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 ahyaprobly
reply to post by seabag
You were replying to a post which was replying to something I said. The inference was there whether you wanted it to be or not.
You pointed out a fact that needs no pointing out. No one thinks that guns kill people. If they do, they are not worth debating to begin with. The debate should be whether the current proposals (assault weapons ban, mandatory background checks, etc.) are worth consideration.
Oh, but this is all about "the children", right? Yeah, right!
Originally posted by GreenGlassDoor
reply to post by seabag
That's is not a Thompson, nor even a sub-machine gun. It is a light machine gun. The specific type is an "RPD".
Originally posted by WeAreAWAKE
OP...your test is flawed!
I'm sorry to report that while you "attempted" to recreate a situation in that a gun could kill a person, you failed in meeting the requirements that would have allowed for a successful test. You neglected to include a government run media willing to report what they are told and when. This was unavoidable as you also didn't provide a charismatic leader upon which the media could drool, pray and otherwise fellate. And finally you didn't provide the required "plan" in the first place providing an outline of the desired results to any and all witnesses. You see, without loyal servants, dependent upon the tester, maybe by their continued income, employment, etc...you will never successfully prove whether guns do, or do not kill people.
However, the government would be happy to offer their services with your proposed investigation. Simply relinquish your assault...uh...weapons and I am fully confidant that they will provide expert testimony that guns do indeed kill people. Of course, in proving...er...investigating this there will be a few billion dollars spent in generating...ummm...achieving the results.
Originally posted by ahyaprobly
reply to post by Flyingclaydisk
You happen to view abortion as the "killing of children". Most people either do not see it that way, or view it as a more complicated issue. I would hardly call this argument game, set, or match. Try harder.
Originally posted by Flyingclaydisk
I think anyone on the side of banning guns (or limiting them in some way) needs to rationalize this...
To listen to the the President and his minions; this is all about the children, right?
Well, in 2009 there were 11,493 homicides by firearms in the US. This is no doubt a tragic number, but it pales in comparison to another statistic. During the same period there were 784,507 homicides by abortion in the US...and they were all legal. That is a factor of 70x TIMES more...seven hundred eighty four thousand five hundred and seven! (and that's only from 48 reporting states for abortions but all 50 states for guns). Yet those screaming to ban firearms conveniently forget that abortion is one of the underpinnings of their liberal (free to do as you please) platform.
Oh, but this is all about "the children", right? Yeah, right!
Hypocricy at its absolute finiest!
Game...set...and match!
I see where the rationale behind this argument comes from. More trained people with weapons could, in theory, make an armed gunman less likely to carry out a heinous act.
However, I view it in this way: Every situation like this could be thought of as a closed system. Putting more guns into the system increases the level of uncertainty. Take Sandy Hook for example (I know everyone is tired of talking about it, but it does work as a good example). If one of the teachers had a gun and was trained, there's the possibility that they could have taken down the gunman. There is an equal probability that they may have missed that crucial first shot, causing the gunman to take cover. The result would be a firefight in which bullets would now be flying in two directions instead of one, increasing the probability of collateral damage due to ricochets. One could make the argument either way since in a fluid situation, anything can happen.
Not to mention, I am not entirely sure how many teachers/movie ushers/etc. have an interest in being trained marksmen as part of job training, or how effective they would be at both protecting an entire classroom of children AND taking down a gunman. Armed guards would probably be an OK middle ground here.
Originally posted by GreenGlassDoor
reply to post by seabag
That's is not a Thompson, nor even a sub-machine gun. It is a light machine gun. The specific type is an "RPD".
Originally posted by seabag
Originally posted by nancyliedersdeaddog
reply to post by seabag
Man thats a nice collection! What kind of guns is that in the 4th picture at the top with the bipod (I think that's what it's called)?
Kind of looks like a Thompson Sub-Machine gun but now I don't think it is.
I pulled those pictures off the net after a quick Google search for "guns on porch."
This is a satirical thread and certainly not a scientific study of any kind. I wouldn't leave my guns on a porch loaded nor would I post pictures of my collection online.
Originally posted by Flyingclaydisk
Originally posted by ahyaprobly
reply to post by Flyingclaydisk
Consequently, applying my definition of abortion (which is arguably as correct as anyone elses);
You have accidentally stumbled upon the problem with your argument. Your definition is yours, not everyone else's. Most people believe abortion should be legal, with some restrictions. Most people also believe there should be common sense restrictions on firearms. There are restrictions now, some believe there should be more of them. There is no right or wrong, only debate. The fact that you feel the need to declare yourself the winner of an ongoing conversation is quite a small minded approach at proving a point.