Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Everybody should not have the option of getting a gun

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 03:05 PM
link   
Negative on the income thing.This is a classless society when only the rich have guns I wouldn't see that making anything better.




posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cancerwarrior

OK, do you really think that drug testing people will keep guns out of criminal hands? Do you really think meth and crack dealers buy their guns legally at WalMart? They cant even keep drugs out of the prisons, so how are they supposed to keep ilegal weapons off the streets? LOL! The vast majority of violent crimes committed in the US there are no firearms involved.



Out of low level criminals without any connections, yes. Round here it is not that easy to get hold of a gun illegally, unless you have good contacts. If someone is in financial trouble and wants to rob somebody simply to earn something out of desperation, it would not be easy for them to get a gun. In USA implementing it would be harder as there already are so many guns out. Lots of small crimes, like robberies are committed with a gun, although usually it is not used, so it does not count as gun offense.

Originally posted by Cancerwarrior
And like I said, if you rule out people that are on medication that is a great majority of Americans. You can't get a drivers license over there if you wear glasses or contacts? seriously? And they make you take a blood test? What country are you in? You may see nothing wrong with it but I consider drug testing (even for jobs) to be a major invasion of privacy. And like I said above, there are many ways around drug tests.

Even on prescription drugs? It is hard to compare, as I have no personal experience. Round here it is quite uncommon to be seeing psychiatrist or being under meds or at least much less common than in USA. Although the laws require it, even military does not take in people with anxiety disorders and disorders which could lead to outbursts or suicide,

You can get drivers licence, although it is written on the licence that you have to wear glasses or contacts. This is checked when you are stopped for some reason (seat belt e.g or speeding). If a person with weak eyes is not wearing glasses or contacts during driving, he is dangerous for himself and others. Not exactly medical history and blood test, but a paper from your doctor that says that states your medical condition.

All companies do not require although I have heard some companies want to have certain things checked out before for job safety, so that a person with strong heart condition would not start working with heavy weights etc. The companies themselves do not see your blood analysis, simply that you are okay or have some conditions. There is a certain list of conditions that the doctor has to write out on the paper, not all conditions.

About drug tests, I do not know details, most companies do not do, although there are some fields which require it (medicine for example, heart surgeon should not be a drug addict, that is why he is controlled). I do not know how inaccurate TV-series want to be, although even in Suits ( US law-series) drug-tests were required from people who were working at law firms. There are many ways around, but many people do not know these ways around and would get busted.



Originally posted by Cancerwarrior
Here in the US we have minor offenses also. But we also have the three strikes rule. I recently read an article where a man in Florida was sentenced to 25 years because he stole a package of socks at Walmart. It was his third strike. Over here we have the prison industrial complex full of mostly non violent drug offenders. Going to jail here does not mean you are a violent gun toting criminal. And your record stays with you seven years but will always say what you got arrested for no matter how much time has passed if you are taking a background check.

Ouch, we do not have the three strikes rule, although the fines go larger with more offenses and at the end you may be put to jail for not paying all the fines or asked to show up to some disciplinary committee. I believe overally the laws are too soft, too short jail times.


Originally posted by Cancerwarrior
So you also are saying that poor people are more likely to shoot others?


It is a hard point to debate with, as statistically most criminals come amongst people with financial trouble and ghettos are amongst the most dangerous areas to live at in big cities. Every person I know who went to criminal road, started off due to financial troubles... Majority of the worlds crime are done due to financial troubles. We may be against killing animals who are nearly extinct, although try to put yourself in the shoes of a man, who has a choice: either kill the tiger or let your kids starve to death. In real life such choice might come with starting dealing drugs or robbing a store to pay off a debt. Poverty is a major factor for majority of crime, especially in the starting phase, although such law might be offensive to many honest poor people, so it is a controversial point, a coin with two sides.
edit on 4-4-2013 by Cabin because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cancerwarrior
I am on disability and make less than 1000 bucks a month. I would say I fit your profile of low income. Should I go turn in my rifles and shotguns because I can shoot someone because I am so poor? LOLOLOL

And who is going to license these hunters and fishermen? Let me guess...the government.

You are putting entirely too much faith in a corrupt government that gets worse by the week.

Maybe you should learn a bit more about American society and culture before making a bull___p thread like this.

Lets entertain the notion for a second that somehow magically every gun in the world is gone. Like when Superman gathered all the nukes and threw them into the sun. Are you really naive enough to think that people will stop killing each other when they feel like it?

I think they should pass a law where everyone must be armed. That would be a much more polite society.
edit on 4-4-2013 by Cancerwarrior because: (no reason given)


I do not know how corrupt the goverment, yet I know the fact round here nearly nobody has personal guns, I personally do not any of the people I know (at least when we have talked) to have a gun. Most people who have are either hunters and some people for self-protection (rare) and training (shooters). Overally around 12/100 people, USA has 88/100. I am in the mid-20s and I have never seen a gun or heard a shot. It is simply that rare. In a year there is in total about 1,5 gun-deaths per 100 000, compared to 10,5 in USA. That is the difference with stronger gun control, the first 3 rules are used with some extras -certain guns are banned and some other rules. Overally it is uncommon to own a gun and most people would not be able to afford one.

I am not talking particularly about you, but there are many people in a similar condition like you are and some of them consider criminal activity out of desperation.

The system is like that and nothing can change it. 90%+ of people might be honest, but because of the 10%- being dishonest, everybody needs to be controlled. It is already in most laws that require extra paperwork and documents. Most people would not lie and be honest about their situation/condition, although because of the few lying people, who try to use the "loophole", everybody needs to be controlled.Same is with guns, most people would rather do anything else to get out of debt than commit a crime, although some would rather rob a bank or somebody else in order to survive the financial trouble.



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cabin
Out of low level criminals without any connections, yes. Round here it is not that easy to get hold of a gun illegally, unless you have good contacts.


Once again, you are comparing wherever you are with the US. You are speculating that its like this over here, so it must work like that over there too. Flawed logic.


Originally posted by Cabin
Even on prescription drugs? It is hard to compare, as I have no personal experience. Round here it is quite uncommon to be seeing psychiatrist or being under meds or at least much less common than in USA.


You don't have to see a psychiatrist to get a prescription for these dangerous drugs over here. They have them in all the commercials for christsake. Once again you are assuming your culture and the US is one and the same.


Originally posted by Cabin
There are many ways around, but many people do not know these ways around and would get busted.


I've worked for several companies that have mandatory drug testing. Almost everyone I worked with at these places used recreational drugs. Maybe many people don't know how to get around them where you are from but here they sure as hell do.

Also, you keep talking about low-income people and crime being related. So tell me, how exactly will keeping them from buying guns legally prevent crime?

Your answer for everything seems to be more regulation, more government involvement. Which is complete bollocks. ( isn't that what you brits say?)
edit on 4-4-2013 by Cancerwarrior because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cabin
I do not know how corrupt the goverment, yet I know the fact round here nearly nobody has personal guns, I personally do not any of the people I know (at least when we have talked) to have a gun. Most people who have are either hunters and some people for self-protection (rare) and training (shooters). Overally around 12/100 people, USA has 88/100. I am in the mid-20s and I have never seen a gun or heard a shot. It is simply that rare. In a year there is in total about 1,5 gun-deaths per 100 000, compared to 10,5 in USA. That is the difference with stronger gun control, the first 3 rules are used with some extras -certain guns are banned and some other rules. Overally it is uncommon to own a gun and most people would not be able to afford one.


I'm assuming you are in Britain since you will not say where it is you are at. The fact that you have never seen or fired a gun means that you grew up without it in your culture. Well guess what, I live in area where boys and girls are taught firearm safety and shooting techniques from the time they can stand and hold a rifle. Owning firearms is as much a part of my culture as not having them is a part of yours. The US overall has more violent crime than the UK. Tighter gun control will not solve this problem. It is a societal problem. Not a gun control one.

And I dont know where you get that 88/100 statistic from, but only 1 in 5 households has a firearm in it over here. Most gunowners have several weapons.


Originally posted by Cabin
I am not talking particularly about you, but there are many people in a similar condition like you are and some of them consider criminal activity out of desperation.


So you are saying ban guns from everyone poor because there are a few that might commit violent crimes with them? If people really want to rob someone, whats to stop them from robbing people with knives, or swords, or axes? Robbery has been around alot longer than guns have. Wow. Lets punish everyone for the sins that might be commited by a few. Very idiotic. Besides, at the rate the US is going we will all be in the poorhouse in a few more years.

Know what a burglar fears the most? An armed homeowner. So this point you keep bringing up about burglaries and poverty and guns all being tied together somehow is totally irrelevant.


Originally posted by Cabin
The system is like that and nothing can change it. 90%+ of people might be honest, but because of the 10%- being dishonest, everybody needs to be controlled.


You should come to America and run for office. You sound like the spokesman for the NWO.
edit on 4-4-2013 by Cancerwarrior because: (no reason given)
edit on 4-4-2013 by Cancerwarrior because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 05:30 PM
link   
I am not saying threads should be banned or something like that, simply I believe there should be some rules that have to be met before posting a thread:

1) People with mental problems should never be allowed to post a thread. Any disorder, which could have anger management issues, like ADHD, should also not be allowed to post a thread. Also people who have mental problems that need to be dealt with prescription drugs. Full mental evaluation from government facilitated mental hospitals should be done first. Private practicioners should not be counted.

2) Drug addicts should not be allowed to create a thread - common sense

3) People with criminal record should not be allowed to make a thread - common sense.

4) I believe the financial stability of a person should be considered somehow. Most criminals in the world have started out due to financial difficulties. The first thing that comes to mind (which would not be require much extra tests or paperwork) would be education, as uneducated people are more likely to fall into financial difficulties (especially when they are not very intelligent, which often (not always) uneducated people tend to be) , which could lead desperate people to criminal world. At least high school education should be required if not higher education (I would prefer the latter personally). Although there might be better ways to consider or predict the likelyhood of a person falling into financial trouble and doing something illegal to get out of it. Intelligence seems too harsh to be considered, as IQ-test does not predict that much. Maybe someone can suggest something for it?

Recheck every couple of years is needed.



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cabin
I am not saying guns should be banned or something like that, simply I believe there should be some rules that have to be met before getting a gun permission:

1) People with mental problems should never be allowed to get a gun. Any disorder, which could have anger management issues, like ADHD, should also not be allowed to own a gun. Also people who have mental problems that need to be dealt with prescription drugs. Full mental evaluation from government facilitated mental hospitals should be done first. Private practicioners should not be counted.

2) Drug addicts should not be allowed to have a gun - common sense

3) People with criminal record should not be allowed to have a gun - common sense.

4) I believe the financial stability of a person should be considered somehow. Most criminals in the world have started out due to financial difficulties. The first thing that comes to mind (which would not be require much extra tests or paperwork) would be education, as uneducated people are more likely to fall into financial difficulties (especially when they are not very intelligent, which often (not always) uneducated people tend to be) , which could lead desperate people to criminal world. At least high school education should be required if not higher education (I would prefer the latter personally). Although there might be better ways to consider or predict the likelyhood of a person falling into financial trouble and doing something illegal to get out of it. Intelligence seems too harsh to be considered, as IQ-test does not predict that much. Maybe someone can suggest something for it?

Recheck every couple of years is needed.

I personally do not believe these are even "strict" rules. Rather soft to be true. After mental, criminal, educational and addiction records are evaluated any person can get a firearm. Criminals and people with mental issues/addictions should never have an option of obtaining a fire-arm legally...


You're all wet. Here's why:

Define mental Illness better: ADHD - Really.. you must have no clue what ADHD is. Anyone who can be treated correctly with medicine - is still a threat in your world? You Must defer to the FDA and AMA's idea of medieval health practitioners to have a valid diagnosis - family doctors who may be wiser are not even counted?

Drug Addicts: Does this include people who are addicted to nicotine and caffeine? Does this include pot smokers? What about people who simply screw up from being an adolescent and they are on treatment for the addiction?

Define Criminal: I have been in jail for a DWI in my past - I have a criminal record, yet today, I do not drink or break the law and have no felonies.

Financial stability: I do Not have a steady job ( heck millions of people in the USA dont have steady jobs) I do odd jobs and make just enough to live on. I have no money in the bank nor do i wish to use those thieving crooks scam machine.

I worked for years to buy my house. Now I just work enough to pay my bills deciding to get out of the rat race. You might say i am not financially stable. I use coffee and nicotine on a daily basis. As stated, I have a DWI based "criminal record" 3 strikes against me then huh?

You would deny me the Right to legally own a gun I can use to protect myself from a home invasion? This could mean the cost of my life or my wife's life. - You would rather see us dead? I obtained my gun after Hurricane Katrina and our home was broken into from someone looking to steal insurance money. Luckily the wife and I are still here but I will never give those crooks a chance again. You never know who will kill you.

The gun was given to me by a friend. No papers were filed with the state nor was this required. The state does not even know I own this gun. It is of a sort that fires 12 shots as fast as you pull the trigger with a long 6 inch rifled barrel. It is also of the sort that my state does not require it to be registered or even have a permit to carry on the hip openly. I can wear it most places in public. I'm sure that freaks you out.

I'm sure glad you aren't making the laws. I could be dead.
edit on 4-4-2013 by JohnPhoenix because: sp



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Cabin
 


So what your saying is that since im poor, i have no right to protect my family or feed them? Hmm sounds like elitist B.S. to me. Care to elaborate?



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
It is also of the sort that my state does not require it to be registered or even have a permit to carry on the hip openly. I can wear it most places in public. I'm sure that freaks you out.


Gotta love Louisiana right? I live in Central LA in the woods and I love it. The OP clearly has no idea what he is talking about because he thinks that since he lives in a city and has never been around firearms everyone should share this view.

Jolly good! Right-o Guvnah! Fancy a cup a tea then?



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 10:41 PM
link   
Question: This is going to require a lot of resources. Now, according to you, criminals usually have financial problems. Wouldn't it be simpler (and less constrictive) to put that money into getting criminals off the street via either rehabilitation programs or straight-up law enforcement?



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cabin

The system is like that and nothing can change it. 90%+ of people might be honest, but because of the 10%- being dishonest, everybody needs to be controlled. It is already in most laws that require extra paperwork and documents. Most people would not lie and be honest about their situation/condition, although because of the few lying people, who try to use the "loophole", everybody needs to be controlled.



Everybody needs to be controlled? By whom?
And who is watching the watchers?
Isn't it simply better for individuals to hold each other accountable? Why do we need to pay people to do that for us?

A society that cannot trust its neighbors cannot trust its government.



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 02:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock


And that purpose is protected by the bill of rights. Strange isnt it?

I think to vote, one must pass a test on the constitution.


And only those who agree, and want to defend the United States Constitution, and don't want to abolish any inherent, natural/God given right should be allowed to vote...

BTW, in case some of you don't know, in the eyes of many Democrats/leftwingers and other gungrabbers in power, any American who thinks we have a right to own and bear arms " has some kind of mental problem"...

When you add to that the fact that the mental health tests will be ran by the STATE/leftwing government, it is pretty obvious, for those of us intelligent enough to anticipate the next move of the leftwingers and other gungrabbers, what will happen...

edit on 5-4-2013 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 03:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Cabin
 

How do you know that all of these happenings are not made. How do you know that the reality you live in is not made up from your government? You are spoon fed media daily to control you yet the actions of an insane are not questioned. Mind control experiments have been taking place for years right under our noses who is to say these "insane" men are not victims themselves?



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 04:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by agentscoly
reply to post by Cabin
 

How do you know that all of these happenings are not made. How do you know that the reality you live in is not made up from your government? You are spoon fed media daily to control you yet the actions of an insane are not questioned. Mind control experiments have been taking place for years right under our noses who is to say these "insane" men are not victims themselves?


I know that the reality is not made up, because I know many people working for the local media. Nothing is spoon-fed to them. They have no censorship, although very controversial articles without definite proof, especially on politicians, are sometimes disallowed, as these can bring suits against the magasines.

We have had different conspiracy theory movies in the national television (not private, but national), e.g. Zeitgeist and several 9/11 conspiracy documentaries have officially been shown in national television.

The local news portals allow anybody write articles for the media and pay for them. There have been many very controversial private articles in the local official media for example on global warming hoax, freemasons, illuminati, 9/11, everything like that. I had one of my friends write an article there on conspiracies recently (I am not that good in the local language, as I am not local citizen, although I have lived here for quite some time already).

So yes, I am sure that I am not spoon-fed information due to knowing the people writing articles and how they write and where they get information, at least they are not spoon-fed anything, free choice to write on anything.



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 04:02 AM
link   
Well, you eliminated pretty much anyone.


Originally posted by Cabin
1) People with mental problems should never be allowed to get a gun. Any disorder, which could have anger management issues, like ADHD, should also not be allowed to own a gun. Also people who have mental problems that need to be dealt with prescription drugs. Full mental evaluation from government facilitated mental hospitals should be done first. Private practicioners should not be counted.


Forced mental evaluations at schools, and half the country could easily be labeled as "mentally ill", and in need of medication. The REAL mentally ill are already not allowed to buy guns.


Originally posted by Cabin
2) Drug addicts should not be allowed to have a gun - common sense


So, what, forced drug testing in the gun stores? Or, do we test everyone, in case they might want to buy? So much for no illegal search of persons.....




Originally posted by Cabin
3) People with criminal record should not be allowed to have a gun - common sense.


There are already laws preventing people with certain types of records from owning a gun. Preventing all that broke any law? NO. A speeding ticket is a crime. Give them that inch, no one will have guns.


Originally posted by Cabin
4) I believe the financial stability of a person should be considered somehow. Most criminals in the world have started out due to financial difficulties. The first thing that comes to mind (which would not be require much extra tests or paperwork) would be education, as uneducated people are more likely to fall into financial difficulties (especially when they are not very intelligent, which often (not always) uneducated people tend to be) , which could lead desperate people to criminal world. At least high school education should be required if not higher education (I would prefer the latter personally). Although there might be better ways to consider or predict the likelyhood of a person falling into financial trouble and doing something illegal to get out of it. Intelligence seems too harsh to be considered, as IQ-test does not predict that much. Maybe someone can suggest something for it?[/qiote]

Nice one......so, trash the economy, make most people financially needy, and then tell them they can't have guns. People aren't granted freedoms based on IQ, either. They have freedoms as a natural RIGHT. What part of "freedom" don't you grasp??



Originally posted by Cabin
I personally do not believe these are even "strict" rules. Rather soft to be true. After mental, criminal, educational and addiction records are evaluated any person can get a firearm. Criminals and people with mental issues/addictions should never have an option of obtaining a fire-arm legally...
edit on 4-4-2013 by Cabin because: Edited the 4th point.


You can believe whatever you want, but those beliefs do NOT mean you can usurp the rights of others.



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 04:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Krakatoa
 



Im from the UK and am strongly anti monarchy. What your saying is, I'd be viewed with the equivalent disdain as the gun grabbing liberal in America for not supporting the monarchy?



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 05:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Cabin
 


1) To some extent, I agree. If a person has a history of treatment for certain mental illnesses that carry significant risk of violent behavior, there probably should be a requirement in place for them to be evaluated before purchasing a firearm. I would not, however, ban them outright, as they have as much right to defend themselves as anyone else provided they are not a threat to society, nor would I require the evaluation at a gov't-run facility, as there's too much potential for abuse.

2) Agreed, although as long as they have no history of violence, restoration of their 2A rights should be automatic if they can prove they've been clean for a few years.

3) I would only ban criminals convicted of a violent felony. Granted, criminals being what they are, this isn't going to prevent anything.

4) Absolutely not. The poor and uneducated have the same right to defend themselves as anyone else. And yes, while its true that those who fall into either category are statistically more likely to become involved in criminal activity, there are still tens of millions of them who don't. They don't deserve to be punished for the actions of a small minority of idiots.



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cancerwarrior

Originally posted by MrJohnSmith
reply to post by Logarock
 


Logarock, i never could understand the bizarre American " Right to bear arms " according
to the constitution.

But then I wouldn't " Get it " being British ,


Its quite simple really. How many times has the mainland US been invaded in its history? How many times has Britain been invaded in its history? Even Hitler said that an invasion of the continental US was impossible because "Everyone is armed."

Not to mention since record numbers of Americans are trusting the government less and less I don't want them to be the only ones who are armed. Like I said, quite simple to understand really even for a firearm free Brit.


For that question to have merit wouldn't you have to set the dates? So if you asked the question how many times has Britain been invaded in its history since the American declaration of independence then the answer is none.



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 08:52 AM
link   
Coming to ATS, where people think 10yrs old right to own gun SHALL NO BE INFRINGED, you gonna suggest removing certain ownership, not happening!



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cabin

Originally posted by slowisfast

Originally posted by MrJohnSmith

But then I wouldn't " Get it " being British ,


It has nothing to do with being British...
You just don't get it.


To be honest most countries do not get it, as constitution and rights are not taken that seriously in most countries. To be honest, I have never even read the constitution here and do not know what rights I have . I simply take things logically, basically all of my rights and no-rights are simply a matter of common (moral) sense. If I might be dangerous for the society, then I would not fight for my right to own a gun, even if the constitution said otherwise...
edit on 4-4-2013 by Cabin because: (no reason given)


It's an interesting point. The Magna Carta (the Great Charter) is the model on which the American constitution was based, that's common knowledge. In a sense, common law to an extent grew out of it. The more likely difference is that as America (as it is thought of today) is still a relatively new country so its constitution is perhaps seen as part of a validation for its existence - for some people to a very strong level.





new topics




 
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join