It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by ZeroReady
How many guns are in the US? About 300,000,000 (that's three-hundred million)? More than any other country in the world right?
We also have more gun murders per capita than any other "developed" country. Could there possibly be a connection? How many more guns will it take to provide the security people expect of them?
Originally posted by babybunnies
One of the most highly regarded experts in guns in the United States, a highly trained military sniper with a large number of difficult kills to his name was not able to protect himself from a gun carrying crazy person at a GUN RANGE.
What makes anyone think they'll be able to use guns to protect thmeselves in their own home from such a person?
Originally posted by xedocodex
We have heard over and over that "gun free zones" are the cause of shooters being able to kill people. Chris Kyle was at a gun range, he had guns, his friend Chad Littlefield had guns...so how could he have possibly been killed?
Chart: The U.S. has far more gun-related killings than any other developed country
I did not include Mexico, which has about triple the U.S. rate due in large part to the ongoing drug war.
Originally posted by xedocodex
The point is...having a gun will not stop a shooting nor will it protect you if someone wants to kill you. I have said it many times before, having a gun is like a baby having a pacifier. All it does it COMFORT you from your paranoia and fear...but it doesn't actually do anything to protect you.
"fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)]
The public duty doctrine has long protected municipalities from negligence claims because it establishes that “[t]he duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large,” not to any specific individual. Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1, 3 (D.C. 1981) (en banc). The rationale is straightforward: Courts and juries are illequipped to review legislative and executive decisions about how to allocate limited municipal resources to best protect the public
Your conclusion is invalid. A couple of guys take a friend to a remote shooting range. They do not consider him a threat. They are not in a defensive mode. They guy takes advantage and shoots them. There's nothing particularly unusual about that.
If you will recall the recent Clackamas Mall shooting in Oregon, an armed citizen stopped it without firing a shot himself. It wasn't a massive shooting because he stopped it. That's kind of the point. Every single one of the mass shootings that have taken place have been in "Gun free zones" where there was no one to stop it.
Sure and that's exactly what happens on the combat field... a bunch of people running around panicking and scrambling... no one can possibly keep their wits about them and identify a target and eliminate it...
Nice strawman argument...
I have guns... know what I'm afraid of... nothing... know what makes me paranoid... nothing... hell... the only reason I lock my doors is to protect people from me
A gun gives you a fighting chance... I'll take that all day every day over no chance at all... if you don't feel the same that says more about you and how much you value life than anything else there chief
Originally posted by Screwed
You just won the award my friend.
I want to believe that your thread is merely satire or some sort of sick twisted joke but......
something tells me you're serious.