Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

How Gun Control Proponents Will Eventually Win....

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 03:35 AM
link   
This is my first thread, and I apologize if it's in the wrong category, but I have noticed something lately in the gun control debate....

Most gun rights advocates have a lot of ammunition (pun intended) for arguing against gun control. There are many logical reasons to own a gun, but lately I'm noticing a few of these arguments are being systematically defeated by examples of real life occurrences. For example, one point the "gun nuts" usually make is "if only someone else was carrying then they could have taken the shooter out, and prevented a lot of deaths". Well, what if the shooting in front of the Empire State Building this year (Where the NYPD shot nine bystanders), was set up to give the "gun grabbers" a real life event to cite when arguing why more CCWs is a bad idea.

Another point usually made is "it's the people that kill, not the gun". While it does seem logical that if someone is determined to kill they will use anything to get the job done. However, it's hard to use any facts to back this up until... the events yesterday. Someone in China slashed or stabbed like 22 kids in an elementary school on the same day as the horrible shooting here. When you look at the big picture this is not a coincedence. This was another 'operation' to give the "gun grabbers" another real life occurrence to cite. They now have two very similar situations where the only variables are the weapons used, and the number deceased. The kids in China were only hurt with the knife, the American kids however were killed with guns. This gives the "gun grabbers" ground to stand on fighting the "guns don't kill people" stance.

The last point I can think of is "When seconds count, the police are minutes away". Well, in the mall shooting last week, the press drilled it home that the reponse of the police and SWAT were in record time. They prevented a lot of deaths by getting there so soon. Once again, another winning argument "gun nuts" used to use.

If you subscribe to the "staged shooting" conpiracies, then I need your help. We need to figure out what other possible scenarios would need to happen in order for guns right advocates to have no leg to stand on anymore. I've given three common arguments, please contribute, we may be able to predict the next one!

For the record, I am FOR gun rights. These are just my observations of how they will convince the public that guns are bad. They will stage more shootings!!!!
edit on 15-12-2012 by Frettin because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 03:39 AM
link   
How about not? ##snipped##

Btw, it's not just "gun nuts" that are against more gun restrictions. Look at the government we have. You know what they would impose on us if we were of no threat to them?


Also, I don't own a gun.
edit on 15-12-2012 by JackyMenace because: (no reason given)
edit on Sat Dec 15 2012 by DontTreadOnMe because: Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 03:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Frettin


We need to figure out what other possible scenarios would need to happen in order for guns right advocates to have no leg to stand on anymore.



Shoot the leg off!


We don't need to ban guns. We need to make high-capacity automatic weapons as difficult to obtain as rocket launchers.

You can say all you want about "Guns don't kill, people do" but a guy with a 6-round pistol won't be able to kill as many people as someone with a rapid-fire high-capacity assault rifle.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 03:57 AM
link   
reply to post by JackyMenace
 


Wait what??? I do own guns, I was just pointing out how they will be banned. They need the public to demand it. Without real life instances to demonstrate why guns are bad in all situations that will never happen. I think were on the same side here. Also, I am not a Nazi by any means.. what a weird interpretation you have of my post.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 03:59 AM
link   


The last point I can think of is "When seconds count, the police are minutes away".


LMAO! Where do you live?

Police are many minutes away in some areas, average response was about 45 minutes in a town I lived in that had 4 tons of red tape and hoops to jump through to get a shotgun, never mind handgun, and crime is rampant there.

Where I am now, it takes 15 mins. to buy ANY handgun, $10 and a simple form for a permit to carry concealed, and the crime rate here is almost non existent, except for the drugs crimes, junkies "opting out" kind of stuff.

I prefer living in this environment. The wide spread feeling of being comfortable around guns here seems to also keep people respectful of others on a non-spoken level. I hate guns, but I love my rights to have them if necessary in today's world.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 03:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Hawking
 


No, I think the civilians should have access to the same firepower as the police or military. Otherwise, there is no point to the 2nd amendment without being able to keep our government in check,



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 04:02 AM
link   
reply to post by JibbyJedi
 


Yes police take forever where I live. I'm just playing devil's advocate in this post. How is this misinterpreted, it's not my views, it's what I see happening in the national debate.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 04:05 AM
link   
They've been trying to find the right fear hotbutton to make the sheep cry for protection from the wolf, they've found it.

When I first heard about it I said "Yep, this is it..."
edit on 15-12-2012 by EyesWideShut because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 04:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Frettin
reply to post by Hawking
 


No, I think the civilians should have access to the same firepower as the police or military. Otherwise, there is no point to the 2nd amendment without being able to keep our government in check,



Really? Cause I don't see that AK-47 helping much against tanks and jets. You will never have the firepower of the US military. Idiots owning assault rifles are not able to "keep our government in check," that's just what gun owners like to fantasize about.


Charleton Heston said his gun would have to be pried out of his cold dead hands. I don't think the government has a problem with that.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 04:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Hawking
 


Ok, I don't have access to that firepower, but if you got the cash.... I agree we are at the point of no return. A little pea shooter will not stop a bomb from being dropped on your house. I guess that's the point, as George Carlin would make, it's the illusion of freedom.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 04:12 AM
link   
reply to post by EyesWideShut
 


Thank you!!! Someone who can comprehend what they read!!!



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 04:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Hawking
 


Are you referring to the same automatic weapons that out gov't was gun-running to Mexico, to help the drug cartels in killing Mexican civilians, and our own border gaurds?



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 04:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Happy1
reply to post by Hawking
 


Are you referring to the same automatic weapons that out gov't was gun-running to Mexico, to help the drug cartels in killing Mexican civilians, and our own border gaurds?



Yes, those ones. You cannot fight the US government with AK's


If they want us all dead, there will be a rare, powerful form of bird flu or something that kills most of us.


How do you fight a monster with unlimited resources and power? You can't
edit on 15-12-2012 by Hawking because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 04:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Hawking
 


Can we please refrain from derailing the thread. I'm sure there's a hundred other threads these posts would be relevant in.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 04:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Frettin
 


You think gun laws are going to go crazy because of school incidents? It won't happen.
Do you know how many people die yearly from prescribed medications or blown tires causing accidents?

More than who die in school shootings.
To make new federal gun laws over such small % numbers is not realistic, and once America's ADHDTV attention disorders are shifted to the next news story, the outrage is forgotten about.

It's an obvious fear mongering tactic, it never generates enough steam. They are more interested in generating general fear overall.

edit on 15-12-2012 by JibbyJedi because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 04:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Frettin
reply to post by Hawking
 


Can we please refrain from derailing the thread. I'm sure there's a hundred other threads these posts would be relevant in.



Oh I'm sorry, I thought this thread was about US citizens, gun ownership and the US government's agenda.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 04:41 AM
link   
I would suggest watching for retirements from the Supreme Court. If Obama gets to appoint a couple, I think we'll lose gun rights by Supreme Court decision.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 04:43 AM
link   
reply to post by JibbyJedi
 


Yeah, but Americans will demand more and more restrictions incrementally. I am not saying this is the one that will do it, but they will keep happening in different ways and with different types of people that eventually nobody will be allowed to have one. Also, I don't think statistics are needed when Americans react emotionally. They will pass these "feel-good" laws that have no affect, and they will regret it one day. If Piers Morgan was losing his can every night over tires blowing out, you would be able to see tire legislation from a mile away.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 04:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Hawking
 


This is a thread about the agenda specifically. It's about what other common arguments gun advocates use that that whoever is staging these shootings (if you believe that) will have to defeat. This is not a "is gun ownership right/wrong? and/or justified"? thread.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 02:17 PM
link   
Here's an example of what I'm looking for as far a contributions to this thread....

Gun rights advocates usually state that "if only that location wasn't a gun free zone, then someone else would likely be carrying and stop the perp". Well, the recent shootings all happened in "gun free zones", so I would expect the next big shooting to take place in a location where CCWs are known to be in abundance.






top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join