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.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: network dude
It should be noted that both of these Muslims were legal US citizens (they were born here too) and obtained their rifles legally.
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: queenofswords
People like Obama that stand on their high horse
This is one of the reasons it's hard to have an intelligent discussion on this issue. Crap like this alienates people and it's annoying.
Why can't we address the issue without some lame reference to Obama, Leftists and such?
I'm a Leftist. I'm pro 2nd amendment.
So where do we go from here?
originally posted by: Passerby1996
a reply to: TinkerHaus
I can explain your confusion with this in one sentence: Guns are FAR more likely to kill people than knives.
Crime rates have NOTHING to do with guns. Wealth gaps and discrimination DO. BUT, a victim of violent crime has a higher chance of surviving a violent encounter with a knife-wielding assailant and living their rest of their lives afterwards. Yet a victim of a gun-wielding assailant will give the victim very low chances of living a fulfilling life afterwards. Do you know why? Because they're dead!
originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: introvert
The good people I know would only EVER consider taking a life to protect their family. Most would risk death to help save a stranger. That is what I consider a good person. Someone who can kill (anything) with no remorse is a bad person. Sorry it's dumbed down that much, but it's how I see things.
And no gun control would not have done a thing in any of these cases. Legally obtained or not, these shooters planned this well ahead of time. Obtaining the tools to do what they planned is only a minor technicality. If you think about that for a minute, you will understand.
originally posted by: ClassicCon
Radicalized nutjobs. Your observation IMO is correct. They would have found the means to terrorize even without the firearms. CA is as close to a gun free zone state as possible. I will tell you, I am licensed to CC and if I was at ANY event where there was a degree of terrorism, the perpetrators would not have had a free for all gun spree. IMO , we have to call Radical Islamic Terrorism what it is, and this has to start from the top of our government.
originally posted by: Passerby1996
a reply to: Klassified
I don't know where you're getting the idea that Jamaica was somehow a safe place to live in during the seventies. I keep seeing a lot of internal turmoil and a rise in gun-related crimes. Then there was a response by the government to give the police and investigative agencies sweeping new powers. But that's not armed people preventing gun violence. That's better intel preventing gun violence.
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: queenofswords
People like Obama that stand on their high horse
This is one of the reasons it's hard to have an intelligent discussion on this issue. Crap like this alienates people and it's annoying.
Why can't we address the issue without some lame reference to Obama, Leftists and such?
I'm a Leftist. I'm pro 2nd amendment.
So where do we go from here?
If you think about that for a minute, you will understand.
Now please read that important word before you accuse me of being an islamaphobe or some hater of Muslims. If Radical Christians were doing this, I'd call them that. But this time it's radical Muslims. And make no mistake they are at war.