The Hypocrisy of Gun Control Advocates, page 7

Pages: << 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 129 times

reply posted on 15-12-2012 @ 04:21 PM by SeenMyShare

reply to post by detachedindividual

Please, by all means, keep your children in the country from which you hale!

Many of you anti gun proponents in countries NOT USA have no clue how rural some of us live. We don't keep guns for protection from human intruders. We keep guns for protection for our livestock from animal predators. We keep guns to put food on the table. We keep guns to euthanize livestock that might be suffering from accidents, old age, etc.

And, as far as protection goes, if I did need protection from human intruders ... I live 26 miles (41 kilometers) from the sheriff's department and 32 miles (51.5 kilometers) from the State Police barracks. Gee, I wonder how long it would take them to get here?

edit on 15/12/2012 by SeenMyShare because: (no reason given)

edit on 15/12/2012 by SeenMyShare because: fixed my metric conversion

reply posted on 15-12-2012 @ 04:29 PM by exponent

Originally posted by SeenMyShare
reply to post by detachedindividual

Many of you anti gun proponents in countries NOT USA have no clue how rural some of us live. We don't keep guns for protection from human intruders. We keep guns for protection for our livestock from animal predators. We keep guns to put food on the table. We keep guns to euthanize livestock that might be suffering from accidents, old age, etc.

Sounds like Canada too. What would you say is the biggest difference between your countries?

And, as far as protection goes, if I did need protection from human intruders ... I live 26 miles from the sheriff's department and 32 miles from the State Police barracks. Gee, I wonder how long it would take them to get here?

You have legitimate use for a weapon, so in either system you can be legitimately armed. In fact in the UK you would be permitted to own shotguns and rifles. Would you prefer that the intruder was armed easily with a wide variety of weapons, or had to steal or pay large amounts for their weapons?

reply posted on 15-12-2012 @ 04:32 PM by SeenMyShare

reply to post by exponent

I honestly don't think about intruders. In fact, up until two years ago you'd never have found a locked door on my house! We've had petty thefts before (gas, power tools, hand tools) but we always knew who did it. The reason the doors are kept locked now is to keep people from walking into the Danes if they open without knocking.

Adding: The only gun violence ever in my area was about 5 years ago when a woman shot her husband in the testicles with a shotgun when she caught him in her bed with a friend of hers. (He took her back when she got out of jail!).

edit on 15/12/2012 by SeenMyShare because: addendum

reply posted on 15-12-2012 @ 04:52 PM by exponent

Originally posted by SeenMyShare
reply to post by exponent

I honestly don't think about intruders. In fact, up until two years ago you'd never have found a locked door on my house! We've had petty thefts before (gas, power tools, hand tools) but we always knew who did it. The reason the doors are kept locked now is to keep people from walking into the Danes if they open without knocking.

Ok so my point was that you would have to worry even less about intruders here, as there is a very low chance of them being armed. On the contrary you would be permitted to use a shotgun for self defence and a rifle for legitimate hunting purposes.

We understand that guns do have legitimate use, but when you're living in an apartment in the centre of a city then the arguments vanish. Our laws represent this.

reply posted on 15-12-2012 @ 05:52 PM by ThaEnigma

Originally posted by MagicWand67
reply to post by spangledbanner

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.

"That's 14000 people who are glad to be alive.. If they had faced a gun, they'd be on a ride to the morgue, not the Hospital..."

reply posted on 15-12-2012 @ 05:55 PM by AG3NT47

star for you

reply posted on 15-12-2012 @ 06:18 PM by exponent

reply to post by ThaEnigma

So I looked up the latest statistics on this and discounting injuries the UK has around 5000 hospital admissions for assault with a 'sharp object'. In comparison the US has around 194,000 admissions for assault with a cutting or piercing weapon.

The rough rate per 100,000 is:
UK: 8 per 100,000
US: 64 per 100,000

This is taking data from the HES and NHAMCS

I'm not 100% sure it's accurate as that is a pretty big swing, but I know that per capita the USA kills more with knives than are killed in general here, and knives are used in only a fraction of assaults.

reply posted on 15-12-2012 @ 07:11 PM by Merinda

Gun control advocates want to give up the protection their guns provide them against invasion or an government that turns against its own people.

But pro gun people close their eyes to the problems of American gun culture. Yearly 30.000 people are shot in the us. The US isnt the only country which has private Firearms. In Switzerland every male keeps an military grade weapon, yet there is no gun violence to speak of.

The pro gun people need to recognize the damage guns do in a time of peace and the pro gun control people need to stop using tragic events as shells to ban gun altoegether and look for a serious solution to keeping guns in time of need, yet at the same time safely locked away in a time of peace.

reply posted on 15-12-2012 @ 07:13 PM by ShotGunRum

reply to post by Jeremiah65

Or the mods could just combine all the threads like they did for earthquakes.

reply posted on 15-12-2012 @ 07:14 PM by exponent

Originally posted by Merinda
The pro gun people need to recognize the damage guns do in a time of peace and the pro gun control people need to stop using tragic events as shells to ban gun altoegether and look for a serious solution to keeping guns in time of need, yet at the same time safely locked away in a time of peace.

Our solution to this is mandatory license, storage and use requirements, and an army.

What you're asking for is a system that can be used against your own army. This hasn't been possible pretty much since cannons were invented. As I have said several times, no matter how many firearms you have and how much ordinance. The UK or US armed forces have technology beyond anything you could oppose. From tanks to radar equipped warships. You'd need to actually get the backing of some portion of the armed forces.

reply posted on 15-12-2012 @ 07:20 PM by steve1709

Originally posted by SeenMyShare
reply to post by detachedindividual

Please, by all means, keep your children in the country from which you hale!

Many of you anti gun proponents in countries NOT USA have no clue how rural some of us live. We don't keep guns for protection from human intruders. We keep guns for protection for our livestock from animal predators. We keep guns to put food on the table. We keep guns to euthanize livestock that might be suffering from accidents, old age, etc.

And, as far as protection goes, if I did need protection from human intruders ... I live 26 miles (41 kilometers) from the sheriff's department and 32 miles (51.5 kilometers) from the State Police barracks. Gee, I wonder how long it would take them to get here?

edit on 15/12/2012 by SeenMyShare because: (no reason given)
edit on 15/12/2012 by SeenMyShare because: fixed my metric conversion

I don't believe that is a valid argument. I live 40Km from the nearest doctor or hospital. We have king browns, red bellied blacks and taipans here that, if bitten would see us dead before we could reach help not to mention packs of wild dogs (many that interbreed with dingoes) that are not frightened of humans, wild pigs (and koala bears) [OK so the koala bears is a joke]. so, I suppose you in this case would be jumping up and down to get your hads on a gun. If needed, we can still get a gun to protect ourselves but there are other options. Even as high tech as a compound bow. But I am still to see one that is semi-automatic. Hence no chance to do what that idiot did.

I agree with the poster who stated that guns could be justified in country areas but surely in built up areas they only hold a purpose of "mine is bigger than yours". And the person who mentioned the thousands who recovered from knife wounds who would more than likely been the temporary resident of a drawer at the morgue if a gun replaced the blade.

reply posted on 15-12-2012 @ 07:27 PM by Argyll

reply to post by AlphaX

I'm seriously getting tired of people who haven't lived in America talking negatively about the country and it's citizens as if they have first hand knowledge on the subject. Unless you have spent quite a bit of time here, I don't think you have any right to talk like that,

Because Americans would never bad mouth or talk negatively about a country they don't or haven't lived in......would they?

reply posted on 15-12-2012 @ 07:29 PM by Firethefed

Lock up the guns if you want to have some impact on this type of violence..

reply posted on 15-12-2012 @ 07:33 PM by WhereIsTheBatman

Indeed. People with no legal way to obtain guns will get them illegally. If they can't get them illegally, they will use other weapons. A gun does not kill. Only people.

reply posted on 15-12-2012 @ 07:35 PM by MagicWand67

Originally posted by Merinda
Gun control advocates want to give up the protection their guns provide them against invasion or an government that turns against its own people.

But pro gun people close their eyes to the problems of American gun culture. Yearly 30.000 people are shot in the us. The US isnt the only country which has private Firearms. In Switzerland every male keeps an military grade weapon, yet there is no gun violence to speak of.

The pro gun people need to recognize the damage guns do in a time of peace and the pro gun control people need to stop using tragic events as shells to ban gun altoegether and look for a serious solution to keeping guns in time of need, yet at the same time safely locked away in a time of peace.

I agree with you. I don't like the extremist viewpoints from either side of this issue.

I see silly arguments being made on both sides.

But the root of the problem isn't guns or gun control.

It goes a lot deeper and maybe it's time that society starts to focus on some of the causes instead of just the symptoms.

reply posted on 15-12-2012 @ 07:37 PM by WhereIsTheBatman

reply to post by Firethefed

Guns are not the problem. The problem is the society we live in. It is in need of a serious makeover.
This society creates psychopaths. People aren't born this way. It is a state of mind they "evolve" in to.

It's only by eradicating the real cause, that tragedies like this one will be avoided.

reply posted on 15-12-2012 @ 07:38 PM by spirit69hawk

reply to post by MagicWand67

Very well said!! To me blaming guns for this is like blaming planes for 9/11

reply posted on 15-12-2012 @ 07:38 PM by Argyll

reply to post by WhereIsTheBatman

A gun does not kill. Only people.

Quite right....but having guns freely available, with little to no background checks, sure as hell makes it easier for those people to kill other people doesn't it?

reply posted on 15-12-2012 @ 07:43 PM by Nuts2Bananas

Originally posted by MagicWand67
My main point is that, IMO, the problem is deeper than guns or gun control.

The problem is with society in general.

Those who promote violence and support the war machine.

And if the issue is just about protecting ourselves and not actually finding solutions to the root of these problems.

Then why isn't the same energy put into other problems of society also?

Why do so many people want to save us from the crazy gunman by banning guns.

But then they will go out get behind the wheel of a car and drink themselves stupid?

Booze is a bigger problems than guns in society. More innocent people die at the hands of drunk drivers than by guns.

WHY U NO BAN BOOZE TOO?