Despite lower crime rates, support for gun rights increases

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
Like i said, its like ordering diet coke with a big pizza order. Sure you are still having the bad stuff, the pizza (crime) but why not reduce the amount of calories (gun crime) by a little bit. thats it. Its still bad, but a bit less bad.

But that's the problem, isn't it? What law are you going to pass that's going to reduce gun crime, given that there are already mandatory penalties in place for usage or sometimes even possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime (never mind the fact that crime is already, by definition, illegal), as well as the fact that convicted felons are banned from owning them, yet many still do. If they're not following the law now, what does adding another layer do?

The answer is absolutely nothing, except to burden or outright deny the rights of law abiding citizens who aren't the problem.

We've already seen this in a number of major cities in the US that have attempted large scale bans that have had disastrous consequences on crime and homicide rates. It doesn't work here. Its actually the rural areas, which tend to have relatively few gun laws and the most guns, that actually have much lower homicide rates. Further, homicide rates in the US are actually down 50% (and violent victimizations with firearms down about 70%) over the last two decades and are currently at historically low levels during a time period in which gun sales and concealed carry permits have skyrocketed.

The simple fact is that British style gun control is not feasible here any more than American gun control laws would work in Britain. The cultures and attitudes of the public are different, the political realities are different, the pre-existing number of firearms in society is different, and the type of criminal activity is different.

a reply to: 3danimator2014

Im sorry, but thats ridiculous. Its an object. nothing more. To attach so much value to it, or to eqaute it to a "way of life" is just astounding. and in my opinion, a symptom of something else, which i wont say here as ill get another warning.

So you would advocate the banning of this inanimate object but not all others that can cause deaths or injury? I mean if we used your logic there would be no objects left I swear. So where does the line get drawn? Who gets to decide what objects are allowed and which are banned?

You come in here on your high and mighty English/UK horse and demean us and talk down to us like we are backwards people, however you haven't provided any solutions worth discussing. You've shown a great amount of ignorance to the subject in the posts you've made here and to me it seems like your the type to argue just to argue. The fact your worried about wins and losses here is very telling...

originally posted by: 3danimator2014


Im outta here.

Believe me, you're doing the right thing.

No one can reason with people who wants to own guns and look like characters in Hollywood, just like no one can reason with a child who wants more toys and emulate characters in some stories.

The op needs only to write the word "gun" and he gets covered with stars. Whereas your logic is only met with rejection.

Let's leave them drooling for their toys.

a reply to: swanne

Do you promise????? Pinky promise that you will go away?

originally posted by: swanne

originally posted by: 3danimator2014


Im outta here.

Believe me, you're doing the right thing.

No one can reason with people who wants to own guns and look like characters in Hollywood, just like no one can reason with a child who wants more toys and emulate characters in some stories.

The op needs only to write the word "gun" and he gets covered with stars. Whereas your logic is only met with rejection.

Let's leave them drooling for their toys.

Considering the credibility you lost here recently, I would be very hesitant to claim that I posted this for stars....oh look...the edit actually showed up in one of your posts.....

originally posted by: swanne
Whereas your logic is only met with rejection.

Look up the definition of the word in bold.

You'll find none of that from the anti-gun side of the argument and that is why they are met with rejection.

The facts simply don't agree with the anti-gun agenda and that is why support for gun control is fading rapidly in the U.S.

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: 3danimator2014

The power of YOUR political officials is being used.

Also, the thing in their pants, as well as bribe/hush money and many others things.

All can be dangerous. Anything can be dangerous.

Totally irrelevant. Of course anytrhing can be dangerous. But no one needs guns. other than law enforcement and farmers.

You're still doing this?

The figures vary widely but firearms are used between 250,000 and 1 million times defensively in the US each year with the vast majority of those not involving a discharge of the firearm.

Those people would disagree with your "no one needs guns" nonsense.

originally posted by: 3danimator2014



I love it. I love how you guys pretend that gun crime is non existent in the US ...or at least happens rarely. Hilarious.

I love how you guys who don't live in the US pretend that gun crime is a rampant epidemic because your media seeks out firearm-related stories to keep the people frightened of guns and convinced that heavily-restricted ownership is the right solution.

Did you ever think for a second that maybe, just maybe, you're the victim of propaganda?

The "other side" seems to be arguing that "guns do not make a society safer."

I don't think anyone is trying to oppose that point. When criminals have guns, knives, blunt objects, and their criminal intent... law-abiding citizens are better off having guns for protection. THAT is the point that people are trying to make.

In areas where gun control has increased in the US, crime rates including gun-related crime has not decreased and in some cases has increased. In areas where gun control has decreased in the US, crime rates including gun-related crime have fallen or stayed the same.

I posted this link earlier but it bears repeating. If those arguing against guns would look at the facts, this argument wouldn't be happening.

Worth a read no matter which side you're on...

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
Considering the credibility you lost here recently, I would be very hesitant to claim that I posted this for stars....oh look...the edit actually showed up in one of your posts.....

Credibility? Some of us were laughing about your paranoia in Page 2. Seeing a big conspiracy in an edit tag.

Considering that you cannot hold your position without resorting to heavy ad hominem attack, and that many of your posts were deleted because of their off-topic nature, I would say that you are not capable of a civilised debate and thus not worth of my time.

EDIT:

BTW I am not anti-gun, I am pro-responsible ownership. But I doubt you would even recognize the difference.

a reply to: swanne

Ha...so truth is now paranoia? And yes, editing a post without reflecting that edit after others have posted loses a lot of credibility.

It also shows a direct and clear ability to not be able to debate in a civilized manner since you were able to, AND DID, change your arguments/posts after the fact without letting on that you had done so. But if you can't win an argument...cheat right?

And yes, I am fully aware of the difference between anti-gun and being a responsible owner.

originally posted by: swanne

originally posted by: 3danimator2014


Im outta here.

Believe me, you're doing the right thing.

No one can reason with people who wants to own guns and look like characters in Hollywood, just like no one can reason with a child who wants more toys and emulate characters in some stories.

The op needs only to write the word "gun" and he gets covered with stars. Whereas your logic is only met with rejection.

Let's leave them drooling for their toys.

The difference between boys and adult men is the lethality of their toys.

a reply to: swanne

And here I thought you were going to go away.

I do love your typical Anti-2nd responses, where you use the "ad hominess" attack statement and the whole you are for responsible ownership.

You are what you are. Embrace it. Trying to hide it or deceive others as to what you are, by using talking points and hyperbole is pretty lame.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: swanne

And here I thought you were going to go away.

I do love your typical Anti-2nd responses, where you use the "ad hominess" attack statement and the whole you are for responsible ownership.

You are what you are. Embrace it. Trying to hide it or deceive others as to what you are, by using talking points and hyperbole is pretty lame.

I took the liberty of going back through numerous threads and have found the same "trick" used in almost all of them. Typical behavior.....if you can't win the argument, why play by the rules....

Usually just means that there is some odd feeling of being justified whether or not you are correct....doubt they will ever go away, likely just figure out a new way to mislead.....

a reply to: Vasa Croe

It goes back to the basis of this:

We, those that value the 2nd and all other Rights, don't push to control the actions of others.

Those, that are against any or all Rights will continually push to control everyone else.

Plain and simple. Typically it is out of fear that people vie to control others. Sometimes, it is just the want and lust for power.

originally posted by: swanne

BTW I am not anti-gun, I am pro-responsible ownership. But I doubt you would even recognize the difference.

That's what most anti-gun folks say so, you're right... it's a little tough to tell the difference.

The most hardcore anti-gun politicians have all said "I'm not against the 2nd Amendment or people's right to own guns for hunting, I just want sensible restrictions..."

In private, they said "if I could get enough votes in the senate to round up every single gun, I would do it."

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Vasa Croe

It goes back to the basis of this:

We, those that value the 2nd and all other Rights, don't push to control the actions of others.

Those, that are against any or all Rights will continually push to control everyone else.

Plain and simple. Typically it is out of fear that people vie to control others. Sometimes, it is just the want and lust for power.

Bingo.

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: swanne

BTW I am not anti-gun, I am pro-responsible ownership. But I doubt you would even recognize the difference.

That's what most anti-gun folks say so, you're right... it's a little tough to tell the difference.

The most hardcore anti-gun politicians have all said "I'm not against the 2nd Amendment or people's right to own guns for hunting, I just want sensible restrictions..."

In private, they said "if I could get enough votes in the senate to round up every single gun, I would do it."

And yahtzee....back to back!

originally posted by: macman
I do love your typical Anti-2nd responses, where you use the "ad hominess" attack statement and the whole you are for responsible ownership.

So if I am pro-responsible, this means that ad-hominem attacks are justified.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
I took the liberty of going back through numerous threads and have found the same "trick" used in almost all of them.

So, not only are you STILL posting WAY off-topic posts, now you are also stalking me?!

originally posted by: macman
It goes back to the basis of this:

We, those that value the 2nd and all other Rights, don't push to control the actions of others.

Those, that are against any or all Rights will continually push to control everyone else.

Plain and simple. Typically it is out of fear that people vie to control others. Sometimes, it is just the want and lust for power.

Sure. If I am pro-responsible ownership, then surely it means I am in lust for power and I wish for the total enslavement of USA.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
And yes, I am fully aware of the difference between anti-gun and being a responsible owner.

I did not say "aware". I said "recognize", as in, "acknowledge the difference".

This...

originally posted by: Answer
That's what most anti-gun folks say so, you're right... it's a little tough to tell the difference.

The most hardcore anti-gun politicians have all said "I'm not against the 2nd Amendment or people's right to own guns for hunting, I just want sensible restrictions..."

...is not acknowledging at all.

I think this thread has run its course. Until now I have seen form you guys quite a few different kinds of tactics which are hardly contributive to ATS as a discussion board:

1). Ganging up on individuals who have different opinions
2). Ad hominem attack under the form of hostility towards members based on off-topic information ("your edit tag is anomalous - therefore the entire point is invalid") and/or nationality ("you're British - therefore your point is invalid")
3). Stalking so to find further basis for more ad-hominem attacks
4). Denial that such ad-hominem attacks were carried out (even though two moderators repetitively witnessed such attacks and warned several times against it, not to mention deleted posts which contained such attacks)
5). Ad hominem attack under the form of prejudice of posters which disagree with you ("if you are pro-responsible ownership then it means you are anti-gun").

I just want to inform you that I have informed of your general hostile behaviour to the mods.

originally posted by: swanne

I just want to inform you that I have informed of your general hostile behaviour to the mods.

Feel free. Not a single person has violated the T&C on this page.

Just because you can't handle having your opinion questioned and you can't back up anything you say with facts doesn't mean anyone has violated the T&C.

Sorry, but getting your little feelings hurt and whining to the mods is just proof that you can't justify your position.

As for ad hominem attacks, you posted the following:

No one can reason with people who wants to own guns and look like characters in Hollywood, just like no one can reason with a child who wants more toys and emulate characters in some stories.

Let's leave them drooling for their toys.

On the first page of this thread you said, multiple times, that "no one is hearing my points so I'm done... bye" but you came back to post another cutesy reply on this page... why? If you knew that no one agreed with you and that we were "being hostile" to your opinion, why did you try to keep prodding? Were you simply trying to provoke us?

You poked the bear and now you're crying because the bear reacted.

When you can offer something more than sarcastic quips, baseless accusations, sweeping stereotypes, and defensive whining, maybe people will respond accordingly.

You made broad-brush generalizations of gun owners that were completely incorrect and you stuck to it no matter what was said... but you wonder why the people you stereotyped responded with hostility?