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: 33
191
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 





Next time try replicating those results by leaving a loaded gun in the cafeteria of a supermax prison and tell my if the results are replicated.


That really serves to bolster the argument in the OP.

Leaving a gun in the cafeteria of a supermax prison full of criminals, one might fully expect the gun to be used to kill someone

It is the presence of a criminal operator that makes the gun an instrument of crime.


Doh!!! It is truly funny when someones attempt at getting in the last word fails.
I saw the comment but it didn't register at first but now it just jumps out. Well spoken butcherguy.


Came to the party here a little late but S&F Seabag as well, you had me in stitches in the op, and point proven, the S.O. even had a chuckle reading it.




posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lichter daraus
reply to post by Dnoir
 


I asked a question thats all. I wanna know IF your not from this country ,why it matters to you so much if we have guns or not.


As I pointed out previously....it's good sometimes to be able to learn something or gain a new perspective from different nation's or culture's. So sometime's it isn't just a case of someone poking in where they don't belong....they may actually be on a learning curve.

I had a much different view on the gun's debate when these thread's first started...but fortunately there have been a few people who have seen past the fact I don't live in the US first of all and been sensitive to the fact that through my debate's and question's I had a genuine desire to learn and be educated about an issue going on in the world...

And now you are going to accuse me of poking in where I don't belong because you didn't aim your question to me


I'm just trying to give a different perspective...



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by seabag
 

Evidently I think you are arguing the same point as me. Violent crimes with guns happen in every country. But violent crimes with guns are lower in countries without guns...


god almighty, i couldn't even make it through the whole f**king thread...your posts are so ignorant...it's as if you experience the whole of your life with blinders on...as if you are allergic to facts, knowledge, and things that are brutally obvious to those of us without an agenda...

who the hell cares WHAT tool a criminal uses to commit a violent crime? does the tool suddenly make a VIOLENT CRIME any more or less violent? if you think so, then i believe there is something deeply wrong with you...

and i noticed that you used that same stupid argument that piers morgan used....about how because there were 10k gun crimes in america, and only 40 in the UK, that that somehow validates the stupid argument that "less guns means less crime"...yes, you have less gun crime, but you do not live in a utopian society, where there is no violent crime...the argument falls apart when you acknowledge that the tool does not impact the violent nature of a violent crime, and that the U.K. is just as violent, if not more so, than the U.S...

read it...take it in..let it lodge...

do you understand what i am saying to you?



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logos23

Originally posted by Lichter daraus
reply to post by Dnoir
 


I asked a question thats all. I wanna know IF your not from this country ,why it matters to you so much if we have guns or not.


As I pointed out previously....it's good sometimes to be able to learn something or gain a new perspective from different nation's or culture's. So sometime's it isn't just a case of someone poking in where they don't belong....they may actually be on a learning curve.

I had a much different view on the gun's debate when these thread's first started...but fortunately there have been a few people who have seen past the fact I don't live in the US first of all and been sensitive to the fact that through my debate's and question's I had a genuine desire to learn and be educated about an issue going on in the world...

And now you are going to accuse me of poking in where I don't belong because you didn't aim your question to me


I'm just trying to give a different perspective...



Im not gonna accuse you of anything, but im asking him personally to find out where he stands.
Does that make sense?



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Daedalus
 


Nice, very well said, way better than anything i could have come up with anyway.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 09:57 PM
link   
I have never met a violent gun. As a matter of fact I have never met a gun I didn't like.

But I have met a lot of violent people and people I don't like.

Guns are not violent so it is an oxymoron to say there is gun violence.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Lichter daraus
 


well, thank you sir....much appreciated...

i'm just sick to death of these simple-minded, idiotic arguments about guns.

it's real simple people....the constitution/bill of rights is the supreme law of the land.

the second amendment clearly states that we have the right to keep(own), and bear(carry on our person) arms(weapons), and that this right shall not be infringed(limited, restricted, encroached upon).

Any "law" or "statute" that infringes upon the right to keep and bear arms, as declared in the constitution, is an unconstitutional law, and is therefore rendered null, void, and not legally binding...neither law enforcement, nor the courts are legally obligated to enforce such laws, and are to treat them as if they were never passed.

This readily applies to "assault weapon" bans, "laws", or "legislation" that prohibit the open or concealed carry of arms during normal day-to-day business, or to any "legislation" prohibiting so-called "high capacity magazines"...these "laws" are unconstitutional, because they infringe upon our rights, as declared in the bill of rights, and are therefore not actually laws...we are not legally required to obey them.

point is, whether or not you, as an american citizen choose to exercise your right to keep and bear or not, the right still exists, and those who choose not to exercise that right should leave those of us that do, alone...

why is this so hard to understand?

why does this idiotic "well, if i don't want one, nobody should want one" mentality persist?



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 10:29 PM
link   
Medical Examiner: "We have these clear bullet holes in the temple and three more the chest..."

Investigator: "So were these gunshots the cause of death?"

Medical Examiner: "No of course not. It was clearly a heart attach due most likely to the fear of gun control laws."



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Daedalus
 


While I agree that going overboard on "gun control" may not yield results. Some of the proposals are NOT that draconian. For instance; the NRA went ballistic about a proposal to limit the purchase of assault weapons to 2 per month.

And the Constitution has undergone changes -- it was never intended as "inviolate and perfect" -- for instance, your sacred "right to bear arms" is what is called an "amendment." And it is the "right to form an armed militia." Doesn't seem to include "guns for everyone not in a militia" -- but whatever. It's not anything I want to argue other than to point out you are saying that the "Constitution cannot be touched" -- and if that were true, you'd have no "right to bare arms" in the first place.

There is a lot of room for compromise here and I think a REASONABLE thing would be to add radioactive isotopes to bullets and newly forged guns. It would allow inexpensive scanners to reveal the presence of guns without causing schools and other cash strapped facilities to buy metal detectors and intrusively scan everyone entering.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 10:42 PM
link   
I always thought it was the kinetic energy that killed you, unless someone wangs you over the head with the gun butt or something like that !



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
reply to post by Daedalus
 


While I agree that going overboard on "gun control" may not yield results. Some of the proposals are NOT that draconian. For instance; the NRA went ballistic about a proposal to limit the purchase of assault weapons to 2 per month.


because that is an infringement.

granted, i think it's a bit silly, but an infringement is an infringement....its the same as the silly law in new york city that bans large soft drinks...who the hell cares? as long as you're not spitting the drinks at people, or shooting anyone with the guns, who cares how many you have?

and for the love of god, can EVERYONE just STOP using the idiotic term "assault weapons"?

it's sensationalist, MSM-created doubletalk...



And the Constitution has undergone changes -- it was never intended as "inviolate and perfect" -- for instance, your sacred "right to bear arms" is what is called an "amendment." And it is the "right to form an armed militia." Doesn't seem to include "guns for everyone not in a militia" -- but whatever. It's not anything I want to argue other than to point out you are saying that the "Constitution cannot be touched" -- and if that were true, you'd have no "right to bare arms" in the first place.


You may not have WANTED an argument, but you're going to GET one, because you are flat out wrong...

the "bill of rights" is just that...a bill of rights, declaring what rights we have as natural born sons and daughters of these united states...we do not have these rights because government granted them to us, we have them by virtue of simply drawing breath...

I find your argument about the armed militia to be weak, old, uninspired, and lacking in the intelligence and sense department. Guess who makes up the militia, genius......that's right...we, the people. and in order to form a militia, you must individually own arms....the supreme court has upheld this on multiple occasions.

so you see, your argument is quite wrong....you really should actually READ the constitution and bill of rights, before you presume to claim authority on their contents..



There is a lot of room for compromise here and I think a REASONABLE thing would be to add radioactive isotopes to bullets and newly forged guns. It would allow inexpensive scanners to reveal the presence of guns without causing schools and other cash strapped facilities to buy metal detectors and intrusively scan everyone entering.


that is quite possibly, the silliest idea i've heard in a while...... if i REALLY need to explain why this is a stupid idea, then i would be wasting my time, as you still wouldn't get it even with a proper explanation..



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 11:05 PM
link   
my brain tells me that a gun can/does kill life, that's why they were created.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


If guns don't kill people, people kill people...

Then does that mean that toast doesn't toast toast?

Toast toast toast?????



hahahahaha



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by JLO1986
 


Toast doesn't toast anything. A toaster does that.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 11:29 PM
link   
If I were to decide tomorrow that I want to go out and kill as many people in a movie theater as I could. I take a baseball bat into the theater, I might be able to kill one, and everyone just thinks I'm some nut that snapped and we count our blessings that I didn't have a more powerful means of death. I am a minor footnote at the end of a newscast. If I take in a gun of some sort, I'd probably be able to pop 20+ people and I'm all over the news for the next week.

This debate is beyond stupid, and I'm tired of people like the OP making empty points.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by MisterFister103
 


O Rly? I guess you never heard of the "XBox Murders"?

In the mid-90s baseball bat beatings were fairly common in Poland. Poland considers the bat a deadly weapon and has put legal measures in place against them, so if you're rolling around Poland with a bat the popo will hook you up -same as if you were carrying another type of concealed weapon.

(Frankly shooting those people in the XBox murders would have been much more humane. I highly suggest you read about what happened to those people, like intentionally beating their faces in to intentionally knock their teeth down their throat.)
edit on 17-2-2013 by GreenGlassDoor because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by MisterFister103
 


it wasnt an empty point, you just dont get the point, thats why it bugs you.

Blah,blah,blah, guns er bad take'em away from everyone little by little, blah,blah,blah.

Goodnight peeps its time for bed, some people make me tired.
edit on 07/16/2009 by Lichter daraus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 12:06 AM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 


you stated that a person is 4.5 time more likely to get shot if they are carrying a gun. What is your basis for this?
I have seen first hand a person attempting to rob a convenient store with a gun and when one of the customers pulled out their gun the robber fled... no shots fired. General consensus from law enforcement officers is that you are less likely to get shot if the shooter thinks they have a chance to get shot back at. Most of the people who commit violent crimes do so to the weaker being, knowing that there is less risk to themselves. The majority of them are cowards.
edit on 18-2-2013 by kdyam because: spelling correction



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


So after seeing the news this weekend and noticed several people dead because of drunk driving..in that case we need to get rid of the cars because someone might drive them drunk...we need to sue the car manufacturers too because they know their cars can be used to kill someone from driving drunk...we need to sue the alcohol manufacturrs too because they made the alcohol that smeone used before they they drove drunk..we dont need to enforce the several laws that have been passed against driving under the influence....now everybody on here would probaby say that that statement is totaly stupid........heres your logic if we take the guns from the law abiding peeps that there will be less crime and gun violence.....Ok look at chicago one of the most violent crime infested cities in the world.......after taking away the guns in that city gun violence has gone up...you wanna answer why?...didnt think so, dude your 10 times more IGNANT than i am....I could go on and on about this and show the fbi backed info but even after showing you the fbi statistics you woulld probably say it was wrong or something like that...guns dont kill people and your IGNANT



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 12:21 AM
link   
Does anybody want to know the real reason were all talking about gun control?!?! Its because the gubbament wants to be able to control the people after the ecconomical meltdown hits its the reason they purchsed billions and billions of rounds of ammunition in the last year and purchased millions of quick chea coffins
When the real depression hits in another year the :poop: is gonna hit the fan and they know we will probaby be out for blood...theirs...so all the dooms day preppers wil be sittinn in their bunkers with plenty of food and ammunition and guns....sounds like a good idea to me



new topics

top topics



 
191
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join