It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by SpearMint
Yes, but you can't control who's using them purely for self defence.
In countries with gun control you don't need a gun for self defence.
Originally posted by Druscilla
Taking away guns from people isn't going to stop anyone that's going to go on a killing spree, or simply come unglued:
Chinese knife attack injures over 20, some of them children
The more inventive people will fabricate home-made bombs, or something else equally terrifying with easy-to-follow plans on the internet using easily obtained very common and unregulated house-hold ingredients.
Taking away guns, or anything construed 'dangerous' leaves all the dangerous stuff in the hands of criminals that are going to continue having guns and dangerous items regardless of what regulation there might be.
Taking away guns neuters the public from having means by which to defend themselves.
Should we expect round-nosed plastic scissors and only round-nosed plastic scissors in stores now too?
At what point is the government going to stop playing 'helicopter mommy'?
edit on 15-12-2012 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Planet teleX
Originally posted by SpearMint
Yes, but you can't control who's using them purely for self defence.
In other countries there are required mental health checks and such to maintain a license.
In countries with gun control you don't need a gun for self defence.
I live in Australia. That's bullocks.
Gold Coast Sniper
Gun Crimes
Stolen Firearms
Sydney's Gun Crime
Originally posted by pirhanna
Small nuclear devices don't kill people.
People kill people.
Therefor everyone should be able to carry around a suitcase nuke.
Originally posted by Planet teleX
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
Please refrain from calling people on here "gun nuts".
The only nutters are the ones on the news.
I am pro-rights. I don't own a gun.
Originally posted by SpearMint
Do you seriously think those few things wouldn't happen if everyone had guns? It would be a lot worse.
By the way you spelt bollocks wrong, a bullock is a young bull.
Originally posted by Planet teleX
Originally posted by SpearMint
Do you seriously think those few things wouldn't happen if everyone had guns? It would be a lot worse.
You're avoiding my premise. In gun controlled countries there are still guns.
By the way you spelt bollocks wrong, a bullock is a young bull.
Wow. Your argument just gained incredible ground
Originally posted by Planet teleX
reply to post by SpearMint
This just proves that access to guns has no bearing on the crime rates. The issue is the number of criminals.
Originally posted by Planet teleX
You missed the entire point. A bomb can never be used for self defence. It would kill you, which completely negates the comparison.
Yes a gun can do both, sadly. But a gun can also prevent a murder-suicide by a third party onlooker.
When was the last time you heard of explosive mining being conducted in a shopping mall?
Originally posted by SpearMint
Originally posted by Planet teleX
reply to post by SpearMint
This just proves that access to guns has no bearing on the crime rates. The issue is the number of criminals.
So you're saying the criminal rate in the US is naturally higher... Guns ENABLE criminals, they enable people to do what they otherwise couldn't, and they make it easier. It doesn't prove that guns have no bearing on the crime rates at all, how did you work that one out? Gun murders are way higher in the US, and therefore guns don't affect crime?
Drum roll, please. Mr. Tidswell reports, based on a full 12 months of data: Australiawide, homicides up 3.2 percent. Australia-wide, assaults up 8.6 percent.
Australia-wide, armed-robberies up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent.) In the state of Victoria,
homicides-with-firearms are up 300 percent. (Up until the government gun grab, figures
for the previous 25 years had shown a steady decrease in homicides with firearms, as well
as armed robberies, Mr. Tidswell notes.)
Although at the time of the victim disarmament order, the Aussie prime minister decreed
"self-defense is not a reason for owning a firearm," there has also been a dramatic
increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly, now left with no means to protect
themselves. (One wonders whether the prime minister's personal bodyguards gave up
their military-style weapons.)
Originally posted by SpearMint
Originally posted by Planet teleX
reply to post by SpearMint
This just proves that access to guns has no bearing on the crime rates. The issue is the number of criminals.
So you're saying the criminal rate in the US is naturally higher... Guns ENABLE criminals, they enable people to do what they otherwise couldn't, and they make it easier. It doesn't prove that guns have no bearing on the crime rates at all, how did you work that one out? Gun murders are way higher in the US, and therefore guns don't affect crime?
Originally posted by Planet teleX
Originally posted by SpearMint
Originally posted by Planet teleX
reply to post by SpearMint
This just proves that access to guns has no bearing on the crime rates. The issue is the number of criminals.
So you're saying the criminal rate in the US is naturally higher... Guns ENABLE criminals, they enable people to do what they otherwise couldn't, and they make it easier. It doesn't prove that guns have no bearing on the crime rates at all, how did you work that one out? Gun murders are way higher in the US, and therefore guns don't affect crime?
Are you suggesting that in order to murder you MUST have a gun?
I think it's more likely that a criminal would prefer their victim to NOT own one.
Drum roll, please. Mr. Tidswell reports, based on a full 12 months of data: Australiawide, homicides up 3.2 percent. Australia-wide, assaults up 8.6 percent.
Australia-wide, armed-robberies up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent.) In the state of Victoria,
homicides-with-firearms are up 300 percent. (Up until the government gun grab, figures
for the previous 25 years had shown a steady decrease in homicides with firearms, as well
as armed robberies, Mr. Tidswell notes.)
Although at the time of the victim disarmament order, the Aussie prime minister decreed
"self-defense is not a reason for owning a firearm," there has also been a dramatic
increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly, now left with no means to protect
themselves. (One wonders whether the prime minister's personal bodyguards gave up
their military-style weapons.)
From:
Gun Control
Originally posted by alfa1
Originally posted by Planet teleX
Drum roll, please. Mr. Tidswell reports, based on a full 12 months of data:
Only 1 year of data, from decades ago?
Thats your argument??
How about the long term trend of increasing gun control...
link
Originally posted by Planet teleX
reply to post by Credenceskynyrd
United States 4.2 in 100,000
Australia 1 in 100,000
Wiki