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.

 

An Open Letter to Lovers of the Gun

page: 14
21
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 08:05 PM
link   

kdyam
As far as the school shootings go, I am surprised that not that there's not many anti-gun people are crying out about the particular school systems, and their guidelines on the violence that is taking place in regards to reprisals from bullying. Sandy-Hook is an exception as would be any sub-middle school level school where an adult has committed the crime. A lot of these kids that have taken guns to school and perpetrated acts of violence have been bullied... the majority of schools have not been cracking down on bullies.

The statistics are just that.. numbers... so what happens to these statistics if we only have one school shooting in 2015 but it kills 200 people? Occurrences are just that... someone can go into a mall an fire off a bunch of rounds and not hit anything... the problem is not with guns... it never has been. Someone could go into a classroom with a decent knife and kill just as many if not more people.. or bombs.. or poison.. where there is a will there is a way.. in the end guns will make no difference.. how many "suicide shooters" do you hear about in the middle east?


In addition Lanza was faced with children who were unable to fight back ( why he probably chose the lower grades in the elementary school to begin with) and was left inmolested to do his thing for 30 minutes by some accounts and much more by others. With a helpless, active audience, give ample time to reload, could have killed just as manh with a single shot shotgun, a bow, a club, a knife, or a machete. Like every single example of similar situations, he kept killing until he was confronted by a man (or men) with guns and he stopped without a fight. He offed himself but in other cases they gave up when a single induvidual with a gun presented himself. No firefights, just surrender or suicide.



SM2

posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


But...but...but....

Aren't schools gun free zones?



posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 08:52 PM
link   

SM2
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


But...but...but....

Aren't schools gun free zones?


This is the fallacy that anyone striving for liberty must overcome. The folks who like to control populations like the fact that it is a commonly accepted lie that laws prevent crime.

Law provide recourse for those who have done something unlawful, but the law itself does nothing to prevent the crime. The only place that laws prevent malfeasance is in companies, where someone not abiding by the law can see their company put under extreme duress by the government. In the case of someone who has gone into that realm of psychotic rage, "the law" is nothing but an imaginary and ignorable barricade.

If this truth were to become part of the everyday thought process of the average human, we would see a worldwide change via uprising.



posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


Found this today a new study of firearm injuries and children and teen:

After the gunshot: Hospitalizations for firearm injuries prevalent among children

news.yale.edu...

This doesn't include deaths - just injuries. They state that



About 20 children per day in the United States are injured by firearms seriously enough to require hospitalization, and more than 6% of these children die from their injuries, according to a study by Yale School of Medicine researchers and their colleagues published in the Jan. 27 online issue of Pediatrics.


The complete text of the journal article is cited at the end of the piece.

They conclude from their study:



These data highlight the toll of gun-related injuries that extends beyond high-profile cases, and those children and adolescents who die before being hospitalized. Pediatricians and other health care providers can play an important role in preventing these injuries through counseling about firearm safety, including safe storage,” said Leventhal, who points to

the American Academy of Pediatrics’ recommendations that the safest home for a child is a home without guns, and, if there is a gun in the home, that it must be stored unloaded and locked, with the ammunition locked separately.



posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


"Its for the children".....




posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 09:28 PM
link   

NavyDoc


So, since logic and reason are foreign to you, you resort to personal insults and emotional histrionics. Thus I see that apparently your basis of opinion on this is not reason or logic" but mindless emotion.

How is a tracking chip or disabling chip a "safety measure?" Who controls it? Who is responsible when it fails and a person cannot defend herself from a rapist? What secondary measures that enable the rightful owner to utilize her firearm if the chip fails to work properly? What right does the state have to modify your property, anyway?

There is a lot of intellectual arguments against, but not much more than OMGZ emotion for, such measures.
edit on 27-1-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)


2 points:

1: you start your post by attacking someone's character and say they are attacking with personal ....... Pot calling kettle.

2: a tracking chip, just like the ones in all new cars - can be used to help or hurt. You are stating that the technology is flawed not the people who control it. Which seems to negate the arguement often being used in this thread that it's people who kill and not guns. Which one is it - the technology or the people?


SM2

posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by FyreByrd
 



Just so you are aware, all of these gun injury statistics also include suicides, attempted suicides, shot by law enforcement officers, shot by people they were victimizing, self inflicted wounds due to negligence on their own part (or the parent/guardians fault).

So, you remove the ones injured due to law enforcement officers and due to being shot while committing a crime, that will remove a significant percentage. Next remove the suicide related injuries/fatalities, because if a gun was not available, a razor, a bathtub and electrical appliance, a car, a knife, a rope and chair, plastic bag, a nail file, pills on down the line would be. What would you have left? A few sad tragedies easily prevented with either proper supervision, proper safety or a healthy dose of respect and common sense.



posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 09:41 PM
link   
This thread is so full of FUD and fail I don't know why I'm bothering.

But check it out.... maybe you should do some studies on rampage shootings and the general desperation level of the population.

Or better yet you should maybe look into how the disturbing rise in school shootings seems to track very nicely with the march of "zero tolerance" policies towards "violence/bullying" at schools that seem to target the victims not the victimizers.

Or better yet you should maybe look into how the idea of childhood has been raped into something where it's an accomplishment to make it to 18 without being a felon because we actively look to persecute kids to a freakish level today.

But no instead lets just blame guns....

Because blaming inanimate objects for things that are pretty blatantly social problems is easy... it doesn't do JACK but it's EASY.



posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 10:01 PM
link   
Oh also... I want to point out the ONE Thing that the anti gunners say that is true and explain why they're even MORE wrong because of it.

They are right that guns in the home do make you more likely to commit a successful suicide.... notice SUCCESSFUL.

Now in a country where we're supposed to be entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness does anyone else find it at all disturbing that our leadership's idea of "suicide prevention" is taking away one of the only means left that won't result in unspeakable agony for minutes or hours before one expires?

If you're not even allowed discretion over your own life you are, quite simply, PROPERTY.

When you look at the antigun movement through the lense of citizenry as chattel property... Their arguments ALMOST make sense. Because ALLOWING gun ownership gives people too many options and makes them too accountable. It also makes you able to permanently opt out of the system without fear of an embarrassing agonizing and most likely unsuccessful suicide attempt.

EDIT TO ADD:

Ok I want to make something ABUNDANTLY clear here.

I am not a proponent of suicide. Nor would I ever consider it myself. However I don't believe that taking away the means to die with little pain and some semblance of dignity is suicide prevention. It is just plain cruel. And anyone who considers taking away firearms from people as a viable means of "suicide prevention" scares me quite badly. Because at it's core it's a viewpoint that completely devalues and utterly strips the individual of anything resembling liberty. And I'll be honest people that think that way scare me because it's a freakishly inhuman and evil way of thinking to my mind.
edit on 27-1-2014 by roguetechie because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 10:30 PM
link   

FyreByrd
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


Found this today a new study of firearm injuries and children and teen:

After the gunshot: Hospitalizations for firearm injuries prevalent among children

news.yale.edu...

This doesn't include deaths - just injuries. They state that



About 20 children per day in the United States are injured by firearms seriously enough to require hospitalization, and more than 6% of these children die from their injuries, according to a study by Yale School of Medicine researchers and their colleagues published in the Jan. 27 online issue of Pediatrics.


The complete text of the journal article is cited at the end of the piece.

They conclude from their study:



These data highlight the toll of gun-related injuries that extends beyond high-profile cases, and those children and adolescents who die before being hospitalized. Pediatricians and other health care providers can play an important role in preventing these injuries through counseling about firearm safety, including safe storage,” said Leventhal, who points to

the American Academy of Pediatrics’ recommendations that the safest home for a child is a home without guns, and, if there is a gun in the home, that it must be stored unloaded and locked, with the ammunition locked separately.


Well if you read your article, it really has less to do with actual Children and more to do with 15 to 20 year old males and it would appear Gang related Violence.
It's also interesting to Note, that according to Your Article, Gun Violence is the Second Most Common Cause of Death.


Firearm injuries are the
second leading cause of death among American children. Previous
estimates of nonfatal injuries have relied on small samples of
emergency department visits and do not allow a detailed
understanding of these injuries among children and adolescents



: In 2009, there were 7391 hospitalizations
for firearm-related injuries in US children and adolescents; 89% of
hospitalizations occurred in males. Hospitalization rates were
highest for 15- to 19-year-olds and for black males. Deaths in the
hospital occurred in 6.1% of children and adolescents.

Your article
So Really The Whole, Children aspect of your Rant about owning guns is absurd. Most 15 to 20 year old Males I know don't want to be known as a Child!

edit on 27-1-2014 by guohua because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-1-2014 by guohua because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


Guns are hardly "technology". Especially when you are talking about a chip.

Its people that kill, not guns. Guns are a tool. Its not the hammer that drives the nail, its the person swinging the hammer. And while it may be the hammer that hits you in the head, it was the man swinging it which gave it purpose, and momentum.

There is no logical basis for any gun control argument. It all boils down to it feeling dangerous, and thus must be controlled. The world is a dangerous place. Especially for fools. Like your nation full of 15-20 year old black males in the emergency room with gunshot wounds, that you are calling "children".

The first clue that your argument is baseless is when you have to misrepresent data (by ignoring parts of that data) to support it. You really should ask yourself WHY you have your viewpoints on guns. Then ask yourself if any remedy you are promoting is really logically workable. I can make a gun with some metal parts and nitrous oxide. I can make a canon, actually. Just use a bowling ball, and big wrought iron pipes (and a touch of crazy). Point being...what will you really control?



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 03:58 AM
link   
So....Shootings are up in places guns are not allowed..LEGALLY...I think I see the problem...And it's not too many guns

edit on 1/28/2014 by DrumJunkie because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 06:58 AM
link   

SuperFrog

network dude

SuperFrog
We are first country to have more guns than total population. (I believe latest numbmers are like 101 gun per 100 people, guess what it was 40 years ago)


Which brings me back to my point. 40 years ago, kids didn't go out and shoot up schools.

Logic, the lost art.


That is exactly what I said, number of guns 40 years ago was not the same as of today. You showed graph that supposed to say my numbers did not make any sense. Remember this post?


Higher numbers correspond to higher crimes, including more mass shooting.

Just look at this number, 5.5 million of guns, 90% sold in states - 4.95 millions of guns - huge industry and someone is profiting a lot, spreading some wealth among politicians that support industry.

Every time there is this debate, I wish USA congress has the same thing as NASCAR racers - showing their donors on their uniforms and car. It would be much easier to know why some politician voted the way they did...


edit on 27-1-2014 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)


So it's your contention that if Adam Lanza looked down and only saw 1 or two guns, he wouldn't have killed all those people?

Look at your chart. It shows one other important thing. People increasing with gun manufacturing. Per Capita.

It's not the number of guns. It's the content of the character of the people who pick up the gun. I have several, yet somehow, I refrain from killing people. How on earth is that possible? I mean, I could pick up a rifle and a handgun.

Your logic is flawed.



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 07:05 AM
link   

FyreByrd

NavyDoc


So, since logic and reason are foreign to you, you resort to personal insults and emotional histrionics. Thus I see that apparently your basis of opinion on this is not reason or logic" but mindless emotion.

How is a tracking chip or disabling chip a "safety measure?" Who controls it? Who is responsible when it fails and a person cannot defend herself from a rapist? What secondary measures that enable the rightful owner to utilize her firearm if the chip fails to work properly? What right does the state have to modify your property, anyway?

There is a lot of intellectual arguments against, but not much more than OMGZ emotion for, such measures.
edit on 27-1-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)


2 points:

1: you start your post by attacking someone's character and say they are attacking with personal ....... Pot calling kettle.

2: a tracking chip, just like the ones in all new cars - can be used to help or hurt. You are stating that the technology is flawed not the people who control it. Which seems to negate the arguement often being used in this thread that it's people who kill and not guns. Which one is it - the technology or the people?



The "chip" is a panacea to those who do not understand the limits of said technology. I said both, it is flawed technologically and one should not blindly trust those who control it.



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 07:07 AM
link   
It's so funny how the anti gun side always pulls out this totally ridiculous fallacy that there's not stricter gun control because gun companies don't want it.

First off, the ONLY reason gun companies in the US are so responsive to their customer bases views on firearms rights is because that customer base has shown time and again that gun companies that betray us will get starved to the brink of bankruptcy by the gun buying public in america as punishment for betraying us.

The reality is the firearms industry is one of the very few industries that runs in a sane and economically viable manner, and this is due ENTIRELY to it's aware and willing to forego buying something from a company even if they can't get it anywhere else if that company does not stand with them on things like fighting dangerous legislation.

So go ahead and keep complaining that there's ONE industry left that actually responds to the wants, needs, and desires of it's client base, It does wonders to completely eviscerate your arguments on the massive fallacies inherent in your anti gun company rants.



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 07:55 AM
link   
im confused.

are these studies referring to irresponsible owners or autonomous sentient firearms?



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 07:56 AM
link   
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


That 'study' is basically propaganda. For one, it includes 18 and 19 year olds, who are not children, but legally, they're adults. Second, once you hit age 14 or 15, you start seeing a huge increase in the number of firearm-related injuries and fatalities, and the reason is obvious. Its largely gang-related, plus a large number of suicides.

If you look only at 'children' ages 0-13, you'll find that there were a total of 3362 firearm related fatalities from 1999 to 2010, or, on average 280 per year. That covers accidents, suicides and homicides, with accidental only around 55 a year. By contrast, you're going to find that 18 and 19 year olds...adults...account for over 18,000 in the same time period, which is more than half the total of all in the 0-19 range. Yearly, its almost exactly 1500.

Needless to say, including 18 and 19 year old adults as 'children' skews the data, which, of course, is the entire point of including them.

I've got to get ready for work, but you can find all of this and much, MUCH more at the CDC's WISQARS site. It also includes a section for non-fatal injury data.
edit on 28-1-2014 by vor78 because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-1-2014 by vor78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by FyreByrd
 




I like to think there is a 'karmic' component to it as well.

Are you the same person that blamed another poster of not bringing a rational response?
Karma?



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 08:41 AM
link   



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


Well, let's see. Going by your information, and their logic, actually, the safest home would be one without a vehicle, no?


2007

2010

In the United States during 2010, more than 1,200 children ages 14 years and younger died as occupants in motor vehicle crashes, and approximately 171,000 were injured.


2011

476,773 Children ages 19 and under were seen in emergency rooms for motor vehicle crash injuries in 2011. Of these, 293,530, or 62%, were ages 15 to 19



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join