It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by detachedindividual
Originally posted by NavyDoc
If gun bans made you safer, shouldn't your murder rate been much higher in the 1940's to 1950's when there were no such bans?
No, you're trying to prove a negative. That's not reasonable in the slightest.
Also, this about culture and environment. There are several countries where things are not criminalized, because there is no need to criminalize them.
You're suggesting that because there is no law to criminalize something it must be pandemic. That's a nonsense.
we already are ... see any incidents per decade of the 19th century vs the 20th (post gun control) ... or are you gonna excuse the obvious with ... but, but, there's more ppl now ?
You cannot be any worse off with these guns being controlled
Originally posted by Phoenix
Originally posted by DaTroof
So these people NEED guns because it's in the Constitution. It's law, right?
So if a law gets passed banning guns, they should fork them over as law abiding citizens. If they don't, they are now criminals in possession of deadly weapons.
So it's not really about the Constitution at all, it's about fear.
It is well documented that our "rights" as defined by our founders and written into the constitution were "god given" or 'naturally in existence" and therefore cannot be taken away by rule of law or man. It is this same belief that led them to believe the people should always have the ability to throw off tyranny by arms, in fact they said it is a duty of a free people.
edit on 21-12-2012 by Phoenix because: quote link
Originally posted by NavyDoc
Originally posted by detachedindividual
Originally posted by NavyDoc
If gun bans made you safer, shouldn't your murder rate been much higher in the 1940's to 1950's when there were no such bans?
No, you're trying to prove a negative. That's not reasonable in the slightest.
Also, this about culture and environment. There are several countries where things are not criminalized, because there is no need to criminalize them.
You're suggesting that because there is no law to criminalize something it must be pandemic. That's a nonsense.
I'm not trying to prove a negative (you should really look up what that means). Your nonsense is that gun control makes you safer. An Australian Citizen was statistically much safer before gun control than after. You divert, saying that it is about culture and environment, which actually comes around to our original premise that it is culture and environment that cause murders, deaths, assaults, not private ownership of guns. You can't use one excuse to support your premise and then discard it when it does not.
Originally posted by detachedindividual
So I go back to my previous point. If you think you stand a chance with little guns against tanks, drones, an intel agency, hundreds of thousands of military, fighter jets, and you want to be able to "fight back" and a strange "David and Goliath" way, why not at least make a compromise and keep your arms in the hands of organized and regulated militia at the state level?
If you REALLY think that your right to have guns is about defending yourself against a government, why do you need them all in your homes? Why can't they be securely stored in a regional bunker, able to be used at leisure in designated areas where controls keep the general public safe from their potential destruction and carnage?
You're saying on one hand that your imagined revolution would be supported by the masses, so why not implement and make use of designated areas controlled by those same masses and keep them out of your homes?
Originally posted by detachedindividual
Originally posted by NavyDoc
Originally posted by detachedindividual
Originally posted by NavyDoc
If gun bans made you safer, shouldn't your murder rate been much higher in the 1940's to 1950's when there were no such bans?
No, you're trying to prove a negative. That's not reasonable in the slightest.
Also, this about culture and environment. There are several countries where things are not criminalized, because there is no need to criminalize them.
You're suggesting that because there is no law to criminalize something it must be pandemic. That's a nonsense.
I'm not trying to prove a negative (you should really look up what that means). Your nonsense is that gun control makes you safer. An Australian Citizen was statistically much safer before gun control than after. You divert, saying that it is about culture and environment, which actually comes around to our original premise that it is culture and environment that cause murders, deaths, assaults, not private ownership of guns. You can't use one excuse to support your premise and then discard it when it does not.
No, the statistics show that gun related crime in Australia has FALLEN, therefore they ARE SAFER than they were before the law was changed.
The facts are out there for people to read for themselves.
You cannot simply lie and say that Australians are at more risk now because of a gun ban, when the statistics show that this is not the case at all.
You can't just make up facts to suit your argument. Australians are SAFER now, because there are FEWER guns able to be used in gun related crime.
I'm not going to post the real and current statistics again, because you're all just ignoring them, just a ATS members ignore the truth, evidence and facts in every other discussion when it affects their belief or delusion.
been there, done that, 2010 and only needed one bullet, what's your point ?
Right, because you need a weapon capable of shooting a hundred rounds in the blink of an eye against an invader.
twice this past week in my city, how's yours ?
Tell me, how many criminals enter homes with assault rifles?
not that i've researched as they are not different, like many are trying to make them out to be.
Are there any statistics to show the crimes committed with types of weapon used?
what more powerful weapons ??
I'll bet that these more powerful weapons are proven NOT to be used in random crime, and are more commonly used in mass murder.
Originally posted by detachedindividual
Okay, I'm done with this debate.
I've made my point, some will refuse common sense and logic, and some will even refuse EVIDENCE and STATISTICAL DATA in order to justify their little fantasy world.
Over the last week my estimation of the people of ATS has declined significantly. Belief and delusion reign supreme, evidence and fact are routinely ignored.
Enjoy your squabbles, caress your guns like they'll protect you from a bogey man, wave around that outdated scrap of paper, and weep the next time your "right" to own a high-powered assault weapon results in the deaths of innocent people.
I'm sure you'll justify it in your own head with just a little time watching Fox news.
Originally posted by Phoenix
Originally posted by DaTroof
So these people NEED guns because it's in the Constitution. It's law, right?
So if a law gets passed banning guns, they should fork them over as law abiding citizens. If they don't, they are now criminals in possession of deadly weapons.
So it's not really about the Constitution at all, it's about fear.
It is well documented that our "rights" as defined by our founders and written into the constitution were "god given" or 'naturally in existence" and therefore cannot be taken away by rule of law or man. It is this same belief that led them to believe the people should always have the ability to throw off tyranny by arms, in fact they said it is a duty of a free people.
edit on 21-12-2012 by Phoenix because: quote link
Originally posted by jimmyx
Originally posted by Phoenix
Originally posted by DaTroof
So these people NEED guns because it's in the Constitution. It's law, right?
So if a law gets passed banning guns, they should fork them over as law abiding citizens. If they don't, they are now criminals in possession of deadly weapons.
So it's not really about the Constitution at all, it's about fear.
It is well documented that our "rights" as defined by our founders and written into the constitution were "god given" or 'naturally in existence" and therefore cannot be taken away by rule of law or man. It is this same belief that led them to believe the people should always have the ability to throw off tyranny by arms, in fact they said it is a duty of a free people.
edit on 21-12-2012 by Phoenix because: quote link
my american-born japanese father-in-law stopped believing in the constitution, when they came and confiscated his property and put him and his family into an internment camp during WW2,... after getting out he never voted again, nor did he give a damn about politics...i asked him one day why he never voted, and he said to me, "when i needed the protections of the constitution the most, they weren't there".
he paraphrased about how the constitution is a document of convienient previledges, rather than absolute rights.