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.

 

The irrational fear of inanimate objects (Yes, I'm talking about GUNS)

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 07:54 AM
link   
Hello ATS. How many people are afraid of the following inanimate object?



A toaster seems safe enough, that is until someone picks one up an smashes you in the head several times with it.


What about this inanimate object?




Again, seems safe enough until someone bashes you in the head with one, or throws it into the bath tub while you are taking a bath.

OK, what about this inanimate object?




More people die in car accidents every year in the U.S. than by gun violence. When you drive down the street, do you fear the car driving towards you going the other direction? I would bet that you don't. I would bet that you take for granted the fact that the other driver is of sound mind, or hasn't just drank a fifth of vodka. Maybe the other driver just broke up with his significant other and has no reason to live, and has decided to crash into the next car he sees... and that car is YOU. If that happens... who's fault would it be? The car's? The car manufacturer? OR would it be the fault of the driver? The answer is obvious.

Now here is another inanimate object....




Yeah, that's what I thought... you're scared. But WHY? This AR-15 is no more dangerous than any of the other inanimate objects that I have listed here. It doesn't have a brain. It can't grow legs and run around shooting people. Just like the car, the toaster, and the hair dryer, this AR-15 is only dangerous in the hands of a dangerous person. The reason I have guns, including one much like this one pictured here, is to protect my family from dangerous people. I am a sane, rational minded person who does not misuse inanimate objects.

Having said all of that. There are two main attributes to a free society. 1) The right to own property, and 2) the right to keep and bear arms. without either of these, a person IS NOT FREE, and is subject to the tyranny and oppression brought onto them by government and criminals. In Mexico, the drug cartels rule because private gun ownership has been outlawed, but the drug cartels have guns, some of which were given to them by Obama and the DOJ, but that is a different conversation. In Australia and the UK, violent crime rose significantly after private gun ownership was outlawed. Here in the US, Connecticut has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, and yet a crazy guy still managed to pull off this terrible tragedy.

Gun control laws only hurt law abiding people, because bad guys and crazy people don't care about gun laws. What matters is what is in a person's heart. An evil person will find a way to carry out evil, be it with guns, knives, baseball bats, or toasters. America's problem is not with guns... it is a lack of morality and spirituality, and as long as Obama continues to kill innocent people, including women and children, in the Middle East with illegal drone strikes, he can save his speeches and his fake tears.




posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 08:17 AM
link   
reply to post by OptimusSubprime
 


couldn't have said it better.

however; where you are going to see people disagreeing is how easy it is to put a pistol in your pocket and walk into a mall and shoot up a place. I agree it is not the inanimate object that causes the damage, it is too easy for an individual who has no right to own a gun to get his hands on them. A toaster, or knife or baseball bat can cause just as much damage as a gun, however, I can't see mass sprees of these kinds because they're too "personal" for the spineless cowards who commit these atrocities.

That being said, there is nothing that will stop the psychos from getting their hands on the weapons, therefore, if we lost our right to bear arms, I guarantee that they will not give up their guns, so then we would have no way to defend ourselves when they decide to attack the newly defenseless



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 08:36 AM
link   
The AR-15 exists only to kill people. Thats the difference.

I think we'll wait rather a long time for the first crazed teen toaster mass killing.

There are valid arguments for the pro-gun side on this topic but that isn't one of them.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by OptimusSubprime
 

Agreed.
It all comes down to the individual responsibility of whoever uses the inanimate objects.

Right now (some) people here in Germany criticise our Government for selling arms (Leopard 2A7+ Tanks, Boxer APC's and counter-insurgency gear) to the Saudis.

Those arms-deals should be treated just like any other trade of goods we're exporting, especially in view of the difficult economic situation we're in, yet, people act as if the weapons themselves are "evil".

Tanks don't kill people, Saudis do. (so to speak)
edit on 15-12-2012 by ColCurious because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by OptimusSubprime
 


I understand where you are coming from...but it's about intent. A toaster was designed to toast bread.....a gun is designed to injure and kill
I don't understand a world where a toaster and a weapon designed to kill is supposed to evoke the same emotion from me?



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 08:49 AM
link   
Except bashing someone in the head isn't what a toaster is for.

Guns are designed to shoot projectiles at speeds intended to cease life. That's their PRIMARY function.


Guns are for pansies.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Logos23
reply to post by OptimusSubprime
 


I understand where you are coming from...but it's about intent. A toaster was designed to toast bread.....a gun is designed to injure and kill
I don't understand a world where a toaster and a weapon designed to kill is supposed to evoke the same emotion from me?



Kill others or defend others, it all boils down to the person wielding it.

Some people want to give up their right to defend themselves and rely on the cops to defend them... with guns. Go figure. I prefer to retain that duty myself.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by justwokeup
The AR-15 exists only to kill people. Thats the difference.

I think we'll wait rather a long time for the first crazed teen toaster mass killing.

There are valid arguments for the pro-gun side on this topic but that isn't one of them.


Yes, the toaster is an absurd example, but sometimes absurdity is the best way to point out the fallacy of an argument. The AR-15 does indeed exist to kill people, and the cops have them... therefore I will have them. The FedGov has them.... therefore I will have them. The bad guy that is driving around looking for a victim has one... therefore I will have one.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ~Vixen~

Originally posted by Logos23
reply to post by OptimusSubprime
 


I understand where you are coming from...but it's about intent. A toaster was designed to toast bread.....a gun is designed to injure and kill
I don't understand a world where a toaster and a weapon designed to kill is supposed to evoke the same emotion from me?



Kill others or defend others, it all boils down to the person wielding it.

Some people want to give up their right to defend themselves and rely on the cops to defend them... with guns. Go figure. I prefer to retain that duty myself.


Exactly right... It is my duty to defend my family, and NO ONE ELSE'S. If someone breaks into my house, the cops are going to show up. The only question is... who do they fill out their paperwork on... me and my dead family, or a dead bad guy. I choose the later.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by justwokeup
The AR-15 exists only to kill people. Thats the difference.


Ok, so we ban AR-15s. Forgetting all the criminals that will not care about the laws, hence why they are criminals, let's assume not one more AR-15 exists. Do you really think murders will stop? Especially considering the bushmaster was left in his car and Lanza used two .9 mm guns instead. I guess then we should ban them too. See where this is going? Once again, we are seemingly willing to further remove the rights of the innocent law-abiding citizens in deference to the crazies. When are people going to realize that we are creating our own police state with so much legislatIon that we are leaving ourselves completely helpless and "hoping" the government will save and protect us?



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by lpowell0627
 


Thats a different and more valid contention to the one in the OP.

The biggest problem with 'gun control' that i can see is that for the USA, drowning in firearms as it is, its simply not practical. You couldn't get them all out of circulation if you wanted to. You would simply disarm the law abiding and massively change the ratio between legally and illegally held weapons.

It would cut down in the incidence of cases like this recent shooting but would probably increase the incidence of gun assisted crime (robbery, rape etc).

In addition since the demand in the population is still going to be strong you would create a black market overnight for supply with attendant organised criminality. That would have to be fought with a 'war on guns'.

The USA would never be like the UK for example, gun control legislation or not. In the UK the penetration of firearms into the society was never anywhere near as strong to begin with even when legal. Different culture.

Any solution to the problem of these mass murders requires consideration of all the realities on both sides.



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join