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.

 

Independent Study Proves Guns Don’t Kill People *Shocking Evidence

page: 16
191
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 11:42 PM
link   
'Haha I understand where you are coming from, everyone has interests, but there should be a line that is drawn. I mean, I'd love to own a tank but that wouldn't be too smart would it? Just like a citizen shouldn't own a heavy machine gun with drum magazines."


Why not?

Doesnt the constitution say "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state"??

I think an organized, law-abiding, local militia should have the right to own some tanks and some heavy machine guns in order to ensure the security of a free state. That is, to protect the people from the possiblity of a tyrannical govt.
edit on 16-2-2013 by Nicks87 because: spelling




posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 11:43 PM
link   


'Nuff said
edit on 16-2-2013 by ArchaicDesigns because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 11:45 PM
link   
Interesting experiment, seabag, but your experiment is greatly flawed, you see.

I admit that you were trying to see if guns kill people, but you didn't have a control group. For example, when you first laid out your small pistol, you should have also set a plastic knife and a screwdriver.

Observe which object is more liable to kill a person the fastest, or appeals more to bloodlust.

Increase power (ie larger knives, swords, shuriken, maybe a false grenade), and record the results. Perhaps your guns were not in a killing mood? A more stressful environment should provoke them to kill people.

But all in all, your guns are very well behaved and you have trained them well.



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 11:46 PM
link   
I think we all just need to agree that anti gun people and pro gun people will never see eye to eye.



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lichter daraus

Originally posted by alienmma
Wow, this is not a good thread at all. You are part of the problem yet you fail to realize it. It's quite scary to know that there are citizens that carry a wide array of assault rifles and machine guns... for literally no reason. There aren't mercenary groups terrorizing our citizens, there isn't a foreign nation invading our country... so why own multiple machine guns? With drum magazines? Yep, I'm sure you'll need that to kill a deer.


no whats scary is the fact that eventually we will have no way to defend ourselves against our corrupt government.

Not once in my life have I EVER seen a government agent/official terrorize or kill a citizen in my city. You all make it seem like we live in Syria now or something but you are terribly wrong. Things used to be much worse in this country, such as segregation and racism. The country we live in now is nowhere perfect but it isn't a police state like you all make it out to be. It is not necessary to carry a multitude of guns in a suburban area.



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


Best post I've read about guns! Thanks for sharing your clever test with us and getting your point across with a little humor. I'll let you get back to your spoon test now. I can't wait to see the results!



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 11:51 PM
link   



Why not?

Doesnt the constitution say "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state"??

I think an organized, law-abiding, local militia should have the right to own some tanks and some heavy machine guns in order to ensure the security of a free state. That is, to protect the people from the possiblity of a tyrannical govt.
edit on 16-2-2013 by Nicks87 because: spelling

That is ridiculous. The Constitution is also a 300 year old document that also labeled Native Americans and African-Americans as property.

There is absolutely no reason for the United States to have local militias. That would be more corrupt than anything, a group of gun-wielding lunatics bent on supposedly serving liberty and justice? No thanks.

Once this country is invaded or has several violent riots a day in several cities throughout the country, then it will be a good idea to carry an arsenal of weapons next to your kids' old toys in the garage.
edit on 16-2-2013 by alienmma because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by alienmma
 


notice I said eventually. meaning it may not be that way now but it will be and they will be going door to door taking your weapons and what are you going to do when you have nothing to defend yourself then?



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lichter daraus
reply to post by alienmma
 


notice I said eventually. meaning it may not be that way now but it will be and they will be going door to door taking your weapons and what are you going to do when you have nothing to defend yourself then?


I can't answer that question because this is merely an assumption. You assume that they will end up at our doors taking our guns (why would I need a gun?) yet you base this off of nothing. Don't be so paranoid man.



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Lichter daraus
 


By that kind of logic, it is completely probable that one of my neighbors will eventually speak to me while contaminated with some kind of virus - that I'll then be at risk of catching. Since there are deadly viruses in the world.... Well I might as well either never go outside again, or kill every person who comes near me - just in case they are infected with Ebola.

Regarding the OP in general...

So... to prove that guns don't kill people, you deliberately loaded guns, then left them unsecured and pointed at people??? And you went to a more densely populated place to do this just so it would seem more relevant???

Guns don't kill people. Idiots with guns kill people. You tempted fate and got lucky this time. Next time one of those weapons might shift and discharge - or you or anyone else present might stumble causing a discharge. This "study" was an amazingly irresponsible and negligent action on your part.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by alienmma

Originally posted by Lichter daraus

Originally posted by alienmma
Wow, this is not a good thread at all. You are part of the problem yet you fail to realize it. It's quite scary to know that there are citizens that carry a wide array of assault rifles and machine guns... for literally no reason. There aren't mercenary groups terrorizing our citizens, there isn't a foreign nation invading our country... so why own multiple machine guns? With drum magazines? Yep, I'm sure you'll need that to kill a deer.


no whats scary is the fact that eventually we will have no way to defend ourselves against our corrupt government.

Not once in my life have I EVER seen a government agent/official terrorize or kill a citizen in my city. You all make it seem like we live in Syria now or something but you are terribly wrong. Things used to be much worse in this country, such as segregation and racism. The country we live in now is nowhere perfect but it isn't a police state like you all make it out to be. It is not necessary to carry a multitude of guns in a suburban area.


I think there are a few older hispanic ladies that recently had a run in with the LAPD that would like to dispute your assessment of the capabilities of some of our agents/officials. I'd link a picture of thier Toyota Tacoma that was riddled with over 40 rounds while they were delivering papers during the search for Dorner but it has been posted in other threads and I am sure you have seen it and just ignore it as it disputes your assessment.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by alienmma
 


why do you assume I'm paranoid, I never once said I'm going to get me an arsenal of guns. I said I'm going to get one gun and a conceal and carry license. besides that it doesn't hurt to be ready for when and if it happens.
and if it never happens, well, lucky me I still got my gun to go target shooting like I love to do.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


could you please quote whatever post you're referring to because I have no idea what you're talking about Thanks in advance.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 12:07 AM
link   
Dude if you would have did that in my neighborhood, not only would that gun have been stolen, it would have been sold in the black martket and eventually killed someone. You are way to trustworthy and irresponsible. and sorry to say this but stupid as S***. And yes people kill people but still doesnt change the fact the ignorance that took place.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Lichter daraus
 



Originally posted by Lichter daraus
reply to post by alienmma
 


notice I said eventually. meaning it may not be that way now but it will be and they will be going door to door taking your weapons and what are you going to do when you have nothing to defend yourself then?


That quote. The premise that one needs to protect something based upon a hyperbolic fear of what might happen. There is zero chance of this becoming reality. The gun lobby is too powerful and the three branches will never allow it. Even if two of the branches sought to proceed, the SCOTUS would never do so. FTR legislating which arms may or may not be in the private sector is not the same as a wholesale door to door gun grab.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkphoenix77
Seabag, I think this should have been used in your experiment presentation because apparently Seth MacFarlane also understands the truth of your findings




Also reminds me of the Family guy episode where there was a nuclear holocaust.. Peter makes guns, then right after the citizens destroy them radioactive Stewies attack... Haha



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


okay, then I'm not sure how your virus analogy relates to that post at all because I never said people should go around killing people just in case they start taking our guns I said it doesn't hurt to be protected for IF and when it happens. it may be a big if but that doesn't mean it can never happen there's always a chance it could.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by solizer
 


I swear nobody ever reads. the guy said he watched his guns for hours meaning he was watching his guns nobody would have stolen them.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 12:16 AM
link   
It has been mentioned like 3 times for those that may have missed it that the "experiments" conducted in fact did not happen and the article was written as a piece of satire. Just so you all know. No people were harmed or even in any danger from the writer at any point in time during this "experiment".

Never thought you would need a disclaimer for your thread.....


edit: I really wish it were possible to bump explanations (disclaimer) like this to just under the OP to avoid the myriad of posts from those who are (some rightfully, some notsomuch) concerned about the OP's sanity in performing the "experiment". Even a longer window for the OP to edit the post would be nice if only to insert the disclaimer or word satire at the end of his post.

edit on 17-2-2013 by Darkphoenix77 because: EDIT



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 12:19 AM
link   
i dont think the UK folks get it at all...

according to which history books your public (primary) school choose to brain wash you by,
we'll see that there was a war a few hundred year ago involving the Brits and the Colonists,

a war that was fought with fire arms,

any body remember learning or if your old enough living through WWI / WWII

weapons kinda establish dominance...

you can be a pacifist if you want, thats great you folks dont like violence,
i respect that, (this includes the anit-gun lobby in the US as well)

the fact is that guns exist, they are to be respected too...
life itself is to be respected,

the real fact is... it takes a PERSON with a GUN, to kill somebody, (going on the topic of gun control here guys)
its not this or that, its a combination of the two...

the OP acquired the GUN, the OP is a person, the OP acquired ammo, and loaded that ammo into
the said gun, the OP then loaded other guns, and realized hey they safety was on, the OP selected fire on the weapon, with a chambered round... and the gun did not kill anybody... nor the bullet nor a combination
of the three...

now the argument here (in the US) is should the laws be changed?
well the op was in a controlled environment...

and im assuming knows guns safety...

now criminals, killers, etc... they have no respect for you, themselves or their weapons,
even in an armed society... they have even less in an unarmed society...

a gun ban will not stop people from being killed by PEOPLE shooting BULLETS out of GUNS,

you are not safe, and banning these arms from citizens who respect the laws is not
going to change the mind of criminals to respect anything.

so lets say they ban everything they want, and have the most extensive background checks before
you can own a firearm:

usnews.nbcnews.com...

THIS GUY WOULD PROBABLY PASS AS HE WAS PRIOR MILITARY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT,

HENCE WE STILL HAVE A PROBLEM....

but its not with guns its with people... people need to change,,, not the laws,
cause murder is still illeagal, with or without a gun....







 
191
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join