rifles, it seems to have collared any multiple deaths here.

What more rights do you want? We have an amazing country where we don't have to worry about cops storming our house over ATO (australian tax office - equivalent to irs for yanks reading this) problems like has happened over in the usa. We aren't losing our rights. If we are, prove me wrong. show me a list of the rights we have lost.

Regarding tptb, I know this is a conspiracy website, but give me a break. Ever heard of the boy who called wolf? If people put EVERYTHING on tptb, then when things are suspicious, no one will take any notice when something actually is. same as any UFO of other unexplained event. TOO MANY people are squealing over any event and linking it to a "cause" that they are promoting. Do you people realise that you are doing MORE HARM than good to any such cause?

Let's try to get a bit real. Maybe this should be the hypocracy of crying wolf.

Just my thoughts





I'm glad you put "just my thoughts" at the end, because thats all they are !

There is a vast array of information available on the Port Arthur shootings for those that choose to take the time and look into it with an open mind. But here's just a few points that you may, or may not of heard of.......

1. Several eye-witnesses who were proven to be at Port Arthur the day of the shootings reported that TWO gunmen were used, so why did this never make the official report that you swear by so blindly ?

2. One of the guns allegedly used by Martin Bryant was listed at being handed in at an ealrier gun buy back scheme in Victoria, which is then also listed as being scrapped by Simms metals with all relative paper work confirming this. There is no mention of if, or how Martin Bryant came across that gun which was then used in the shootings. If the gun buy back schemes are the answer, then WHY was a listed scrapped gun then unscrapped and found its way into the hands of a guy with in the bottom end of Tasmania in a sleepy tourist town ?

3. Why was a morgue truck purchased just weeks before the shooting, which was then used to store many of the bodies for later testing, but then the morgue truck disappears without trace to this day ?

4. Why was TWO voices heard on the phone call made from the Seascape guesthouse when it was according to the official story only Martin Bryant in the house at the time ? This phone call is on record and can be found if you want to look for it.

5. NSW Premier Barry Unsworths comments.

6. Australian media caught, and admitting to doctoring the official photo of Brynat to "make him look MORE evil". Why would you have to make someone look more evil if they just committed the most evil act in Australia's history ? Unless of course there was an pre-planned agenda, which would be the only logical explanation to why they would do it.

These are just a few quick questions, there are MANY more, that should have any intelligent person asking questions. And unless you can provide a clear cut answer to these questions that confirm the official story, then who are you to make claims of 'crying wolf'. If i'm crying wolf, then you're blinded by the official story thats shoved down our throats. And those that don't at least question the official story will be the first ones taken when the big bad wolf comes !




posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 02:56 AM
link   
"I have no problem penalizing millions of people it it will keep me safe. It's is being increasingly clear that there is NO such thing as a responsible gun owner."



Really? What about the 70 million gun owners that were NOT responsible for what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Maybe we should take away something that you enjoy doing just to make it fair. Because isnt that what it boils down to? Control freaks just want everything to be fair, right?
edit on 18-12-2012 by Nicks87 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 07:59 AM
link   


This was posted on another thread Here 14,000 knife victims a year Knife violence in Britain is far worse than official statistics suggest, with almost 14,000 people taken to hospital for injuries caused by knives and other sharp weapons last year.

Why aren't people banning knives in the UK?
reply to post by MagicWand67
 


Why aren't people banning knives in the UK?

Because unlike guns, you need knives as a day to day tool. The sole function of a handgun is to kill (maybe target shooting a minor activity).

You are also about six times less likley to die from a stab wound than a shooting. The use of knives in the UK is due to the fact criminals fnd it much harder to get guns here. The odds of the citizenry encountering an armed criminal are quite low in the UK.

Not long after Dunblane some nut attacked a pre-school with a machete. Some trauma and scars, zero dead. If he'd had a gun, we'd have had another massacre.

In 2011, the United Kingdom had one of the lowest intentional homicide rates per year per 100,000 inhabitants, measuring just 1.23 murders. This compares with 4.8 murders per 100,000 population for the United States.

Bear in mind that you Yanks have an overall lower crime rate. Any way you cut it, knives are just not on the same scale as dangerous as guns, and when you remove guns it's mainly hits the criminals. I'm going to point out that most violent crimes in the UK involve zero weapons.

I'd like to point out... WE BRITS DO LEGALLY DO OWN GUNS. Lots of them. It's just that we sussed out handguns and assault weapons are a criminals wet dream with no legit purpose for the rest of us, and banned them. I come from one of the the few hand gun owning families in the UK back in the eighties, and we have rifles and shotguns now as do several of our close friends. My step dad did sulk when they took his handguns, but was behind the new regs. One of the things we do in the UK is CHECK who gets to own guns, and how they keep them. You don't get to own them if you are known to have mental health issues.You bloody well keep them locked away from anyone other than the registered owner, or lose them. We (as a group) came to the conclusion having handguns accessible to the public just allowed criminals to use them. The cases of citizens defending themsleves against gun weilding attackers with their own gun were near nil when we had handguns. A society can get along perfectly well (and many do) without sacrifciing thousands of people a year to gun crime.

You could swap over to the British model and have long guns (pretty useless for a lot of crime as they are hard to conceal) for home defence, with decent security and a minimum age for ownership at 21, and still shoot burglars.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Long Lance
 





TePS: Britain is such a peaceful place, right, that makes it all moot but has their gun ban (or Australia) helped curb violent crime? xt


Our murder rate is massively lower than America's, so YES.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nicks87
"I have no problem penalizing millions of people it it will keep me safe. It's is being increasingly clear that there is NO such thing as a responsible gun owner."



Really? What about the 70 million gun owners that were NOT responsible for what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Maybe we should take away something that you enjoy doing just to make it fair. Because isnt that what it boils down to? Control freaks just want everything to be fair, right?
edit on 18-12-2012 by Nicks87 because: (no reason given)


No, that's not what it boils down to. It boils down to removing guns from the hands of criminals -- those who obtain their weapons of mass destruction legally and those who them from so called "responsible" gun owners who weren't responsible enough to keep their guns from being stolen. If you own a gun you are either a criminal, a potential criminal or a potential accessory to a crime. And if you actually enjoy owning a gun, there something wrong with you in the first place.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by SweetChild
No, that's not what it boils down to. It boils down to removing guns from the hands of criminals -- those who obtain their weapons of mass destruction legally and those who them from so called "responsible" gun owners who weren't responsible enough to keep their guns from being stolen. If you own a gun you are either a criminal, a potential criminal or a potential accessory to a crime. And if you actually enjoy owning a gun, there something wrong with you in the first place.


Please edit your post, I think you messed up the formatting by omitting the /quote tag.

You have both valid and wrong points here. I currently don't own a gun but if I had more time to spare I'd certainly get one for target practice. Call me mental, by all accounts I'm a very normal person. Shooting is a sport like many others. Surely you don't call people practicing fencing or javelin throw - blood thirsty freaks? Or those who like karate?

I agree with the other notion in your post, which is there must be somewhat stricter controls and accounting for sales and ownership of firearms. I mean, in days of yore you could go to a gun show and buy pretty much anything with cash. That's crazy IMHO.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Heresy

Our murder rate is massively lower than America's, so YES.


It is such hypocrisy from the unconscionable anti gun-lobby that staggers and sadden me.

Do they take PRIDE in that their innocent citizens DIE FROM KNIVES AND OTHER FORMS, except from guns?????!!!!!

Every human life is precious and means something special to another.

And every life taken away, is and should be a pain felt by ALL humanity.

YET, here we have some ( not all thankfully) the prideful brits and aussies, one a small island and another the smallest continent and low population count, whom boasts that they have far more smaller amount of murders than USA, a land of 300million citizens living in a large landmass.

When, when, will they ever learn that it is NOT the tool we should be focus TOTALLY on, as is now, but on the insane killers???

UK and Aus had foolishly believed than banning guns will end murder. But touch your heart and reply honestly, did it?

USA stands alone on this, as usual, but americans will find an honest and effective way to end evil that man do.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
YET, here we have some ( not all thankfully) the prideful brits and aussies, one a small island and another the smallest continent and low population count


Are you saying, "mine is bigger than yours"? You certainly sound this way. Phew.


whom boasts that they have far more smaller amount of murders than USA


There are always people smarter than you. Get used to it.
edit on 18-12-2012 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   
How are mentally disturbed young men being identified and set up to be the patsy in domestic covert actions designed for 'problem-reaction-solution' programming of lawmakers and the general public in order to further the 'New World Order' agenda?

Early reports from Sandy Hook mentioned two or multiple shooters involved. This was reduced to one 'lone nut' as was the case in Aurora and many, many cases going all the way back to the original 'lone nut' in modern history: Lee Harvey Oswald.

Covert actions are usually set up in ways that one 'lone nut' (who fits the profile) is blamed and then it's an open and quickly shut case, case closed. This m.o. has been done successfully for years, RFK hit, MLK hit, mass shootings, John Lennon hit, you name it. As soon as lawmakers and the public are satisfied that the 'lone nut' in the media did it all by his lonesome, the secret agenda moves forward. Even in the case of 9/11, Osama bin Laden emerged quickly as the media's 'lone nut' just as Saddam Hussein had been the 'lone nut' who gave the USA 'no choice' but to invade Iraq and in so doing make the military-industrial complex and defense contractors much wealthier in the process.

I don't have any evidence that Sandy Hook was a covert op. But I do not rule it out, seeing as there is now such a big push to ban at least some types of firearms.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   
Of the "70 million gun owners" how many of them will get a mental disease, such as paranoid schizophrenia? How many will go undiagnosed? If they are mentally incapable of determining right or wrong, are the rest of us supposed to just cross our fingers and hope they will "lay down their arms" before it's too late?

Out of the "70 million gun owners" how many will develop clinical depression? How many will go undiagnosed? And are the rest of us supposed to just cross our fingers and hope they will "lay down their arms" before it's too late?

Out of the "70 million gun owners" how many will develop paranoid delusions? How many will go undiagnosed? And are the rest of us supposed to just cross our fingers and hope they will "lay down their arms" before it's too late?

Out of the "70 million gun owners" how many will experience "temporary insanity" in particularly tense situations? And are the rest of us supposed to just cross our fingers and hope they will "lay down their arms" before it's too late?

Repeat all these questions for those who keep firearms just for "protection against wild animals"... Or just for "self defense"... or any other reason a person owns a gun.

But that's a question I never see gun owners and gun advocates ever address... what happens when a person's mental capacity changes? or someone close to them gets sick?

More specifically what would happen if YOU became mentally sick? You may be all right now, but what about in a month or a year or five years? Are we all just supposed to cross our fingers and hope that some spouse, parent, relative or acquaintance has enough "armchair psychology" under their belt to realize the danger and disarm YOU?

I know approximately at the max 1500 people where I can make my own "armchair" assessment of their mental capacity, but what about the rest of the people?

Let's just roll the dice, arm ourselves, and hope the "wacko" shoots at us from the front and somewhat close...



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by kingmonkey

Originally posted by optimus primal
reply to post by kingmonkey
 


Your average disgruntled joe can look it up nowadays on the googles in 30 seconds flat and build it in 20 minutes.
So....incorrect.


Examples please?


Google Search results

220,000,000 results. But I'm sure you didn't think I'd actually respond did you?


You can make a bomb with things found under your sink and a pound of nails. You can make TnT in your bathtub.
edit on 18-12-2012 by optimus primal because: Hmmm can't figure out the formatting that will correct the link. It works though, so oh well.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by switching yard
Even in the case of 9/11, Osama bin Laden emerged quickly as the media's 'lone nut' just as Saddam Hussein had been the 'lone nut' who gave the USA 'no choice' but to invade Iraq and in so doing make the military-industrial complex and defense contractors much wealthier in the process.


Do you understand the extent of the logic discrepancy in your post? Saddam was attacked in a large part on the grounds that he "harbored Al-Qaeda-like organizations" and was by proxy an accomplice of OBL and other AQ leaders. Moreover, the campaign against MULTIPLE AQ leaders has been publicized. And they all resided in different places. The latest wave of the US drone killings has little or nothing to do with OBL. Many leads were explored. There was NOTHING like "lone nut" theory going on, quite the opposite. Only an ignorant person can dream this up.

So your post is patently false. AQ was painted as a large organization that it was, with affiliates like "AQ in Iraq" and "AQ in Mahgrib" etc, and the claim that OBL was pictured as the lone gunman is plain stupid. The opposite is true -- the US has always been looking at Al Shabaab in Somalia, and various other "little AQ" type of outfits worldwide.


I don't have any evidence that Sandy Hook was a covert op


Than don't waste the bandwidth.
edit on 18-12-2012 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heresy
reply to post by Long Lance
 





TePS: Britain is such a peaceful place, right, that makes it all moot but has their gun ban (or Australia) helped curb violent crime? xt


Our murder rate is massively lower than America's, so YES.


You murder rate is slightlylower in the grand scheme of thing. Iceland with strict gun control has a murder rate of 16 per 100K and Mexico with the strictest gun laws in the Americas has a murder rate of 19 per 100k, so it appears that gun control does not affect the murder rate as much as one thinks.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by Heresy
reply to post by Long Lance
 





TePS: Britain is such a peaceful place, right, that makes it all moot but has their gun ban (or Australia) helped curb violent crime? xt


Our murder rate is massively lower than America's, so YES.


You murder rate is slightlylower in the grand scheme of thing. Iceland with strict gun control has a murder rate of 16 per 100K and Mexico with the strictest gun laws in the Americas has a murder rate of 19 per 100k, so it appears that gun control does not affect the murder rate as much as one thinks.


Your statement seems to contradict (by a large margin) data on Iceland published on Wikipedia.

Care to comment/research/rebuke/desist?

Wait there is more.

Did you check your facts???

Iceland rulez.
edit on 18-12-2012 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Linky link

Country/Murder Rates
Iceland 0.00
Senegal 0.33
Burkina Faso 0.38
Cameroon 0.38
Finland 0.71
Gambia 0.71
Mali 0.71
Saudi Arabia 0.71
Mauritania 0.76
Oman 0.91

Now compare that to the United States


Also en.wikipedia.org....

It's a killing zone out here in the US. Face it.



edit on 18-12-2012 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by optimus primal
You can make a bomb with things found under your sink and a pound of nails.


You can't. I used to be pretty good at chemistry in my day. Your claim is false, thankfully.

Just look at what the modern day nuts are using by and large. For large explosive devices, they almost always come to a massive amount of fertilizer. This will not be found under your sink. For smaller devices, they have no choice but to carefully synthesize a few compounds, resulting in a questionable quality and readiness. Again, thank God for that.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by Heresy
reply to post by Long Lance
 





TePS: Britain is such a peaceful place, right, that makes it all moot but has their gun ban (or Australia) helped curb violent crime? xt


Our murder rate is massively lower than America's, so YES.


You murder rate is slightlylower in the grand scheme of thing. Iceland with strict gun control has a murder rate of 16 per 100K and Mexico with the strictest gun laws in the Americas has a murder rate of 19 per 100k, so it appears that gun control does not affect the murder rate as much as one thinks.


Your statement seems to contradict (by a large margin) data on Iceland published on Wikipedia.

Care to comment/research/rebuke/desist?

Wait there is more.

Did you check your facts???

Iceland rulez.
edit on 18-12-2012 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)


My bad. It was Greenland. Got the two confused and I would suggest that it is not an unreasonable error to read "Greenland" but think "iceland." en.wikipedia.org... e_rate

Also look at Russia with strict gun laws:10
Indonesia, North Korea, also with strict gun laws and murder rates up there near or in double numbers.
Armenia less, gun control than the UK and less murders. Former soviet Republics, more than the US but more murders.

Czech Republic, much less gun control than the UK, includnig no restrictions on semi-automatic rifles and handguns, concealed carry without a reason required, and a murder rate of 1.7

Thus, the point is, one cannot state that more gun control equals less murders.
edit on 18-12-2012 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)
edit on 18-12-2012 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc
Also look at Russia with strict gun laws:10


Speaking as a person who was born there: "Russia" and "law" do not belong in the same sentence. Seriously, this is moot.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Only using your own logic. Are you so blind. No wonder you REFUSE to accept facts but spout your anti-gun beliefs that removing the gun will remove murders. It is people like you to allow murders to continue throughout the course of civilisation.

I ask again, when, when will blind people like you WAKE UP to address the REAL issue of rehabilitation or the prevention of murders from happening again, with or without guns, or will you still grope around and claim gun ban will end ALL murders, while the big elephant of murder motivation is occupying majority of your unaware space within the room?



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 





It's a killing zone out here in the US. Face it.


Ahhhh! But what you are forgetting is that most of them are criminals. Hense we don't care.
Just like we don't care when they get killed in prison.
It works for us. Most of the time.

Besides the last time we didn't all have guns the Brits burned the White House.






top topics



 
129
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join