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.
A very interesting correlation. Gun ownership has gone up by a huge number every single year sine the regime took power, but gun deaths are going down. Now, correlation does not equal causation but according to liberal gun grabbers more guns cause more violence. Perhaps they should reconsider their position?
Originally posted by Logarock
Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Originally posted by gladtobehere
reply to post by Unrealised
In 2011, murders committed with guns accounted for 8,500 deaths in 2011.
Interesting that the rate has been decreasing since Obama took office.........
Thats because more folks than ever have guns now.
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
So basically, we don't get enough exercise, smoke too much, drink too much, eat too much junk food, eat too much food in general, and atop all that we spend far too much time worrying about all of the above and more to be too stressed out which occasionally even leads to a blow out.
Does that about sum it up?
Originally posted by circuitsports
• The 15 leading causes of death in 2009 were:
1. Diseases of heart (heart disease)
2. Malignant neoplasms (cancer)
3. Chronic lower respiratory diseases
4. Cerebrovascular diseases (stroke)
5. Accidents (unintentional injuries)
6. Alzheimer’s disease
7. Diabetes mellitus (diabetes)
8. Influenza and pneumonia
9. Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis (kidney disease)
10. Intentional self-harm (suicide)
11. Septicemia
12. Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis
13. Essential hypertension and hypertensive renal disease (hypertension)
14. Parkinson’s disease
15. Assault (homicide)
Originally posted by gladtobehere
reply to post by BrokenCircles
Why the focus on guns?
Theyre a tiny part of the equation when talking about causes of death...
Originally posted by beezzer
Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by beezzer
Appreciate the sentiment, but tyrannical governments have military equipped with tanks, fighter jets, bombs, helicopters, drones, body armor, unlimited ammo...you get the picture.
Tanks can't shoot unless someone pulls the trigger. Jets can't fly unless someone is piloting.
Not every member of the military is a mindless drooling moron. That category appears to be most apt in the civilian leaders.
Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by kaylaluv
There's really no such thing as a "military-style" weapon. All fire on the same principle. Some fire at a higher rate than others is all.
The Second Amendment doesn't hold a caveat on range, caliber, muzzle velocity or load capacity. Government, while trying to restrict firearms, does.
Originally posted by kaylaluv
Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by kaylaluv
There's really no such thing as a "military-style" weapon. All fire on the same principle. Some fire at a higher rate than others is all.
The Second Amendment doesn't hold a caveat on range, caliber, muzzle velocity or load capacity. Government, while trying to restrict firearms, does.
Regardless of the terminology, why does the average person need a weapon that can kill 50 people in 4 seconds?
The Second Amendment is fairly vague, in that it doesn't specifically state what qualifies as "arms". That leaves it up for interpretation. "Arms" could be interpreted as what would be needed for basic protection and food - not weapons of mass destruction meant to kill large crowds of people.
Originally posted by beezzer
Once you start putting limits on the types of weapons simply based on rate of fire, you have begun to disarm. There is no asterisk in the Second Amendment. Once you accept that there are caveats, then it stops becoming a right and then becomes a simple privilege of the state.
Originally posted by magma
I think it is pretty sad that number 10 is Suicide.
Pretty sad....
Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by kaylaluv
I'm just trying to imagine the world if you got your way.
Chicago, one of the toughest gun law cities in America had 500 shooting deaths this year. If gun bans are put into place, imagine Chicago all over America.
Originally posted by winofiend
Originally posted by circuitsports
• The 15 leading causes of death in 2009 were:
1. Diseases of heart (heart disease)
2. Malignant neoplasms (cancer)
3. Chronic lower respiratory diseases
4. Cerebrovascular diseases (stroke)
5. Accidents (unintentional injuries)
6. Alzheimer’s disease
7. Diabetes mellitus (diabetes)
8. Influenza and pneumonia
9. Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis (kidney disease)
10. Intentional self-harm (suicide)
11. Septicemia
12. Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis
13. Essential hypertension and hypertensive renal disease (hypertension)
14. Parkinson’s disease
15. Assault (homicide)
I really don't get this. What is the point? Look..
Can someone walk around and intentionally give dozens of people instant heart disease?
Can someone walk around and intentionally give dozens of people instant cancer?
Can someone walk around and intentionally give dozens of people instant respiratory disease (short of using a gas)?
Can someone walk around and intentionally give dozens of people instant strokes?
...
I mean.. what is the point?
However, you can guarantee that a legal law abiding citizen who has access to high powered guns, and who happens to have a really crap week and decides to end it all but first taking out half the neighbourhood, CAN walk around intentionally and instantly ending dozens of lives.
Right up until then, he's your boss, employee, neighbour, buddy, work pal, pen friend.. but after, oh he was a bit weird, who knew...
Originally posted by kaylaluv
Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by kaylaluv
I'm just trying to imagine the world if you got your way.
Chicago, one of the toughest gun law cities in America had 500 shooting deaths this year. If gun bans are put into place, imagine Chicago all over America.
I'm imagining a world much like the 1940's and 1950's - before the average person had access to the military-designed killing machines. A person might have a pistol or a shotgun, but that was it. You didn't have the kinds of crimes and mass shootings you have now. These types of assault style weapons should never have been made available to anyone outside of the military. Yeah, I know - that cow's out of the barn, and it just makes me sad, sad, sad.
Originally posted by kaylaluv
Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by kaylaluv
There's really no such thing as a "military-style" weapon. All fire on the same principle. Some fire at a higher rate than others is all.
The Second Amendment doesn't hold a caveat on range, caliber, muzzle velocity or load capacity. Government, while trying to restrict firearms, does.
Regardless of the terminology, why does the average person need a weapon that can kill 50 people in 4 seconds?
The Second Amendment is fairly vague, in that it doesn't specifically state what qualifies as "arms". That leaves it up for interpretation. "Arms" could be interpreted as what would be needed for basic protection and food - not weapons of mass destruction meant to kill large crowds of people.
Originally posted by Logarock
This is not quite true. There were loads of WWI and WWII combat weapons in the closets of the american public in the 40s and 50s. Bolt actions and semi automatic weapons, rifles, american, british, german ect brought home from the war.