America is not banning guns and that is that.

page: 6
31
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 01:57 AM
link   
Here is some stats for those who refuse to understand the gravity that is "Shame".













Paranoid nation armed to the teeth.

Interesting to note......Australia Vs America




posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 02:03 AM
link   
Yes, but you're ignoring the rest of the story.

While Australia benefits from a lower gun-homicide rate, it pays for that statistic with property crime and crimes against persons like Rape (and even suicide) that are multiples of the American statistics.

Homicide isn't the whole story.

Australia has a lower murder rate, and higher theft, assault, rape etc.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 02:07 AM
link   
reply to post by tovenar
 


We're talking Guns here my friend, stop steering the conversation away from the subject.

Oh, fyi....................wahoooooooo more guns!
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 02:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainBeno
reply to post by tovenar
 


We're talking Guns here my friend, stop steering the conversation away from the subject.

Oh, fyi....................wahoooooooo more guns!
www.abovetopsecret.com...



You seem happy about that shooting.....


It is probably best you don't have a gun.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 02:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by Helious
 



You do not need an equally armed militia when you outnumber them 20 to 1


But all things aren't even. It's not as simple as 20 to 1, because it's not 20 armed with guns to 1 armed with a gun. You have to factor in those tanks and heavy artillery and everything else as their disposal. Of course this is extreme worst case dystopia scenario.


and add to that the factor that a large portion of military would defect to the civilian side to protect there families. All you need do is keep the fighting and moral up long enough to effect change.

Valid point. However, we can't underestimate the possibility of how far 'following orders' can go. History shows that.


Surprisingly, it is as simple as 20 to 1. All you need do to confirm this is look to Egypt, Syria or Greece. Tanks, heavy artillery, shock troops do not matter when the will of the people decide on a plan of action. The people that operate the tanks, that load the mortars and that fly the helicopters will have family on the ground, standing in opposition. Orders will suffice when those that are taking them have the support and acceptance of there family and closest friends. When that support is gone and a choice must be made, it is much easier to do what is right.

I trust our military much more than I trust our police force. I think the majority of those power hungry adrenaline dogs will fight till the end, leaving there wives and kids aside as they have been taught to think the slightest insult deserves a knee to the neck, a baton to the face and a tazor to the stomach. Largely not there fault but this is what they have been taught and after a while, that kind of power starts to feel good and thus...... Corrupts.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 02:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


You don't seem to understand Irony.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 02:30 AM
link   
reply to post by CaptainBeno
 



You don't seem to understand Irony.


Sure let's chalk it up to my lack of understanding and not your lack of making a clear point.

Anyways.

The point being made is that lower gun stats doesn't necessarily mean lower violent crime stats. That is relevant since guns are being painted as a cause. But a rise in knife stats alongside a decline in gun stats kind of negates the idea. It shows violent criminals act violently one way or another. If the US magically had all their guns taken out, we would see a huge surge in knife related homicides.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 03:24 AM
link   
I still find it staggering to read that immediately after the atrocity in Newtown all of you yee-hah wild-west types just thought of your guns. Unbelievable!

It's too late for a gun ban anyway, that should have been done decades ago but you've made your bed now.

Instead of spending so much time and effort in defending and protecting your precious deadly weapons, spare a thought for the families and relatives of all those who have just been killed.
Give them that at least.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by CaptainBeno
 



You don't seem to understand Irony.


Sure let's chalk it up to my lack of understanding and not your lack of making a clear point.

Anyways.

The point being made is that lower gun stats doesn't necessarily mean lower violent crime stats. That is relevant since guns are being painted as a cause. But a rise in knife stats alongside a decline in gun stats kind of negates the idea. It shows violent criminals act violently one way or another. If the US magically had all their guns taken out, we would see a huge surge in knife related homicides.


It's a lot easier to run away from a knife than a gun though isn't it?



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 03:37 AM
link   
How are they going to disarm millions of people that already have firearms? More importantly....how are they going to stop someone from leaving their house....fully loaded and ready to do damage? They want us to BELIEVE they can fix this problem with more legislation but, as we've learned from the "war on drugs" and the "war on terror", their legislation means NOTHING. People are going to do, what people are going to do; and there is NOTHING they can do about it. Wouldn't it have been WISER, of the policy makers, to put legislation in place, BEFORE they sold these weapons to the general public? Now that the people have them, they want them to "turn them in"?
Boy...can't wait to see how that turns out!



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 03:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Pardon?
 



It's a lot easier to run away from a knife than a gun though isn't it?


I would say knives run about the same speed as guns do


People (in violent crimes) typically don't engage with a knife until they are already in close enough range to use it.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 03:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by Pardon?
 



It's a lot easier to run away from a knife than a gun though isn't it?


I would say knives run about the same speed as guns do


People (in violent crimes) typically don't engage with a knife until they are already in close enough range to use it.


I don't think it's the correct time to be flippant about it. Not that any time would be good.

I also think trying to counter the gun argument by using knives is ridiculous.

Yes, people will always try to kill people, that unfortunately is in some people's nature. But taking items specifically designed for no other purpose than to kill or maim (and I include knives in that) just makes it that much harder to do it doesn't it?

But like I said earlier, it's too late now.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 03:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Pardon?
 



I don't think it's the correct time to be flippant about it.

That's a little dramatic. I was making word play for a quick joke, not being flippant about this issue.


I also think trying to counter the gun argument by using knives is ridiculous.

What exactly is the gun argument I was countering? Do you think my point was ridiculous? That if you take away guns other weapon stats would increase? Fairly certain that is reflected in stats already. I think it's ridiculous people are trying to attribute guns as the cause when the issue at the root of the matter is clearly that these violent people exist to begin with.


Yes, people will always try to kill people, that unfortunately is in some people's nature. But taking items specifically designed for no other purpose than to kill or maim (and I include knives in that) just makes it that much harder to do it doesn't it?


Other than the fact knives are used to cut vegetables...

Absolutely I agree. How realistic is it that all these weapons are going to be taking out of the equation though? Because until they are people need to level the playing field to adequately defend themselves. Of course the ideal would be no guns and other weapons designed for killing. It's just not pragmatic to think like that, when preparing yourself for defense.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 04:08 AM
link   
"Sorry, children but, you have abused the privelege. American mothers will not sit by idly watching their children being sacrificed so some crazy can have the "right" to get assault weapons and kill."

On 20/20 I watched a school nurse talk about how she hid first under her desk and then later in some closet with a school secretary for some four hours as 20 innocent little kids got got slaughtered. Perhaps if either one of them had been armed they could have blasted him right in the face as he walked through the door, stopped him in his tracks, given him exactly what he deserved.

Seriously anti gun people need to go online do some reading and they'll quickly see - throughout time in the all of human history guns are a really rather recent, modern invention and that never stopped any body from finding plenty of ways to barbarically, savagely do people in by the dozens or in droves any time they cared to if the people they were trying to pick off with their crude and rudimentary weapons were unarmed and defenseless, or even armed but simply less armed than their attackers were. Or if they don't feel like going online then pick up a Bible and give it a flip through for a really thorough study on how offing people was never any kind of problem at all back when people were gun less.

Sparing children? How by allowing them to be lead like lambs to the slaughter? What's kind of religion is that- No greater love hath man but but that he leave his weapon at home (or even better never even own one) so if push comes to shove he can cower under a desk or stuff his ass in a closet?

As a society I think we need to stop glamorizing women who die needlessly. For example the selfless teacher who put herself in harms way to shield her students its so loving, giving, kind, good, noble that it's hard for us to not wax and wane poetic about it - laud her. However when you think about it - life goes on she's dead and she can't do anything else for anyone else ever again anymore. Yet school is still going to be happening tomorrow and when it does is she going to be there to hold every bodies hands and soothe them?

I'm pretty sure whomever this woman was her family didn't need her to be a hero in order for her to be lovable to them. And now that she's gone what will they do? I think it's sickening she had to die because unarmed she only had two options - run and hide or stand and die defending those children as best she could with the only thing she had - her body.

As a parent of two sons I think it's imperative that I use whatever time I have left on this earth to do the best job I can to see to it that if my sons ever give me any granddaughters they will do their level best to make sure everywhere those girls go, when they go out they go out armed to the teeth. Armed and Dangerous! Especially dangerous to the scummy kind of people who would shoot innocent little children dead. Or hang them to death. Or burn them to death. Or boil them in oil to death. Or stretch them on a rack to death. Or strangle and choke them to dead...

Seriously what what are these Kumbaya zealots going to do next should they every succeed in banning all guns everywhere - ban hands?



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 04:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Helious
Our second amendment right is there not only to protect our person, possessions and family, it is there PRIMARILY to protect us from tyranny.


Every time some nut job in the US goes on a gun rampage which hits the MSM it is because they got the gun from someone who has a gun. Not from buying it off the streets from a criminal.

Your 2nd amendment right was about the use of muskets to defend yourself from the English and the tyranny of your government. The English are gone and you are all standing by idly while under a government of tyranny, which started way back when the Federal Reserve was created in 1913.

You want guns because you WANT guns. Just be honest about it and you will earn respect, either that or actually man up the lot of you and march on Washington with your guns and demand corporate money be removed from your political system and that banks will no longer own you from the day you are born. It's one or the other.

T



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 05:58 AM
link   
Since you are all determined to keep your guns, and it's in your constitution, I have a FAR BETTER plan that is 100% guaranteed to work and is a plan where Obama doesn't need to ban guns at all...

All he needs to do is ban the ammo and the ownership and sale of gunpower or other accelerants used to make bullets.

You see you're all right - guns don't kill people - bullets kill people.

Then you can all keep your guns, you can still have your 2nd amendment intact, and maybe, just maybe there won't be any more dead infants at the hands off fruitcakes obsessed with weapons.

I'm going to email the whitehouse with my idea.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 06:10 AM
link   
reply to post by torqpoc
 



You want guns because you WANT guns. Just be honest about it and you will earn respect


Want? Need? People use these terms interchangeably oftentimes. I am about to myself.

I want a gun for target shooting with friends. I want a gun for self-defense.

My brother was murdered during a home invasion. Shot with a gun. After this happened.... most of us bought guns, some started advocating stricter gun control...... but everyone said they wished my brother had a gun that night.

That wasn't an appeal to emotion. Just being honest as you asked for.
edit on 17-12-2012 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 06:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Power_Semi
 



just maybe there won't be any more dead infants at the hands off fruitcakes obsessed with weapons.


I don't think that fruitcake was obsessed with weapons. I think that person was obsessed with murder. Or possessed with the demons known as psychiatric disorders. And I am fairly certain it wasn't the bullets that caused those demons.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 06:19 AM
link   
I believe some things can be done about high-capacity weapons. That is, semi-automatic things that can fire many bullets without reloading. There can also be laws against the number of guns as well as regulations regarding mental illness. And laws about weapon-lockers. There's many things that can be done without touching the second amendment. Because touching that one is impossible. Congress haven't done much the last year, and I doubt they would cater Obama well if he asked about changing the constitution.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 06:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by Power_Semi
 



just maybe there won't be any more dead infants at the hands off fruitcakes obsessed with weapons.


I don't think that fruitcake was obsessed with weapons. I think that person was obsessed with murder. Or possessed with the demons known as psychiatric disorders. And I am fairly certain it wasn't the bullets that caused those demons.


Maybe he wasn't, but there are at least another 200 million fruitcakes obsessed with guns in the States, you need protecting from yourselves in many cases, not each other.





top topics
 
31
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join