Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Gun Control is not the answer!

page: 1
2

log in

join

posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 10:56 AM
link   
It's estimated there are 270,000,000 firearms held by private citizens in the US
Our military claims to have some 3,054,553
Law enforcement have 897,400

that's a lot of damn guns right?



In the United States, annual firearm homicides total

2009: 9,1467
2008: 9,48410 7
2007: 10,129
2006: 10,225
2005: 10,158
2004: 9,385
2003: 9,6597
2002: 9,36911
2001: 8,890
1999: 8,2596
1998: 9,257


That my friends is a tiny fraction compared to the 270,000,000 total number. let's also take note that while our population has grown the number of gun related homacides has remained pretty steady, even dropping in the last few years.

Compared to the total

In the United States, annual homicides by any means total

2010: 14,1595
2009: 15,241
2008: 16,272
2007: 16,929
2006: 17,030
2005: 16,740
2004: 16,148
2003: 16,528
2002: 16,229
2001: 16,037
2000: 15,586
1999: 12,6586 7
1998: 14,276
1997: 18,2088 7
1996: 19,645
1995: 21,606


Firearm related deaths are a fraction of the total number. so it would seem firearms are not the murders weapon of choice after all, imagine that?

Another fact

In the United States, annual suicides by any means total

2005: 32,55913
2001: 29,89814


is a much bigger problem then is gun related deaths, but no one ever talks about that?

Still lets say you did stop all new guns sales. we still have 270,000,000 guns out there. say you asked people to turn their guns in? how many would really do it 60% 50% my guess is it would be more like 15%
but lets just say you got half 50% would still leave 135,000,000 firearms out there. that still leaves both the military and cops out gunned by a very large percent.

Given the numbers above you might drop our nations homicide rate by a small percent, I say small because it's already a given that most homicides are not gun related.

So what does all this mean?
Simply put firearms are not the cause of all our woes. Better education, Better job opportunities, heath care
esp mental health care. These would do far more good that another silly gun control law that will do nothing to slow down the bad guys in their endeavor to cause harm.

Gun Control is not the answer! Better to focus on the underlying problems and not the media sensationalized crap that distracts from the real issues.

Now that I've said my peace I'll get off for a while and take out my frustration in a more productive manner like starting a tickle fight with my daughters
edit on 18-12-2012 by MajorMayhem because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 11:15 AM
link   
As somebody who has had a person close to them killed on purpose by a firearm that was in the house, I could easily say, "We need to control guns by taking them away from everybody so that we're all safe".....but that is not how I feel. I've even known a few that tried to blow their brains out, and one young man who's friend accidentally shot him dead while they were playing with guns.

I'm so tired of our society trying to put out serious fires by attacking the symptoms and not the disease.

Instead of all the idiotic blathering on Capitol Hill about restricting guns, I think a more appropriate discussion would be about expanding our mental health care system, and making it easier for a disturbed person to seek and get help.

Disarming the population is not the way to go. Assisting people in getting help if they find themselves going off the edge, is.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by FissionSurplus
 


Amen, at last a voice of reason

I'm so tired of our society trying to put out serious fires by attacking the symptoms and not the disease.

Instead of all the idiotic blathering on Capitol Hill about restricting guns, I think a more appropriate discussion would be about expanding our mental health care system, and making it easier for a disturbed person to seek and get help.

Disarming the population is not the way to go. Assisting people in getting help if they find themselves going off the edge, is.


let me know when you decides to run for the Senate and I'll vote for you.
Lord knows we need people who can see threw the fog and think with clearity
edit on 18-12-2012 by MajorMayhem because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 11:32 AM
link   
It's amazing how many people want to ban guns after this tragedy.
Do they really think they can trust the govt. to protect them?

How do they not see what the media is doing? All the propaganda and lies.

Just when you thought people were dumb after one of the worst elections in US history, more of their idiocy spills out over this.

If they don't want their second amendment right, they can go to Mexico. Simple as that. They can see what gun laws do firsthand.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by MajorMayhem
 


LOL, run for senate. I would be the most unpopular female senator in the history of this country. I say what I think and I don't give a rat's behind if it is politically correct or not.

I grew up with loaded guns in my parent's nightstands, rifles behind the door, etc. I feared and respected their power, never touched them, never wanted to.

Guns, like knives, fire, gas, etc., are what I term a "necessary evil". They are a two-edged sword.

People could just as easily do damage with other weapons. Say we took away all the guns, so that people would feel "safe". How easy would it be to slaughter a bunch of innocents in other ways? Very easy. I will not list them here because this is a monitored site, but it's not too hard to imagine many ways to cause collateral damage.

My point is, the people who would think up ways to hurt a lot of other people NEED HELP, and chances are, they tried to get help, or have even been hospitalized previously. Why are they released and off the radar?

I worked in a mental health clinic for years. It took WEEKS for severely disturbed people to see the shrink. Parents would call in a frenzy, and all I could tell them was, "the doctor can see your son / daughter in three weeks"...I would then tell them that their best bet would be to try and get their child / loved one to the emergency room, to be held for a 72 hour period to assess them. How many mentally ill people want to be basically jailed for three days, and will go willingly into such a trap?

The only way for the police to get involved is if the person was acting absolutely crazy and was an overt danger to themselves or others. Mentally ill people are often smart enough to dupe the cops, they can keep it under control until the cops leave. Only people in a full-blown psychotic episode can't talk their way out of being taken to the psych ward. Mentally ill people also are smart enough to try and hide their symptoms and dangerous fantasies from their family too. Not always, but often enough.

Fix the mental health system, and leave the constitution alone.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by MajorMayhem
Still lets say you did stop all new guns sales. we still have 270,000,000 guns out there. say you asked people to turn their guns in? how many would really do it 60% 50% my guess is it would be more like 15%
but lets just say you got half 50% would still leave 135,000,000 firearms out there. that still leaves both the military and cops out gunned by a very large percent.
I agree with your conclusion, but you may be missing a point here. Those turning in their guns will be law-obedient citizens, who are not likely to be plotting any criminal activity with those guns anyway. So even if 99% of firearms are taken away, the remaining 1% will most probably remain in the hands of those who gonna use them one way or another. These 2700000 guns is still too big a figure and can eventually produce the same number of gun related crimes.
edit on 18-12-2012 by mrkeen because: minor edit



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 12:15 PM
link   
How are mentally disturbed young men being identified and set up to be the patsy in domestic covert actions designed for 'problem-reaction-solution' programming of lawmakers and the general public in order to further the 'New World Order' agenda?

Early reports from Sandy Hook mentioned two or multiple shooters involved. This was reduced to one 'lone nut' as was the case in Aurora and many, many cases going all the way back to the original 'lone nut' in modern history: Lee Harvey Oswald.

Covert actions are usually set up in ways that one 'lone nut' (who fits the profile) is blamed and then it's an open and quickly shut case, case closed. This m.o. has been done successfully for years, RFK hit, MLK hit, mass shootings, John Lennon hit, you name it. As soon as lawmakers and the public are satisfied that the 'lone nut' in the media did it all by his lonesome, the secret agenda moves forward. Even in the case of 9/11, Osama bin Laden emerged quickly as the media's 'lone nut' just as Saddam Hussein had been the 'lone nut' who gave the USA 'no choice' but to invade Iraq and in so doing make the military-industrial complex and defense contractors much wealthier in the process.

I don't have any evidence that Sandy Hook was a covert op. But I do not rule it out, seeing as there is now such a big push to ban at least some types of firearms.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 12:28 PM
link   
Good post. And I concur. There are too many guns to expect a halt in sales to make a real difference and confiscation would likely end differently here than in Great Britain or Australia. We need thorough background checks on gun purchases (a necessary infringement); gun owners need to be held accountable for their weapons not just encouraged to keep them locked up; and obviously we need to revamp the mental health system in this country. The "snake pit" mental health hospitals of the 1920s-40s lead to them being shut down and replaced by psychotropic drugs which have homicidal and suicidal tendencies as a "side effect"....that is not good enough. We have to keep these people (who are literally "loaded guns" if not "ticking time bombs") off the streets (where have I hear "off the streets before?).
edit on 18-12-2012 by CosmicCitizen because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 12:46 PM
link   
I disagree. Gun control is the perfect answer.

The perfect answer to disarming the public, the real reason behind this. That's that the UN wants.

The whole "protecting us from gun crime" is a red herring. You can't have a one world tyranny without getting rid of private gun ownership first.

"They" know that assault the weapons ban was in effect when Columbine happened. They know it doesn't work. They don't care. They just want you disarmed.

It's not for your safety.

It's for THEIRS.
edit on 18-12-2012 by davjan4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 12:49 PM
link   
i would support gun control only if all guns were controlled, police , military and so on. I would think that there are far less doctors and pharm reps than there are firearms , so why dont we control them instead? is it because the pharm lobbyist drop a lot more cash in d.c.?



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by davjan4
 

THE COMPLETE AND TOTAL CIVILIAN DISARMAMENT IS THE SUB-GOAL;
A "MEANS TO AN END" TO THE ULTIMATE GOAL: GLOBAL GOVERNMENT.

edit on 18-12-2012 by CosmicCitizen because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join