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: 27
191
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by GreenGlassDoor
 


There are common sense restrictions on free speech as well...yelling "bomb" on an airplane or "fire" in a crowded public space are examples. Technological advances should not be the only consideration, but as technology is progressing exponentially, it should be near the top of the list.




posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 01:50 PM
link   
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!



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 01:51 PM
link   

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.


Well it’s certainly hard to tell context of comments in this format sometimes. I certainly didn’t mean you. You said:


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.


I don’t disagree with that. You seem to be pretty level headed and reasonable from what I’ve read so far.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 01:52 PM
link   
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".



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Flyingclaydisk
 



Oh, but this is all about "the children", right? Yeah, right!


Yes, the abortion issue does make them hypocritical. And even if it was about the children…I submit this question:




posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 01:54 PM
link   
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.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 01:55 PM
link   

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".


Well there you go!

I don't deal in relics nor do I have a Class A license to own a machine gun!


It does slightly resemble a Thompson, which is a sub-machine gun....you've gotta give me that much!



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 02:05 PM
link   
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.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 02:09 PM
link   

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.


All very valid points!


I'm new to this scientific testing stuff...I'm just an old redneck gun owner in 'Merika! I thought I could bluff my way through it since I'm college edjamacated and all, but you caught me!

Maybe you can help me with the spoon test I mentioned in the OP??





edit on 17-2-2013 by seabag because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


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.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by ahyaprobly
 



Oh please, that form of speech isn't illegal.

You can yell "bomb" or "fire" if there really is a bomb or fire. Moreover, when somebody does say it and it is not true they don't get charged with illegal use of speech. They usually get dinged with inciting a riot or a form of assault [assuming you understand the difference between assault and battery]. Just like outright lying to a court or a business associate is perjury and fraud.

The point is speech is protected as long as it doesn't wrongfully deprive another. Each instance where there is a supposed violation is decided individually. No one is demanding tongue registration or even literacy tests to measure the potential damage a person could cause with their speech. Before you object to it as absurb, in a linguistics class we did study Orwell's Newspeak, which involved the dumbing down of language to specifically retard the transfer of ideas. That is to say governments ban the use of language, such as when the Soveits banned Ukrainian or a proposed English law from 20 years ago (it didn't pass) to ban French words from the English language, to meet their purposes.

Do firearms get that same consideration? No.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by GreenGlassDoor
 


The point is, there are things you can speak which are not protected by the first amendment, and as such they are restrictions. Amendments themselves are changes to the original document, so to suggest that they are not malleable is ludicrous. The second amendment is vague. "Arms" could refer to nuclear arms if you took the language of the amendment at face value. As things change and advancements are made, we are forced to revisit the amendments and update restrictions.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 02:33 PM
link   

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.


How do you define abortion, as the killing of bugs???

Define "most". I would argue most do see it that way.

Abortion is a more complicated issue? How? I would argue it is far less complicated issue than firearms ownership. Further, unlike firearms, abortion isn't spelled out right there in black and white in the founding documents of the nation.

Now pay attention here (there might be a quiz), I'm gonna' throw you a bone...

Unlike the gun grabbers who fabricate definitions of things (like life) to fit their agenda, conservatives form many of their convictions based on religious beliefs. I am not among them. The left uses the mantra "pro-choice", and ironically I actually agree on this point (probably one of the few liberal values I agree with). However, unlike liberals, I don't apply the pro-choice mantra selectively to only the things I selfishly want or like.

Consequently, applying my definition of abortion (which is arguably as correct as anyone elses); liberals want to have the choice to kill, but don't want others to have the choice of firearms ownership. Kind of a dichotomy, don't ya' think? And a pretty lobsided one at that.

So, yes...Game...Set...and Match.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 02:33 PM
link   
Whoops

Double post.
edit on 2/17/2013 by Flyingclaydisk because: Double post



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 02:33 PM
link   

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!



The liberals want to ban guns even though none of the statistics show anyone would be safer. They seem to believe it's alright to murder innocent children, but not violent felons who are a menace to society. They have changed their theory on Global Warming many times to fit new evidence that continually disproves it. Maybe they have some genetic defect that prevents them from thinking logically?



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by ahyaprobly
 



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.

It seems reasonable in theory. I know that if I was a bad guy I would certainly pick victims I knew were unarmed. Why take a chance in getting killed?



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.

That’s possible but I would rather have some bullets flying in the bad guy's direction than all the bullets flying at the kids and teachers. Some return-fire is better than none IMO. I think it’s more a matter of deterrence as in the scenario I outlined above.




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.

I would certainly rather see an increase in resource officers (school cops / LE) than armed teachers and such. That’s the topic of a another thread though…



edit on 17-2-2013 by seabag because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


Since we're both online....

Public apology time. I went rather caustic ten or fifteen pages back because I did not read far enough long to learn that you did not actually place weapons upon a deck unsupervised.

Given that... I humbly apologize for speaking out of turn and answering before I had the entire story.

~Heff



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 02:42 PM
link   

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".


Wow another irrelevant post please stay on topic who cares what kinda gun it was.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 02:44 PM
link   

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.

I figured it was a satirical thread but I thought maybe you used pictures of your own/friends collection or knew what kind of gun that was. Either way great thread and it's pretty funny



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 02:47 PM
link   

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.



new topics

top topics



 
191
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join