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 NavyDoc
Originally posted by Merriman Weir
Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Merriman Weir
disproportionate gun ownership.
So, again, why isn't the US more like Switzerland?
not enough US households are armed and the Swiss mandate EVERY household be armed.
Swiss homes have guns primarily because of the way they've substituted their military with a mandatory basic service. However, ammunition is very different. Very few of the households who have guns because of this demographic (the main demographic of gun holders) keep ammunition at home, and since 2007 only specialist police units keep ammunition for the military-issued arms.
and, as mentioned previously, the Swiss don't have gun-free zones, either.
Because their 'carry' laws are very, very different. Permits to carry are heavily restricted to certain occupations.
However, those only apply to issued arms and ammunition. A Swiss citizen can have a semi-auto AR-15 and ammo that he bought himself.
Stolen from where? Legal gun owners?
Originally posted by Logarock
Originally posted by SpearMint
Originally posted by NavyDoc
Originally posted by SpearMint
Originally posted by KingIcarus
So? Less people get shot with handguns now. We haven't had a school shooting either.
It does still happen, of course, but when it does it's news because it's rare.
Suits us just fine.
Not that rare. In the US there was two in 2012, one in 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, two in 2001, one in 1999, two in 1998. Before then it gets a little rarer, it seems like it's becoming more and more common, as are massacres not in a school.
And yet, we have more gun control in that timeperiod than any other in the past, indicating that more laws just don't do it.
It doesn't indicate that at all. Were people still allowed to own guns in that time period? Yep, and that is the result. Nearly all, if not all of these massacres are done with a legally owned gun.edit on 17-12-2012 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)
So is that an indictment on legal gun ownership? What sort of stupid logic is that?
In the last two cases in this country the guns were stolen.
Originally posted by SpearMint
Originally posted by NavyDoc
Originally posted by SpearMint
Originally posted by KingIcarus
So? Less people get shot with handguns now. We haven't had a school shooting either.
It does still happen, of course, but when it does it's news because it's rare.
Suits us just fine.
Not that rare. In the US there was two in 2012, one in 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, two in 2001, one in 1999, two in 1998. Before then it gets a little rarer, it seems like it's becoming more and more common, as are massacres not in a school.
And yet, we have more gun control in that timeperiod than any other in the past, indicating that more laws just don't do it.
It doesn't indicate that at all. Were people still allowed to own guns in that time period? Yep, and that is the result. Nearly all, if not all of these massacres are done with a legally owned gun.edit on 17-12-2012 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Logarock
Originally posted by SpearMint
Originally posted by NavyDoc
Originally posted by SpearMint
Originally posted by KingIcarus
So? Less people get shot with handguns now. We haven't had a school shooting either.
It does still happen, of course, but when it does it's news because it's rare.
Suits us just fine.
Not that rare. In the US there was two in 2012, one in 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, two in 2001, one in 1999, two in 1998. Before then it gets a little rarer, it seems like it's becoming more and more common, as are massacres not in a school.
And yet, we have more gun control in that timeperiod than any other in the past, indicating that more laws just don't do it.
It doesn't indicate that at all. Were people still allowed to own guns in that time period? Yep, and that is the result. Nearly all, if not all of these massacres are done with a legally owned gun.edit on 17-12-2012 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)
So is that an indictment on legal gun ownership? What sort of stupid logic is that?
In the last two cases in this country the guns were stolen.
Originally posted by Merriman Weir
Originally posted by NavyDoc
Originally posted by Merriman Weir
Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Merriman Weir
disproportionate gun ownership.
So, again, why isn't the US more like Switzerland?
not enough US households are armed and the Swiss mandate EVERY household be armed.
Swiss homes have guns primarily because of the way they've substituted their military with a mandatory basic service. However, ammunition is very different. Very few of the households who have guns because of this demographic (the main demographic of gun holders) keep ammunition at home, and since 2007 only specialist police units keep ammunition for the military-issued arms.
and, as mentioned previously, the Swiss don't have gun-free zones, either.
Because their 'carry' laws are very, very different. Permits to carry are heavily restricted to certain occupations.
However, those only apply to issued arms and ammunition. A Swiss citizen can have a semi-auto AR-15 and ammo that he bought himself.
Yes, but the scale of gun ownership, which I'm referring to when the other poster talks about the Swiss 'mandate', is because of the militia issued guns. And the reality is that the majority of these people appear not to have ammunition at home.
Originally posted by michael1983l
reply to post by Logarock
Yep and those people that took up their guns would have been rolled over if it wasn't for a planned withdrawal by the Redcoats due to an iminant invasion on the UK by France. Your guns did not protect you then, the French did. Your guns will not protect you now either.
Originally posted by SpearMint
Originally posted by Logarock
Originally posted by SpearMint
Originally posted by NavyDoc
Originally posted by SpearMint
Originally posted by KingIcarus
So? Less people get shot with handguns now. We haven't had a school shooting either.
It does still happen, of course, but when it does it's news because it's rare.
Suits us just fine.
Not that rare. In the US there was two in 2012, one in 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, two in 2001, one in 1999, two in 1998. Before then it gets a little rarer, it seems like it's becoming more and more common, as are massacres not in a school.
And yet, we have more gun control in that timeperiod than any other in the past, indicating that more laws just don't do it.
It doesn't indicate that at all. Were people still allowed to own guns in that time period? Yep, and that is the result. Nearly all, if not all of these massacres are done with a legally owned gun.edit on 17-12-2012 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)
So is that an indictment on legal gun ownership? What sort of stupid logic is that?
In the last two cases in this country the guns were stolen.
When talking about the US, the last 2 gun massacres isn't a large sample size. Most are done with a legally obtained gun. Even if it is stolen, if that stolen gun was legally obtained they it wouldn't have happened if people weren't allowed to own them.
Originally posted by Logarock
Originally posted by SpearMint
Originally posted by Logarock
Originally posted by SpearMint
Originally posted by NavyDoc
Originally posted by SpearMint
Originally posted by KingIcarus
So? Less people get shot with handguns now. We haven't had a school shooting either.
It does still happen, of course, but when it does it's news because it's rare.
Suits us just fine.
Not that rare. In the US there was two in 2012, one in 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, two in 2001, one in 1999, two in 1998. Before then it gets a little rarer, it seems like it's becoming more and more common, as are massacres not in a school.
And yet, we have more gun control in that timeperiod than any other in the past, indicating that more laws just don't do it.
It doesn't indicate that at all. Were people still allowed to own guns in that time period? Yep, and that is the result. Nearly all, if not all of these massacres are done with a legally owned gun.edit on 17-12-2012 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)
So is that an indictment on legal gun ownership? What sort of stupid logic is that?
In the last two cases in this country the guns were stolen.
When talking about the US, the last 2 gun massacres isn't a large sample size. Most are done with a legally obtained gun. Even if it is stolen, if that stolen gun was legally obtained they it wouldn't have happened if people weren't allowed to own them.
Well again the question.....is this an indictment of legal gun ownership?
Originally posted by NavyDoc
Considering that there is no difference between issued ammunition and non-issued ammunition other than who pays for it, someone with ill intent could easily go down to the gun shop and buy the ammuntion to load into his assualt rifle
and go on a rampage, but they don't.
Originally posted by Merriman Weir
Can we all start trimming the quotes? It's like I'm back on drugs again.
bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov...
For most U.S. crimes (survey estimated assault, burglary, and motor vehicle theft; police-recorded murder, robbery, and burglary), the latest crime rates (1996) are the lowest recorded in the 16-year period from 1981 to 1996.
By comparison, English crime rates as measured in both victim surveys and police statistics have all risen since 1981.
- snip -
The major exception to the pattern of higher crime rates in England is the murder rate.
The 1996 U.S. murder rate is vastly higher (nearly six times) than England's, although the difference between the two countries has narrowed over the past 16 years (below, and figure 5 of the report).
- snip -
the U.S. murder rate as measured in police statistics was 8.7 times England's in 1981 but 5.7 times in 1996
www.reform.co.uk...
violence has increased as a proportion of all recorded crime from 8 per cent in 1997 to 20 per cent in 2007-08
why ?
Celebrated is a word of Irony given the current climate
Originally posted by SpearMint
Originally posted by Logarock
Originally posted by SpearMint
Originally posted by Logarock
Originally posted by SpearMint
Originally posted by NavyDoc
Originally posted by SpearMint
Originally posted by KingIcarus
So? Less people get shot with handguns now. We haven't had a school shooting either.
It does still happen, of course, but when it does it's news because it's rare.
Suits us just fine.
Not that rare. In the US there was two in 2012, one in 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, two in 2001, one in 1999, two in 1998. Before then it gets a little rarer, it seems like it's becoming more and more common, as are massacres not in a school.
And yet, we have more gun control in that timeperiod than any other in the past, indicating that more laws just don't do it.
It doesn't indicate that at all. Were people still allowed to own guns in that time period? Yep, and that is the result. Nearly all, if not all of these massacres are done with a legally owned gun.edit on 17-12-2012 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)
So is that an indictment on legal gun ownership? What sort of stupid logic is that?
In the last two cases in this country the guns were stolen.
When talking about the US, the last 2 gun massacres isn't a large sample size. Most are done with a legally obtained gun. Even if it is stolen, if that stolen gun was legally obtained they it wouldn't have happened if people weren't allowed to own them.
Well again the question.....is this an indictment of legal gun ownership?
Absolutely. If people don't own them, they can't be stolen or used for such things.
yep, still clueless ... will they EVER learn ?
the Magna Carta was the foundation of our laws and Bill of Rights
Originally posted by Logarock
Originally posted by SpearMint
Originally posted by Logarock
Originally posted by SpearMint
Originally posted by Logarock
Originally posted by SpearMint
Originally posted by NavyDoc
Originally posted by SpearMint
Originally posted by KingIcarus
So? Less people get shot with handguns now. We haven't had a school shooting either.
It does still happen, of course, but when it does it's news because it's rare.
Suits us just fine.
Not that rare. In the US there was two in 2012, one in 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, two in 2001, one in 1999, two in 1998. Before then it gets a little rarer, it seems like it's becoming more and more common, as are massacres not in a school.
And yet, we have more gun control in that timeperiod than any other in the past, indicating that more laws just don't do it.
It doesn't indicate that at all. Were people still allowed to own guns in that time period? Yep, and that is the result. Nearly all, if not all of these massacres are done with a legally owned gun.edit on 17-12-2012 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)
So is that an indictment on legal gun ownership? What sort of stupid logic is that?
In the last two cases in this country the guns were stolen.
When talking about the US, the last 2 gun massacres isn't a large sample size. Most are done with a legally obtained gun. Even if it is stolen, if that stolen gun was legally obtained they it wouldn't have happened if people weren't allowed to own them.
Well again the question.....is this an indictment of legal gun ownership?
Absolutely. If people don't own them, they can't be stolen or used for such things.
You are out of here with me. I gave you a shot at making a case. In the end you just dont believe there is such a thing as a right that makes gun ownership legit and that rights are handed out and that the rights of all can be pulled by the actions of a few. yep one of englands brainwashed sons.