It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Every possible reason for gun ownership addressed and countered

page: 16
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 07:10 PM
Writing a law to ban guns doesn't make them go away. Unless you have a magic wand that can make all guns cease to exist as well as eliminates all knowledge of how to create one then there is no such thing as banning guns. It's a fantasy. All it does is declaw the honest citizenry and render them defenseless.

Look how great it's worked for drugs.

posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 07:22 PM
I am touched at the concern the op shows for victims of gun violence in the USA.
But gun legislation is not the answer..
There is a wide recognition in policing and criminal justice circles that, unlike gun crime, the pattern of knife crime has not been closely monitored. There is little doubt that gun crime, particularly handgun crime, has more than doubled since Labour came to power - again despite legislation, in the form of a post-Dunblane ban on handguns.``

thats from

Here we have a UK admission that gun laws do not work-yet we have a call for more gun control laws.

For the Aussies--
`Even the head of Australia’s Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn, acknowledged that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime`

After a terrible tragedy,people feel that something must be done.It is a very natural emotion.But penalizing the vast majority of legal,sane and non criminal gun owners is not the right thing to do.
In the UK and Oz,gun control was implemented after horrific mass murder events.These events caused gun control legislation to be enacted. These laws disarmed the people and are not effective.

Of the estimated legal guns in civilian hands,a gun buyback would cost about 290 billion dollars.That is a nice chunk of change, and if the UK and Oz are happy with the results of the gun ban may I suggest that they pay for it in the USA if they are so concerned.

A bit of data that gun control advocates fail to notice is that violent crime in America has dropped as gun control laws get less overbearing.
`Gun laws are far looser than they were twenty years ago, even while crime is plunging—a galling juxtaposition for those who place their faith in tougher gun laws. The drop in violence is one of our few unalloyed public-policy success stories, though perhaps not for those who bemoan an “epidemic of gun violence” that doesn’t exist anymore in order to make a political point.`

But after Dunblane in the UK,you had Cumbria where 12 people died and 11 were wounded in 2010. Obviosly gun control laws did not stop that.

Again these two gun bans occurred after mass murders in the UK and Oz,and in the UK it did not stop gun violence or mass murderers.Why would anyone think it would work in the USA?

If I were a conspiracy thinker,I would start to wonder why so many non Americans want my country to disarm its people.Seriously.
We had about 39000 car fatalities in 2009 in the USA,yet no one tells us to ban cars.

posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 07:53 PM
reply to post by BlackSnake

If I were a conspiracy thinker,I would start to wonder why so many non Americans want my country to disarm its people.Seriously. We had about 39000 car fatalities in 2009 in the USA,yet no one tells us to ban cars.

Excellently put
. It does make one wonder if there is a deeper motive to this all. A well deserved star for you my friend, now thats a thread all in itself.

posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 08:17 PM
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff

I take it you've never lived out in the middle of nowhere, deep in the woods somewhere, or out in the middle of a desert.
If you did you would know that you would want to have a gun.
You're 50 miles from the nearest small town that has only two cops and they aren't in your area to help you too often.
You would want, need a gun.

Sorry, I know you hate guns, I get that from all of the other threads that you have written.
However, there are a lot of people that really love guns.
If I were you I would learn to love the gun, because they are not going anywhere.

posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 08:18 PM
Should I post a reply stating that I didn't read the OP after I read "No Im not American"?

Oopps, I just did.

posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 08:40 PM
OP, if you're going to go to the trouble to speak on it, spend an erg of energy researching why this amendment was included in the Bill of Rights. There are numerous sites for you to browse with personal writings by the framers of the Constitution and the BOR on why they included the right to bear arms. None of them say because of hunting, militia, or any various ridiculous arguments you anti-rights robots spew.


posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 09:13 PM

Originally posted by The Old American
OP, if you're going to go to the trouble to speak on it, spend an erg of energy researching why this amendment was included in the Bill of Rights. There are numerous sites for you to browse with personal writings by the framers of the Constitution and the BOR on why they included the right to bear arms. None of them say because of hunting, militia, or any various ridiculous arguments you anti-rights robots spew.


I would have included it if it was an argument heard from your side.

The points I addressed are the ones Ive heard here over the last few days.

Care to enlighten me on what your talking about exactly?

edit on 18/12/2012 by IkNOwSTuff because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 09:44 PM

Every country has criminals with guns, it has been suggested if you really want a gun you can get one.
This is true for criminals with resources to buy them and access to people who deal in them. I doubt very much that the majority of people who have committed these recent shootings fit into this category.

Most criminals have weapons to either protect their drug stash or turf, actually using them they know is not good for business. By far the majority of gun deaths are either crimes of passion or the work of mentally ill people, not drug dealers or bank robbers.
You could argue all day whether somebody was mentally ill or not when shooting somebody. I guess when they shoot then we could proclaim they're mentally ill. In the town I live in, of 50,000 people. We've had quite a few murders or attempted murders, in the last few years. One violent shooting spree was a suicidal guy that asked to be admitted to the hospital, but was refused. He went on a day long rampage randomly walking up to people and shooting them in the head. Besides that one instance, most of the others shootings have been robberies or drug related. It's the norm in certain parts of the city. So I disagree with the "not drug dealers or bank robbers".

Also taking guns off the market takes away the ability of criminals to easily get guns.

This was posted in the other thread, somehow the person who posted felt this supported the argument for guns being legal
Just because it's tougher to get guns doesn't mean they won't have them. It means the people that have them will most definately be of the criminal type. It guarentees a law abiding citizen will have to bring a knife to a gunfight. You never want to do that.

posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 10:12 PM
reply to post by Saltron

Welcome to ATS I would have starred your post however you are seriously over reacting to that video and same goes to whoever wrote the article. We used to play with the kids in vills all the time and they had fun with us. Those soldiers probably patrol that area daily and the people and children know them and are on friendly terms.

We had one area where we would set up and would put constantino wire two roles wide and one on top and there were these two kids that would try to crawl through it daily to get to our trash which had the stuff we didn’t like from our MREs. We always gave that stuff out each day anyway but these two kids didn’t want to compete with the others for it so they would try to steal it at night.

So imagine you are pulling guard duty at night where someone’s trying to breach the perimeter what would your first thought be? I can tell you we never shot a kid but have gotten scars and have torn up more than a few uniforms getting those kids out of the wire where they were caught in it pretty bad while we were under orders to shoot first but because we knew that there was a possibility that it could be kids we didn’t follow those orders but it could have just as easily been someone trying to kill us. Do you get what I saying here? You have no idea the level of restraint soldiers have and the compassion we have shown.

I get so tired of people trying to demonize soldiers. Whoever wrote that article took a small clip from a video and distorted it to push an agenda where something as innocent and obvious as playing with a kid then tries to paint a nasty picture. The person who wrote the article is sicker than sick a piece of trash that should be called out on their propaganda BS yet you encourage that kind of trash by reposting such an obvious lie. The kid is even smiling and waving the soldier didn’t point his weapon at him or do anything wrong. It is just utter B#ll$h!t.

posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 10:48 PM
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff

I think I have something to offer to you, that I think, even you can understand. You just have to be here and live this life like we do. Trying to explain why we think as we do, would be like trying to explain to a person that has been blind sense birth, what the colour purple looks like. You get it ?

posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 01:33 AM

He can voice his opinion all he wants, but until he becomes a United States citizen it doesn't mean diddly. He cannot expect his opinion to "count" , again I will use a reference from earlier, it would be like me demanding to the people of England that I want the queen removed because she is no longer necessary due to the modern times we live in etc...... I know it confusing because us Americans have a constitution that secures our freedoms and it's all spelled out clearly for anyone to read. So to your comment nice try......
reply to post by jaynkeel

Maybe I misread the whole thing, because I didn't see the OP demanding anything. He was merely giving his opinion.
Since when the opinions of the citizen of the United States count when it comes to the Government?

I find it very hypocritical that when a non-American person says something about the U.S. that we like, or we agree on, we bless and welcome that person with open arms. But when it is the other way around, we want to crucify that person.

I tell you why everyone's opinion should be heard, if not count. Guess what the U.S. is full of? Tourists!
It's just a matter of time when "someone" "decides" that tourists are evil and they should die.
As part of what I do, I took a training for a month about terrorism. Every week we had to think like terrorists and create scenarios where we were doing damage to the U.S. Do you know how easy it is?
My team, at the training, decided that we should do one involving tourists. Even the teachers were surprised they never thought about that before. They even took our presentation as a model to present it to their higher ups.

NYC is the capital of the world; I know, I'm a New yorker. (I don't want to give any illustrations not to give any ideas) NYC is full of tourists who should be concern about their security.

That been said...I'm pro gun!

P.S. Not too long ago U.S citizens were demanding Muslim men, in their countries, to treat women better, and to allow women to change their dress code. About 11 years ago, the U.S. Government demanded Iraq to handle their none existent WMDs, when we have plenty, and when they didn't, we went ahead and invaded them, killed their dictator and changed their laws!
edit on 12/12/2012 by thegrayone because: To add a statement.

edit on 12/12/2012 by thegrayone because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 02:14 AM
The Tenth Amendment (U.S. Constitution) states that all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Meaning, if the U.S. Constitution says the right to bear arms is a right, then fine, but if not, it really don't make any difference.

I live in the State of Pennsylvania, Article 1, Section 21 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania states "the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." and Article 1, Section 25 of the same document states "To guard against transgressions of the high powers which we have delegated, we declare that everything in this article is excepted out of the general powers of government and shall forever remain inviolate."

Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

Which part is hard to understand? The fact that individual citizens are specifically deemed to have a right to bear arms in defense of themselves? The fact that this right should not even be questioned, or the fact that this right shall forever remain inviolate?

All other arguments are invalid given that the LAW is the LAW...

posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 02:18 AM
More 'valid' gun ownership reason:

    • Suicide facilitation

    • Gun fetish paraphilia

    • Hybristophilia (fetishism for people who've commit gruesome crimes)

    • John Wayne cosplay

    • Defense against insects

posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 02:35 AM

Originally posted by EarthlingSpelunker
More 'valid' gun ownership reason:

    • Suicide facilitation

    • Gun fetish paraphilia

    • Hybristophilia (fetishism for people who've commit gruesome crimes)

    • John Wayne cosplay

    • Defense against insects


Those are better than some of the others Ive heard

posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 02:36 AM

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff
Let me start by saying yes I hate guns and No Im not American.

Let me start by saying by you hating inanimate pieces of metal you strike me as mentally unstable.

posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 02:40 AM

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff

I dont find the notion of a tyrannical gov laughable, I find the notion of fighting tanks helicopters and drones with handguns laughable.

Who's to say we wouldn't get help from other countries? If you knew history that well you'd know that has happened frequently in civil wars.

posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 02:49 AM

Originally posted by bl4ke360

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff
Let me start by saying yes I hate guns and No Im not American.

Let me start by saying by you hating inanimate pieces of metal you strike me as mentally unstable.


Good start

posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 03:13 AM
It's 3 A.M where I am, so I really don't feel liking quoting every bit of your OP on what I have to say I'll just summarize it in parts you will recognize accordingly.

To start off, as much as you argue the fact of tradition, it really goes further than the common meaning. America was built upon this type of thinking after what the British incurred upon us. In other words, it's like a maturing child whom is scarred with verbally abusive parents. So in effect, he/she is very shy and socially awkward. We as Americans have been put into this mindset as a precaution in case the same thing happens again. Which, despite what you, or any other opposed feels, is about as predictable as mankind's ultimate doom. You can be speculative of it, and pass it off, but in the end you'd never really know. So that is America's security against such. And it was even initiated by our forefathers such as Ben Franklin, I'm sure you would be familiar with this clause

"...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness..."

Now of course, as with every clause for any U.S Gov't document, it can be translated both ways. But from my viewpoint, "abolishing" a government because of abusive laws or judgement, certainly isn't going to be something they'd want to happen if they had the power in their hands. So I'm sorry, but the time of 50's and 60's when putting flowers in gun barrels just isn't going to happen anymore. Our government, as well as other governments has adapted past that point. They will use every opportune moment and method of manipulation to get us to the point to where all we have left to arm ourselves if our pure plead of innocence, and that is when it will truly be game over. Our forefathers initiated the 2nd amendment in the mindset that even THEY don't wholly trust a government, no mater what the type. Thomas Jefferson saw what is happening today centuries off with nationalized banks, and it only is assumable that our other forefathers thought similar of other things.

And to further elaborate, I'm sure you remember this:

Now from what I followed in that long struggle. Many innocent were involved in that fray in the initial happenings. Innocents who refused to deal with firearms or who have never even experienced one. Protesters were fired upon by security forces. It is very horrifying.


On a more personal matter, homicide is an ever great evil looming in the states. That I agree, however, most of these involve cases in which the victim was

1) Defenseless

2) Provoked violence

Popular shows like "60 Minutes", "Cold Case Files", etc. All project the same scenario over and over. The most being of female victims who are murdered because of some over-obsessive nutball. And half the time, it doesn't even involve a gun, but rather, most disturbingly, pure sadistic ingenuity. Some cases, the victim is strangled, or some other tool was used such as a knife, but not some "tactical", "militarized" knife, something along the lines of a kitchen knife. Or in other cases, blunt objects. And in most of those cases, he victim is dismembered and buried. Very graphic death. I would rather be the victim of a bullet than a creative sociopath/psychopath.

I'll give you one certain infamous murderer from back in the 70's named "Pee Wee" Harris. In fact, there was a novel written about his deeds by a man whom spoke face to face with the murderer on how he killed, and how he disposed. This novel is now banned in most public libraries across the nation for it's gruesome and vividly detailed content.

One such case, which is just unbelievable beyond human comprehension, involves a boy whom had not caused or promoted any acts of violence towards "pee wee". "Pee Wee" bullied this boy and got physical with him as well. While I don't remember exactly the details of when initially occurred, the end result of the case is that this young boy ended up with a broom handle, A BROOM HANDLE, up his rectum and protruding out of his mouth... That is such a treacherous, slow and painful way to die. Another case involves "Pee Wee" taking a female college student hitchhiker and bringing her to a swamp in the woods. Where he sexually harassed her, forced her to administer oral stimulation on her own aerola, then proceeded to cut off said aerola, and you know what follows thereafter.

Scenarios and cases like this are reasons why self-defense is a must.

edit on 19-12-2012 by Transcendent because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-12-2012 by Transcendent because: corrected grammar

posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 05:17 AM




posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 06:05 AM
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff

The study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.

The findings of two criminologists - Prof. Don Kates and Prof. Gary Mauser - in their exhaustive study of American and European gun laws and violence rates, are telling:

Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).

For example, Norway has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe, yet possesses the lowest murder rate. In contrast, Holland's murder rate is nearly the worst, despite having the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe. Sweden and Denmark are two more examples of nations with high murder rates but few guns. As the study's authors write in the report:

If the mantra "more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death" were true, broad cross-national comparisons should show that nations with higher gun ownership per capita consistently have more death. Nations with higher gun ownership rates, however, do not have higher murder or suicide rates than those with lower gun ownership. Indeed many high gun ownership nations have much lower murder rates. (p. 661)
Finally, and as if to prove the bumper sticker correct - that "gun don't kill people, people do" - the study also shows that Russia's murder rate is four times higher than the U.S. and more than 20 times higher than Norway. This, in a country that practically eradicated private gun ownership over the course of decades of totalitarian rule and police state methods of suppression. Needless to say, very few Russian murders involve guns.

The important thing to keep in mind is not the rate of deaths by gun - a statistic that anti-gun advocates are quick to recite - but the overall murder rate, regardless of means. The criminologists explain:

[P]er capita murder overall is only half as frequent in the United States as in several other nations where gun murder is rarer, but murder by strangling, stabbing, or beating is much more frequent. (p. 663 - emphases in original)
It is important to note here that Profs. Kates and Mauser are not pro-gun zealots. In fact, they go out of their way to stress that their study neither proves that gun control causes higher murder rates nor that increased gun ownership necessarily leads to lower murder rates. (Though, in my view, Prof. John Lott's More Guns, Less Crime does indeed prove the latter.) But what is clear, and what they do say, is that gun control is ineffectual at preventing murder, and apparently counterproductive.

Not only is the D.C. gun ban ill-conceived on constitutional grounds, it fails to live up to its purpose. If the astronomical murder rate in the nation's capitol, in comparison to cities where gun ownership is permitted, didn't already make that fact clear, this study out of Harvard should.

new topics

top topics

<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in