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: 6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 05:52 PM
reply to post by zedVSzardoz

your post is representative of the ignorance surrounding Americans and our gun laws, It is also why you will never understand. Many if not all of my friends are well read, educated and damn fine human beings, and have guns. Responsible citizens and do well socially and economically. They practice every now and again. They dont entertain themselves with their guns. Its not play time. It is something serious to them.

His post represents what sort of people are able to access guns in your country.

Nothing short of terrifying

posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 05:58 PM
reply to post by kozmo

So again, the gun ban DID NOT WORK by your own admission. Argument over. OP claims invalidated. Notwithstanding the cultural, Constitutional and divine protection from tyranny that drive the NEED for a free people to possess the right to protect and preserve said freedom. Thanks.

I dont think you understand, there wasnt a real issue to begin with.
The gun bans in Australia and the UK came after massacres but the vast majority of the population was never armed and neither country really had an issue with gun violence to begin with.
The ban was about taking the guns out of circulation so they didnt eventually get into the wrong hands.

Nothing is invalidated

So protecting your freedoms are you, lucky you all have guns or the government could do things like detain you indefinately without cause, tap and track all of your communications, restrict your movements.
Yes lucky you have your guns.... Oh hang on

posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 06:09 PM
I'm not going to debate the any of your points with you because I learned long ago that arguing over the 2nd Amendment never gets anyone anywhere. It is a passionate subject for most and most will never change their mind no matter how much debate they endulge themselves in. I will just simply say that I am a supporter of it.

I did want to address one statement you made which stuck out when I read it.

Guns make killing easy and impersonal, you can stand across a room pull out a gun and BANG someones dead.

If a person is a sociopath then maybe this is true. But for your average person killing with a firearm is extremely personal. And there is nothing easy about it. Wether it is from 10 yards or 1000, killing a human being with a firearm is a personal thing.
edit on 17/12/12 by usmc0311 because: added material

posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 06:16 PM

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff

Good rebuttal to that point

So is that your personal reason for owning a gun? so that you can fight the Government when the time comes?

I just read that and realised it sounds a bit snarky, not intended that way and Im genuinely curious

It doesn't seem snarky but it does sound like an attempt by someone loosing an argument to attack the debater instead of participating in the debate itself.

I have no intention of going with a political group and bullhorning whatever message they happen to have. I do however support the rights of people to be verbally annoying because it also inadvertently helps protect my freedom of speech. I once went to wasington d.c., and some random guy was passing out papers and protesting some sort of circumcision conspiracy. If we as a society are tolerent of that free speech, then i have less reason to suspect my freedom of speech on internet forums will be limited.

Since you seem to either be unaware or willing to acknowledge major historical events, i seriously doubt you will understand my reasons for owning a gun. You would either refuse to believe it or ignore it entirely. If you want to know, i suggest trying to free range livestock in a rural area with high population of natural predators.

posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 06:18 PM
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff

And right after I mentioned our culture I posted a quote from a study on gun and violence in the USA. I see you totally ignored that part for the sake of a straw-man argument.

I will post this from the conclusion of a study on guns and violence:

Gun control is a very minor, though not entirely irrelevant, part of the solution to the violence problem, just as guns are of only very minor significance as a cause of the problem. The U.S. has more violence than other nations for reasons unrelated to its extraordinarily high gun ownership. Fixating on guns seems to be, for many people, a fetish which allows them to ignore the more intransigent causes of American violence, including its dying cities, inequality, deteriorating family structure, and the all- pervasive economic and social consequences of a history of slavery and racism.
Credit: Gary Kleck
Guns and Violence: A Summary of the Field

Please re-read this:
Gun control is a very minor, though not entirely irrelevant, part of the solution to the violence problem, just as guns are of only very minor significance as a cause of the problem.

There are issues that are the cause of violence in this country that need to be addressed. Just taking the guns away will not solve those problems. In fact, that kind of heavy handedness from the government could make things worse.

Honesty I don't think you are willing to see any other side to this issue rather than "I hate guns", there for Americans should not have them. To you it doesn't matter why we own guns or why guns are used in violent crimes. You just hate them, so you stand your ground, find your contradictions, and scream against all other reason.

(And I hope you do realize you are advocating a World Order. If "we" do not have/need guns, why should "they".)

posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 06:21 PM
reply to post by foodstamp

Hey Foodstamp,

Thanks for taking the time

* I do understand your point of view that it would appear to relate to a militia specifically, however. Militia's ARE the citizenry. Therefore the citizenry must be armed. Weither or not the militia is organized by the State or the citizenry itself is irrelevant. Not too mention, the PROPER understand of this ammendment has been repeated over and over again in just about ALL our state constitutions. A topic that you do not bring up.

I was not aware of this, thank you

I still feel its a product of it times however

This comment by you is nieve at best. Many many MANY nations that have installed total gun bans have eventually lead to the stAtes turning around and using guns against it's citizenry. Usually during protest or the like. Not too mention, you will find that the countries that exist today that have total gun bans are also amongst the countries with the worst human rights violations in history.

Australia, England, Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, India as well as many others all have what amounts to gun bans.
Its not just tyranical dictatorships that ban guns

Imaging 250,000 armed citizens surrounding the White House and hopefully you'll get the picture.

Why do they need to be armed?
That just makes you a target and justifiably so, do it without weapons and the government cant just say your rebels or loons and attack its forced to deal with you.
People love to bring up armed resistance but what about Gandhi and Satyaghara?
Quite possibly the most successful revolution in history and it was done by simply being a pain in the ass of the British LOL

Your argument here has NO bearing on the gun issue. In fact you reinforce what gun "lobbyists" have been saying for decades. There are many crazies here that do "crazy" stuff. and the citizenry must defend themselves and there communities. The guns didn't cause the problem. The crazy man did. And many of the same countries you speak also have gun laws that aren't as strict yet the prblem with mass shottings is non-existant. That should tell you something. Guns in a free society are not the issue. The people IN the society are the issue. Which is why you see tragedy's happen in the US but not in,say, Sweden for example, where every citizen is ISSUED an AK-47 by it's own government when they come of age.

Yes but they are defending themselves from people with guns way too frequently and how these people got the weapons is an issue, all the illegal weapons in your country were once legal.

And yes all Swiss men between 20 and 30 have a military issued rifle in their homes, but this is a mute point as they dont have any ammo for them!!! You never hear that when people talk about every Swiss home having a gun.

You bring up a valid point that tradition does not make something "correct" I agree. However. Guns are tradition not just because they happen to be "tradition". They are tradition because they've been around as long as we've had a constitution and before!

What youve just said is pretty much the definition of a tradition LOL

That's why we have the nation we do today! You may not see guns as being "right". But judging by history and mans lust for power and money, I'd say you have your head WAY up your own butt.

It was all going so well till the end
Im just gonna pretend you didnt respond to the tradition part

posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 06:24 PM
reply to post by MikeNice81

His point is that nothing changed in any positive way, so it didn't work as intended.

It was intended to stop gun massacres and as neither has experienced a massacre since the ban it can actually be considered a total and unequivocal success

posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 06:27 PM
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff

You're terrified by responsible gun use? Your OP just lost the majority of it's credibility with that statement in my eyes.
edit on 17-12-2012 by GrimReaper86 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 06:28 PM
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff

Sorry but Im not familiar with the other shooting but I don't see how this helps your argument

The other shooting was a direct result of a person trying to make a political statement. It shows that you make blanket statements without doing complete research.

Ive seen that article but didnt include it because its bogus, its not total deaths or deaths per capita its total deaths per gun owner. That article is an example of using and manipulating stats to suit your agenda. Of course in a country with 100 million gun owners your going to be low on that list.

Actually if you click on the heading "Homicide by firearm rate per 100,000 pop" you will see that the US is truly number 28 based on per capita. It is not gun deaths per gun owner. Sorry, but you obviously didn't even take the time to actually review the graphed out information provided.

We have a way to go, but even you admitted that the ban in the UK didn't accomplish anything.

Glad you brought this up, if you check the data from this survey its actually extrapolated from a phone survey of 2000 people.

You do understand that is how many surveys are conducted. Many academic studies use phone surveys. How about some citations showing that phone surveys are not acceptable for research purposes.

Abraham J. Wyner, Wharton professor of statistics, notes that "while the value of a good answer is worth the cost to get it," it's becoming more expensive to do a proper poll at a time when "the population is indifferent." For instance, telephone polls are considered among the most reliable when it comes to following statistical models and obtaining a scientific random sampling. "But in the era of Caller ID, many people choose not to answer their phones if they see an out-of-area number on their machines."

Polling The Polling Experts It would seem the professionals disagree that phone surveys are unreliable.

Once again these figures are taken from surveys and are not even close to being accurate, where are the police reports for all these attempted rapes and murders? They dont exist because its not even close to being a reality

Why are they not accurate? Surveys have been the accepted model for social research since the Victorian era. All of a sudden they are made up and meaningless?

Many people don't report a crime if it isn't completed. One of the main reasons is that the police can't really do much in most cases. Unless you have an identification or hard evidence that can be followed up on the chances of catching a criminal are small. Many people feel that it isn't worth the headache or time when there is little chance of resolution. Other reasons could include, not wanting to risk retribution, not wanting to implicate a family member, or any number of other things.

Unless someone somewhere has an Illegal production line producing perfect glocks and AKs all guns in the US that are illegal were once upon a time legal. Thats a fact

Actually they do.

Chinese police destroyed 113 illegal gun factories and shops in a three-month crackdown in 2006. Police seized 2,445 tons of explosives, 4.81 million detonators and 117,000 guns.40
40 China Radio International Online, September 7, 2006.

How does this support your stand that guns should be readily available to law abiding citizens

It wasn't to help my argument. It was to show that your source had intentionally slanted how they present information to attack FFL dealers. That is a common thing with the BATFE. They directed FFL dealers in border states to allow known gun smugglers to buy guns. Then when news of a Border Agent's murder came out they tried to blame the FFLs that they ordered to allow the purchases. That was the beginning of the Fast and Furious scandal. The BATFE was also forced to back track on several statements they made in front of congress regarding American guns found in Mexico and straw purchases. The BATFE has engaged in a companion of systematic deception for years to justify budget expansions and increased investigative powers. IT got so bad that current and former ATF agents opened up their own forum to discuss the issues.

posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 06:31 PM

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff

You are wrong, and you aren't thoroghly answering, don't quote bits of my text just answer me.
You don't disagree that people can overthrow a government,but you don't agree they can do it with guns? You should fail history! Others have shown you multiple real world instances of this. How dim can you be? So you think they will do it with what? Their words lol? Sorry, out of fantasy and into reality. They do it and always have down it with guns. Before guns swords, and so on.


Ill address this again then

Technology has changed, previously any advantage that was there in terms of numbers, technology, or training was countered by knowing the terrain, being able to disrupt supply lines and being able to effectively blend into your surroundings and hide out.

With satellites and drones this is no longer the case.

There have been many instances of countries overthrowing regimes via peaceful means, India got rid of the British as did Australia without a shot being fired.
The Egyptian revolution last year is another example.

It can and has happened and whether you like it or not if you go to war against the military industrial complex of the USA your dead!!!!

It will be a Lion VS a mouse, the only chance the mouse has is too stay out of sight.
Dont let it get to that stage

posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 06:32 PM
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff

It did not curb gun violence though. Gun violence actually went up. So, at best they stopped aberrant behavior, but increased victimization of innocent people. I'm sorry, but that doesn't equal a success. That equals making people feel warm and fuzzy.

All it did was spread the suffering out.

posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 06:35 PM
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff

You are soooo wrong here.

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?

If 100 million people have guns, there's no way 1 million people(and our army isn't even that big) would be able to control them all.
It is a HUGE deterrent to a fascist dictatorship. It's a numbers game, and we vastly outnumber them.

All the government would have to do is tell the troops they are shooting terrorists, and they would fire away, no questions asked. Soldiers are trained to be subservient and not to question their leadership.

you mention the Egypt rebellion, but that did involve violence.
You need to study history better. British withdrew from India, not because of the rebellions, but because their empire was waning. They didn't have the resources to stay in India.

and look at Syria....can you imagine the state of their rebellion if the rebels didn't have guns?

You list deaths due to gun violence...we're half the number of the third place person....and our population is MUCH bigger, about 5 times as big. That should tell you something.
edit on 17-12-2012 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 06:35 PM

1) Its in our constitution

Yes it is. It is the first thing after the freedom of speech. That is how important it is. I wonder what they would go after next once we are all disarmed.

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?

Well why dont our enemies follow this logic and just lay down their guns and surrender? Why would anybody else have a gun besides the US military, even other millitaries? And really if anybody is going to defeat the US military it would be the US citizens. We can and do buy other cool things like night vision googles, body armor, and other military surplus stuff. Plus taking out the places where they fly the drones from would be a lot easier for us since we are here. Millions of people here have been trained by our military.

5) If guns are banned then only criminals will have guns
This was posted in the other thread, somehow the person who posted felt this supported the argument for guns being legal

This IS an argument for legalization. Your stats say guns tend to be used by criminals. I can and should be able to defend myself equally should one of them endanger me or my family. These criminals will always have guns. If the guns are unregistered(literally millions) then there is no way to consfiscate them without searching every single house top to bottom. Are you gonna do this across the whole United States? It would feel a lot like being a citizen of Iraq or Afghanistan. Crimes of passion will be commited without access to guns. Mentally ill people are not supposed to have guns.

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

Wrong. It takes the ability away from law-abiding citizens to get guns. It is already hard for a criminal to buy a gun. Their only option is the black market, which would probably grow if guns are banned.

6) Then why not ban knives, cars, alcohol etc etc they kill people too!!!
Guns and swords serve only 1 purpose, to kill!!!
7) Guns dont kill people, people kill people
Guns make killing easy and impersonal, you can stand across a room pull out a gun and BANG someones dead.

Not all guns are designed to kill people. There are many guns and ammunition that would do that poorly. If the sole purpose is to kill as many people as possible than a bomb or airplane has proven more effective. I can tell that you have never been hunting before. Its hard not to feel something when you stare down your sights at your target, even when its an animal. Unless you are a sociopath.

8) I need it to keep my family safe
Everyone the world over worries about their families safety and security but most of us do just fine without a gun.

I take it you live in a relatively low crime area. There are places in many cities in this country that even the police won't go at night. Good luck getting all of the guns out of these neighborhoods.

10) But look at what happened in the UK after guns were taken away
Even if you have a gun on you if someone pulls a gun on you and demands your wallet, phone etc etc would you really risk your life trying to pull it out? No possesions are worth dying for!!!!

No possession is worth dieing for, but apparently it is worth killing for. Obviously you wouldnt pull it out in that situation but maybe somebody else carrying sees the situation and while the criminal is focused on you maybe he gets a round in his ear from somebody else.

11) Look at how little crime there is in Kennesaw where guns are mandatory

I doubt people want guns mandatory other than gun makers. Not everybody is competent enough to carry a gun for one reason or another. If I didn't feel comfortable with one I would either educate myself about guns or not own one.

13) Most gun crimes happen in gun free zones

If mass shootings tend to happen in gun free zones than it should be obvious that the mass shooters are picking their targets. You probably wouldn't get too far going down to the gun range and trying it. A person in the Colorado theatre pointed a pistol at the mass shooter. The shooter then ran out of the theatre room like a chicken shiit and killed himself. Who knows how many lives that saved.

14) America isn’t the worst by far when it comes to gun deaths
when adjusted to a per capita rate the US is 12th with 9 gun deaths a year per 100,000 people.

The US has the highest guns per citizen ratio in the world by a wide margin, yet less than 1 in 10,000 people die from a gun every year. That includes all the gang related and passion murders. Unfortunately liberty is not free.

posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 06:41 PM
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff

I got a question for you. Who makes up a Militia? Regular citizens correct?

Now how do you say that Regular people should not have firearms?

I am giving you this one chance,although I suspect you will just troll me.Please do prove my expectations on that wrong.

posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 06:41 PM
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff

Good Sir, your first point was all the further I needed to go. What is a militia made up of.....PEOPLE! "The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". Now which part of it did you not understand?

posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 06:47 PM
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff

(1)I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.”
- Thomas Jefferson

The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
- Samuel Adams

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.”
- James Madison

A government resting on the minority is an aristocracy, not a Republic, and could not be safe with a numerical and physical force against it, without a standing army, an enslaved press and a disarmed populace.”
- James Madison

Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms.”
- James Madison

That rifle on the wall of the labourer’s cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.”
- George Orwell

posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 07:08 PM
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

OK my long eared friend lets see what you got for me

In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self- defense within the home. The Court based its holding on the text of the Second Amendment, as well as applicable language in state constitutions adopted soon after the Second Amendment.

Its a shame we cant go back and ask what they really meant, I find the punctuation odd. Why between militia and citizen is there a comma instead of a full stop, why doesnt it say militia AND free people. to me it seems like free people was clarifying the militia part

Regardless I feel it was a product of its times, you had the English, Indians and wildlife to contend with, nowadays its just fellow citizens. I cant help but feel your founding fathers would be upset that this is what its come to.

Well, that is what the reasoning says alright....and after a collapse? Maybe. As it stands now? An Armed stand against any form of it police or suicide on the spot and that very day. It's a quick way to die...tho a pointless one. So, I'll agree here.


Did you, a gun nut just agree with something I said

*Pinches self* Ok I am awake and not dreaming not sure what to say, I definately wasnt expecting any agreement. Star for that alone
P.s No one get bunched panties, was only kidding about the gun nut line and Im sure Wrabbit is smiling

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.

You know what if I had a family to protect and everyone else had guns maybe Id feel the same.
But again this comes back to the catch 22 of wanting a gun coz your scared of people with guns.
Its a vicious circle

Well, agreed here and on both counts. They aren't and we do. If we care to see where Mental Health in this nation failed and where to look for a place to work back to, it would be 1981/82. One of Reagan's opening moves as President was the dismantling of one of the better Mental Health systems in the world. As much as I love Reagan as a President? What he did wrong he did VERY VERY wrong. He was a man with little for half way...including good and bad action.

Nothing to rebut here

Moving on

In this case though, as you would agree I'm sure, we aren't the UK. What happened in the UK is no more relevant to argue for or against our gun laws than a reverse argument would be for opening gun laws in England. We have no business there..and they have no business here ...beyond personal opinions to toss into the mix, of course.

Totally agree

These are statements normally thrown around by the pro gun group, Im just responding to their arguments.

Hmmm... I've never used this as an example and never plan to. One location went a little bonkers and got a little stupid about writing new regulations for their town. The fact it worked out for them is nice....but I still wouldn't want to live there. There are gun owners and then there are gun obsessed owners. Woe be the person who doesn't recognize the difference soon enough, IMO.

LOL Glad to hear a gun advocate acknowledge this

By the way, for perspective, in Missouri there were 590,499 permits issued for firearm hunting season on Deer. In the 2012 hunting season, over 59,000 deer were taken during the hunt.

As an animal lover this just makes me sad

I wish this was possibility

Once again hunting to survive or killing pests is one thing but for sport

14 and 15 once again nothing to rebut

From what youve written, you as a gun owner does not disturb me but you still werent able to really give me any good reasons to believe guns shouldnt be banned.
In fact the only reason it seems they shouldnt be taken is because people who have them would start using them so people didnt take them away

It all just seems like a big mess to me

Were on opposite sides of the fence but it feels like a very low fence

Thanks for your input dude


posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 07:19 PM

Originally posted by kozmo
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff

I see that since I have thoroughly debunked the premise of your OP and have, in fact, schooled you that you have elected to ignore me and my responses. Very well. I will graciously accept that as a sign of your surrender and admission that the entire premise of this thread is thoroughly DEBUNKED.

I believe it would be appropriate to place this in the "DEBUNKED" forum... or, at the very least the "SCHOOLED" forum. Sadly we don't have those.

Sorry if I took awhile to get around to you but as you can see theres alot to get through.

You didnt debunk or school anything

try again

posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 07:20 PM
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff

As a proponent of gun control can you point to a single instance in America whereby gun control actually worked? Chicago, New York, D.C., California perhaps?

A lot of the "just turn 'em in crowd" are from european countries with a long established history of civilian disarment. I'll let other people debate whether it worked, but my question is where has gun control worked in America?

Geographically, America has a significant area of borders and frankly from a logistical view, its far easier to stop contra band at most european borders than it is in america. Does anyone have any proof that illegal items can't easily flood across our southern borders? Even if every gun was insta banned, their isn't any reason not to assume that cheaper weapons wouldn't flood into the country from central and south america to fill a newly created black market. Like the drug culture, it may turn out that illegal importation will always surpass government confiscation.

It may seem odd if you come from a position of self declared cultural superiority, but there are some traditions from western europe that simply will never work in america.

posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 07:21 PM

Originally posted by shaneslaughta
i still haven't had my post addressed.

Sorry trying to go through 1 at a time

Did I get around to that 1?
Ive responded to so many I forget which ones now LOL

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in