Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Every possible reason for gun ownership addressed and countered

page: 2
29
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   
rebuttal?

well good thing you don't have to live in a country like the US where most people will not give them up. You have to be an American almost to understand. It is part of our cultural identity like the samurai sword is to Japanese culture. You just don't understand.

Like we will never want your vast social programs and state sponsored buffer for workers and their rights...It works for you, I can respect that. Please respect our gun rights and why we want to keep our constitution in tact.

to each his own friend. We have our reasons.


edit on 17-12-2012 by zedVSzardoz because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Jerk_Idiot
 


Thanks for being civil and actually reading and addressing what I wrote (How sad is it I have to say that
)




If MORE guns were out there in responsible hands there would be less criminals with guns because the criminal population would be shrunk drastically by criminals being killed. From your points it greatly appears you have no faith in your fellow citizens, only in your paid mercenarys.


Its not that I dont trust people (although most of the people who are for guns on this forum I wouldnt trust with a pair of plastic scissors) its that if guns are readily available to the average citizen they are then readily available to criminals or even just slightly disturbed people.
This most recent shooting the guy got the gun from his mother who was a legal firearm owner.

People there now want guns because everyone else has guns, can you not see the catch 22 of this argument?
Taking guns out of circulation takes them out of criminals hands as well



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by jaynkeel

Originally posted by bjax9er
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.




Ok whomever removed this comment is on an agenda clearly with the op, What was typed is truly correct, the op is not a tax paying American citizen so his/her rant thread is like me creating a thread demanding the queen be removed because it's no longer the mid-evil times and is not needed. Sure go ahead and spout all the hate you want op about us gun toting Americans but this is not your country you really do have no say in it as neither do I about yours. And last time I checked you can't make demands in your op, that people are not allowed to comment certain things just so long as it doesn't break t/c.
A real lousy stab at attention......


When did I make any demands


Merely sharing my point of view and no hate is anywhere in my thread but Im guessing you didnt even bother to read it



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 03:20 PM
link   


Its correct that its an impossibility to take away everyones guns and I know Im not going to change anyones mind but Im more interested in an intelligent discussion on the topic as opposed to a slinging match and I am open to having my mind changed despite what people think


I personally believe they should be banned, guns already in circulation should stay there but no more to be sold. Start a buyback scheme so that as people no longer feel they need their firearms they can be turned in therefore taking them out of circulation.



Bit of advice, if you want people to believe it then you have got to sell it like you are sold on it.
Saying your not going to change anyone's mind, isn't in your best interest for discussion.
Your statements should be written like they are facts.


By starting a buyback program you will eventually result in a mostly unarmed populace over time.
But keep in mind most country's views on the USA. They think we are Nosy Bullies that should stay out of their business.

No sane Dictator President King or Queen would ever invade the USA with all the guns their are here.
Selling back all the guns to the Government will only open us up to reprisal from all the enemies we made abroad. With our army spread all over this earth right now, and as per usual operating procedure, its not the smartest course of action now, and with the state of worldly affairs i don't see it happening any time soon.

I will gladly give up my guns when there is no more murders and complete world peace.
I have no problems hurting with a bow. But i feel this is too optimistic right now.

edit on 17-12-2012 by shaneslaughta because: Missing Quote



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by zedVSzardoz
rebuttal?

well good thing you don't have to live in a country like the US where most people will not give them up. You have to be an American almost to understand. It is part of our cultural identity like the samurai sword is to Japanese culture. You just don't understand.

Like we will never want your vast social programs and state sponsored buffer for workers and their rights...It works for you, I can respect that. Please respect our gun rights and why we want to keep our constitution in tact.

to each his own friend. We have our reasons.


edit on 17-12-2012 by zedVSzardoz because: (no reason given)


Out of curiousity did you read the thread?

Your point on culture was addressed as point 4.

LOL do I suspect sarcasm here




Like we will never want your vast social programs and state sponsored buffer for workers and their rights...It works for you, I can respect that.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
 





Its not that I dont trust people (although most of the people who are for guns on this forum I wouldnt trust with a pair of plastic scissors


And exactly how do you expect respect, you do understand it's earned not given right ? Good luck with statements like that flying around. Just whos ear are you in that you can belittle others here in your thread but others get post banned? Honestly if anyone else has read this far I would take my flag for this thread back and turn around, it won't be long before it's your turn....... Let me let you in on a little secret you cannot possibly know what kind of a person anyone is by how they respond when your making foul statements about their country on an online site.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 03:25 PM
link   
Simply reply: BULLOCKS!

The right to bear arms is protection from tyrannical government. In your OP, you found the notion of tyrannical government laughable. Ends the debate right there - you DON'T KNOW HISTORY or you selectively choose to ignore it in support of your ideals.

Either way, history has demonstrated repeatedly that an unarmed population is one that is forced to succumb to the will of the government - who, ironically, IS armed.

You can pull all of the mental and verbal gymnastics that you like. But any premise contrary to the facts outlined in history is both disingenuous and illogical.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 03:28 PM
link   


No sane Dictator President King or Queen would ever invade the USA with all the guns their are here.
reply to post by shaneslaughta
 


While this may have been true back in WW2 do you still think this applies today?

First of all they would have to somehow get troops to the US and unless its Canada or Mexico you think are gonna attack, while they were on the way over they would be blown away!!!!!

2nd the whole economic side of a war with the US is a major deterent.

I doubt very much that nowadays your armed citizens comer into play as a major issue to potential invasions


+2 more 
posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff

10) But look at what happened in the UK after guns were taken away



Despite figures saying gun crime was up, death by guns remained largely static and within acceptable statistical variation.



Sooooooooo, you're saying your own gun ban doesn't even work. WTF are you going on about??? And then you go on to state that the gun deaths you do experience are "acceptable"???

I'm done with this ridiculous presentation! The OP can't even organize their thoughts in a rational and cogent way. Sorry OP, you cannot be taken seriously - not even remotely!



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
 


Are you seriously trying to reason with members who have said that 20 executed kids isn't enough for them to support gun control?

Good luck!



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 03:31 PM
link   
#2. We need them to defend ourselves against the Government.

Well, that is what the reasoning says alright....and after a collapse? Maybe. As it stands now? An Armed stand against any form of Government...be it police or military...is suicide on the spot and that very day. It's a quick way to die...tho a pointless one. So, I'll agree here. This isn't a good basis at this moment in time, beyond supporting the 2nd for reasoning and logic (although that's enough, honestly)

#3 It's not just the U.S. that has this problem

Well, That's true actually. We can look at other places for crime rates. Cities like Rio are quite the happening spot if you're a criminal or...a victim. Never a boring night there. To compared more appropriately though we can look at England and the United States. England has knives for it's criminals and the U.S., of course, has guns serving the most preferred weapon choice. . Now the UK is a bit more troublesome about stats than the US so bear with me, but the numbers do show the point well enough.


SIX people a week are stabbed to death on the streets of Broken Britain.
Latest figures show a shocking 332 fatalities in a year — the worst toll since records began.



The latest figures show knife deaths have almost doubled in the last 30 years.
The total is up 58 on two years ago and 80 more than in the last year of Tory rule.
There are also 60 non-fatal knife crimes daily, with 22,000 recorded in the year.
Source

By contrast, in 2011, the U.S had 8,583 homicides by firearm. Gun Crime Stats

To give perspective, the Population of England is roughly 53 million. The U.S. is 330 million. The choice of weapons is different but the criminal mindset and homicidal intent doesn't seem much different.


#4 It's part of our culture / It's a tradition

You kinda laugh at this....and so do I. It's a feel good argument and not a valid one. Screwing Black men at the voting booth with a poll tax was a tradition too....bad ones have to end. So ...agreed on this being a non-point

#5 If guns are banned, only criminals will have guns.

This is true enough. I disagree with your take on stats and the FBI Uniform Crime Report does as well in terms who is killing whom with firearms. However, that isn't the stat that matters most. This one is:


Firearms and firearm ownership
Depending on what statistics you read:
there are 250 - 280 million firearms in the US
40 - 50% of US homes own a firearm, that's 120 - 150 million people
Source

Pardon the source.. Gunpolicy.org is my usual reference but they seem to be having Mysql problems at the moment. Take the lower end of those numbers as what I generally cite with support.

It would take 100 years or more to clear this nation of firearms IF most people cooperated fully. If the majority didn't......and they won't.....it'll take longer, if our nation survives the attempt. I doubt it will any better than the 1860's and for much the same reason. State's Rights aren't a thing taken lightly.....and this is.

#6 (See number 4 - We agree - Bad argument)

#7 (See number 4 - We agree - Bad argument)

#8 I need it to keep my family safe

This is valid enough and we have home invasion robberies with major injuries often enough in my quiet little corner of the Midwest that we always have a weapon within short arms reach when opening the front door here. Not in hand...that's demented...but if that door gets forced open into one of us...we're literally falling back ON TOP of the gun. Errr... That will play out well for a bad guy if our house gets picked some day.

These home invasions, to use this one example, are brazen and exceptionally violent. They often just kick the front door right off the hinges, like the cops will on a raid...and take control of the house and everyone in it, much the same way. I won't recount or even link to it..because it's too damned gruesome...but there was a home invasion robbery there in CT a few years back where the two daughters and mother were brutally raped, (the girls, within view of each other) and then burned alive when the house was burned down to cover evidence. The father managed to crawl out the back door...(He'd been left for dead in the basement) and get help at a neighbors house. I happened to catch direct testimony of the worst parts ...and can't ever forget them. THAT is why I have a gun within reach at the front door and why my family defense is a VERY valid point.


...continued
edit on 17-12-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   
Your trolling and intentionally ignorant on the topic, but ill reply.

First the amendment is only ambigious if it fits your agenda. In reality the two lines are all that is necessary. If it were a big lawn drawn out item then the government could find loophole and leverage. Fortunately for us it is nnot. It is very clear. Our right to these things shall nnot be infringed yet they are veryday. Militias are kept under surveilence and there are constant pushes to disarm the population (much of them resembling your post here, all claiming to counter pro gun arguments, but never succedding).

Here again you sho a lack of actually understanding in the real world. A population could without a doubt overthrow a government such as the US. You are over simplifying as if the lies are drawn and you can see, but in reality your scenario is shallow and ignorant of many things. First if the government ever used their militar y might against the people of the us it would be self defeating and turn the entire population. A civil war is always ann assymetrical war. The government is nothing without the people. You seem to live in a fantasy world where the US can just carpet bomb the public, sorry not a reality. In reality citizens run these miltary installatins so all bets are off. If you can't beat the US with aks then explain afhanistan. And they are a country where the US can bomb civilians and keep it under wraps. Do you think they could do that here? They can't kill off the population, what would be the point?

I've only responded to two of your arguments and shown your complete lack of though on the subject, shall I go on?
edit on 17-12-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by jaynkeel
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
 





Its not that I dont trust people (although most of the people who are for guns on this forum I wouldnt trust with a pair of plastic scissors


And exactly how do you expect respect, you do understand it's earned not given right ? Good luck with statements like that flying around. Just whos ear are you in that you can belittle others here in your thread but others get post banned? Honestly if anyone else has read this far I would take my flag for this thread back and turn around, it won't be long before it's your turn....... Let me let you in on a little secret you cannot possibly know what kind of a person anyone is by how they respond when your making foul statements about their country on an online site.


Care to point out my foul statements about your country


I dont care about peoples respect I do however expect civility, the comment you highlighted above was a generalisation and not directed at any one member, I think most people would have seen it for the tongue in cheek comment it was and maybe even had a smirk yet you get your panties bunched up


You seem to be taking this very personal, all Ive done with this thread is highlight why I think gun ownership is self defeating.

You should read the OP and chill.

I would like to hear your opinions on what I actually wrote as opposed to what you think I may have written



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo
Simply reply: BULLOCKS!

The right to bear arms is protection from tyrannical government. In your OP, you found the notion of tyrannical government laughable. Ends the debate right there - you DON'T KNOW HISTORY or you selectively choose to ignore it in support of your ideals.

Either way, history has demonstrated repeatedly that an unarmed population is one that is forced to succumb to the will of the government - who, ironically, IS armed.

You can pull all of the mental and verbal gymnastics that you like. But any premise contrary to the facts outlined in history is both disingenuous and illogical.


Actually Im a history major

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

A peaceful revolution is the only revolution worth having, if it gets to a stage where its you guys with your hand guns and semi autos VS the military industrial complex your screwed.

Dont let it get that far and you wont need guns.
It seems you all dont mind other liberties being stripped away as long as its not your guns, I just dont get it



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Oh I also noticed you didn't bother with the argument of protecting ourselves from others. The argument you can't even almost make. In instances of natural or man made disaster there are always looters, murders, and rapes. The police lose control and the military are days away and never enough. You deserve the right to protect yourself. Something you couldn't do in that situation, but we can.

You better start looking for answers besides banning guns because in a few years you guys are going to have to deal with guns again.

Or are you just gonna make 3d printers illegal so every nut with a 3d printer doesn't go on a shooting spree. Answer that!
edit on 17-12-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
 

The whole gun control idea bothers me as I hunt for food and not for sport as do many rural Americans, and here in rural Alaska its a way of life. Oh sure you can hunt with a bow as you could drive a horse and buggy, but both are inefficient compared to their modern counterparts. We also are known to carry concealed weapons in Alaska for self defense, but that is not because we fear other Alaskans but rather that we can be included to the diet of bears and wolf pacs, people die every year from animal attacks in Alaska!

As for the military assault rifle that so many like the idea of banning, I will state many hunters use SKS and AK's as cheap alternative to the expensive hunting rifle. (legal to hunt with 5 shot chip or plug), try pricing lever action or semi auto hunting rifles.

Interesting thing is two of the recent shooters are known to have used a Bushmaster AR-15's a very spendy piece of hardware (aprox $1,200 to $1,800) not a Saturday night special to be sure.

I can completely understand the kneejerk reaction to ban guns, but know that a gun can be a very useful tool that can save lives and help feed families!




edit on 17-12-2012 by AlaskanDad because: typos
edit on 17-12-2012 by AlaskanDad because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
 


yeah I read it,

not so much sarcasm, but I tend to really talk like that in real life so I don't know...lol.
edit on 17-12-2012 by zedVSzardoz because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
 





Someone mentioned suicide bombers as proof of this being untrue, suicide bombers are politically or ideologically motivated and usually are not citizens of the country they commit their act in. These shootings are not politically or ideologically motivated and all so far all perpetrators have been American citizens


So, I guess the guy in Arizona shot a senator because she just happened to be there? The guy that shot up an immigration office chose it because it was convenient? Some of these are political, and some are religious. Regardless of either motivation they usually occur because someone is trying to reestablish their power. They feel like someone else has a power over them, or under values them, and they act out. All of these things stem from the same basic origin.

You also forgot to include the article that helps prove it isn't just an American problem. America Number One in Gun Ownership, Number 28 in Gun Murder.




So most gun crimes not committed against good law abiding citizens therefore using gun crime statistics as a reason for wanting a gun for safety is bunk. Im sure it makes you FEEL safer but its not the reality


Actually what you quoted was a response to you saying



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.


If I wanted to address the issue of guns keeping people safe I would have brought some different studies to the table.

60% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed. 40% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed.123
Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms, James Wright and Peter Rossi, Aldine, 1986

A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[20]
"Estimating intruder-related firearm retrievals in U.S. households, 1994." By Robin M. Ikeda and others. Violence and Victims, Winter 1997. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]

Compared to the murder rate for 2000 (according to the FBI Uniform Crime Report) that means guns were used 63.8 times in a defensive manner for every 1 murder of any kind.

Every day 550 rapes, 1,100 murders, and 5,200 other violent crimes are prevented just by showing a gun. In less than 0.9% of these instances is the gun ever actually fired.122
National Crime Victimization Survey, 2000, Bureau of Justice Statistics,

Nice way to twist things up and misrepresent the conversation. Now, I am starting to understand why you got flamed.




In fact, there are a number of sources that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands, with gun thefts at the bottom of the list. Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales. A straw purchase occurs when someone who may not legally acquire a firearm, or who wants to do so anonymously, has a companion buy it on their behalf.


I love how your source implies that if a FFL reports a gun stolen or missing he must have sold it on the black market. Also if they sold a gun and it was used in a crime with in two years it must have been a straw purchase, which the FFL allowed. That is a lot of accusations with actually no proof behind their claim.

From your source



However a key finding is that "the illegal market is the most likely source" for these people to obtain a gun. "In fact, more than half the arrestees say it is easy to obtain guns illegally," the report states. Responding to a question of how they obtained their most recent handgun, the arrestees answered as follows: 56% said they paid cash;


According to Victimization During Household Burglary, Bureau of Justice Statistics, September 2010 over 100,000 guns are stolen in home robberies every year. Could this not be a bigger market than the 23,775 guns reported stolen or lost from FFLs in 18 years? The criminal may not have stolen it directly, but chances are the person he bought it from probably did according to Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Gary Kleck, Aldine de Gruyter, 1997.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
 


Good points. How about the current economic path that the US has been taking? That coupled with the impending World War, IE Syria,Iran ,Turkey, UK, Russia, US, and the Chinese, Japanese regional war that's about to break out?

If that scenario plays out like i think, and i hope it doesn't....it would spiral the world economy over the tipping point that we are so precariously balanced ATM.

That could cause total chaos as starving, unemployed, homeless people across the us start looting and pillaging to stay alive, stay warm, and safe. We will need to protect ourselves from out own Countrymen.

Its not like people are going to be able to get over their animistic needs such as eating drinking and so fourth.

I think you didn't take into account multi frontal issues like the one i listed above.
You cant tell me that the USA as a whole nation isn't susceptible to situations such as this when we rely so heavily on imports and the foreign economies that are linked to our crooked Federal Reserve system.
Remember that the money is only as good as its backing, and we don't have much to back our fiat currency.
edit on 17-12-2012 by shaneslaughta because: grammar



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   

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

2) We need them to defend ourselves against the government



Once again the US has the best military in the world, what exactly is an AK or even grenade launcher let alone handgun going to do against an army of tanks, helicopters and drones except make you and your family a target?
Your military consists of American citizens, how many of your troops would be willing to fire on fellow citizens?
If it ever came to the Gov fighting the people I think they would pull out all the stops, even if you went to ground in the forests or mountains somewhere, they have satellites that can read the writing on a small coin with heat sensing capabilities. How long do you think you will last?
In this day and age the most successful form of rebellion is a peaceful one, look at Egypt or as a better example India, both of these countries achieved a change of government without violence, why can Americans not consider doing the same if it ever came to that?



This argument has been around every since the revolutionary war when many people wondered if a crapily armed and trained american army could ever prevail against the british empire. In modern times it's has evolved into "how can a rifle take out planes/tanks/missles ect". The modern version is one that i used to believe but modern military history has demonstrated multiple times that its actually hard to supress even small populations who are determined to fight back and get weapons.

There is a huge NATO coalition in Afghanistan which is approximately the size of california and over a decade later they are still struggling to keep the taliban from getting weapons and fighting professional nato forces. Before us, the soviet union tried and failed. If the combined might of NATO can't completely disarm malnurished afghani's, its a bit of a stretch to assume the United States alone could do it to a country WAY bigger that afghanistan.

The united states civilian populace if far more saturated in weapons than afghanistan was. There are approximately 90 guns per 100 people here. Even if only 0.5% of those weapons escaped confiscation, that is still millions of people who would fight back.

The assumption that a populace will hand in weapons and be easily domesticated has led to massive military failures and its not something the elites of this world ever seem to learn from.






top topics



 
29
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join