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.

 

Yes this is about guns

page: 2
24
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 2 2021 @ 10:51 AM
link   
Its about brainwashing the weak minded portion of the public into believing what Middle said in the post above mine.

My family left Turkey in 1910. The people were disarmed in 1911. A couple years later, they were all killed. The same think will happen here. Better have a good place to hide, when idiots and Satanic wolves control the US government, as they now do.



posted on Apr, 2 2021 @ 10:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: DAVID64

If I were to debate an anti-gun person I'd calmly and simply ask if they were going to remove their penis because someone else raped a woman.


I ask the same with cars. 40,000 car deaths a year. In order to reduce deaths by cars we need to ban cars, everyone should have to walk. Why should their convenience of transportation supersede someone else's life?

Of course, they will say that is ridiculous and I just sit there smiling....

They have far more chance of dying in a car accident than by a firearm. Yet, they drive every day and accept that there is some number of people who will die in accidents.
edit on 2-4-2021 by Edumakated because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-4-2021 by Edumakated because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2021 @ 11:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Redhead6971

The cartels would be done if Congress issued Letters of Marque...which would only be effective if there were no firearms limitations. People used to own cannons and warships. Imagine a horde of M1 Abrams tanks, crewed by rednecks holding a Letter of Marque flowing across the Mexican boarder set to engage the Sinaloa Cartel...bye-bye cartel when they get there.



posted on Apr, 2 2021 @ 11:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Necrobile

Sure, a pencil could be a deadly weapon, but how many people could you end up harming with a pencil compared to a gun??

The only ones that could possibly come close are knives(only if one is talented and fast enough) and cars(many options for a large, metal vehicle). In the end, though, most anti-gun people still feel it's ok to take guns away because the overall harm factor is lessened with everything else.


Here is a recent conversation with a friend about ARs mainly...



A person could kill 100s over time with a knife if that was their desire, but at the end of the day about 300 people are killed by all types of rifles and 1500 people are killed by hands. My friend talked about Newtown, Connecticut, but the gunman only used 2 handguns....



posted on Apr, 2 2021 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: MiddleInsite


Guns can kill many and from large distances.

No guns involved. Many killed.

No guns involved. Many killed.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 2 2021 @ 11:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: MiddleInsite


Guns can kill many and from large distances.

No guns involved. Many killed.

No guns involved. Many killed.

TheRedneck


Remember a few years ago there was a spate of terrorist using trucks to run over people? The one in nice, france killing 87 and injuring 434. We should ban uhaul trucks....



posted on Apr, 2 2021 @ 11:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated

I ask the same with cars. 40,000 car deaths a year. In order to reduce deaths by cars we need to ban cars, everyone should have to walk. Why should their convenience of transportation supersede someone else's life?

Of course, they will say that is ridiculous and I just sit there smiling....

They have far more chance of dying in a car accident than by a firearm. Yet, they drive every day and accept that there is some number of people who will die in accidents.


The problem is the liberals are OK with people killing 1 or a few at a time such as 20 maybe on a weekend in Chicago.

If we look at mass killings of more than 2 in the last 10 years its about 200 people total with 60 from the LV hotel incident. The 10 years prior to that the total was 109, and 10 years more was 61, so we are talking 370 people in 30 years have died to mass shootings...

So what is it are we trying to solve here if 9000 gang members kill people each year and we do nothing...



posted on Apr, 2 2021 @ 11:48 AM
link   
What we really need is for Congress to act now on Mass Murder Law Reform. They need to close the legal loopholes that enable people to commit murder. Anyone intending to commit murder should undergo a background check and a psychiatric evaluation to obtain a murder permit.

There should be severe penalties for anyone who commits murder without a permit.



posted on Apr, 2 2021 @ 11:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Edumakated

I ask the same with cars. 40,000 car deaths a year. In order to reduce deaths by cars we need to ban cars, everyone should have to walk. Why should their convenience of transportation supersede someone else's life?

Of course, they will say that is ridiculous and I just sit there smiling....

They have far more chance of dying in a car accident than by a firearm. Yet, they drive every day and accept that there is some number of people who will die in accidents.


The problem is the liberals are OK with people killing 1 or a few at a time such as 20 maybe on a weekend in Chicago.

If we look at mass killings of more than 2 in the last 10 years its about 200 people total with 60 from the LV hotel incident. The 10 years prior to that the total was 109, and 10 years more was 61, so we are talking 370 people in 30 years have died to mass shootings...

So what is it are we trying to solve here if 9000 gang members kill people each year and we do nothing...


Exactly. Mass shootings are exceedingly rare, but media coverage makes them seem more frequent and common than they really are.

Most gun deaths are overwhelmingly with illegally owned handguns and involve one thug shooting another thug in urban environments. Overwhelming black on black violence.

Yet, the left wants to inact laws that mainly only affect legal gun ownership in suburban and rural areas and mainly impacts the ability to buy a gun that is used in like 5% of gun deaths. Keeping Billy Bob from buying his tacticool AR-15 at Cabelas has zero impact on day to day gun violence in Chicago. Statistically, mass shootings are very rare. So again, who and what problems are leftist policies trying to address?



posted on Apr, 2 2021 @ 11:52 AM
link   
So lets say tomorrow all guns disappear.... We will then see mob rule... Go watch the Gangs of NY movie again to see what happens when guns are few...Humans will still work to be the top of the food chain and that would then be groups with bats and/or knives. Yes a LV killing would never happen again but about 99% of the population would be in fear of the 1% that happen to be physically strong and willing to gang up for strength.

I'm 6'5" 280 pounds so I'm good...all you women maybe not so much...



posted on Apr, 2 2021 @ 11:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

We should also mention how notoriously ineffective firearms must be.


In 2018, the total ammunition production for the United States was estimated at 8.7 billion rounds. The numbers for 2019 should be published in December of 2020.

A reasonable extrapolation puts the amount of ammunition produced for the United States market at somewhat over 9 billion rounds, of which 5 billion are rimfire and 4 billion are centerfire rifle, pistol, and shotgun rounds in 2020.
Source


All firearm deaths
  • Number of deaths: 39,707
  • Deaths per 100,000 population: 12.1
Source

Let's see... 39,707 divided by 9,000,000,000 is .00044% effective (1 firearm related death for every 227,000 tries), assuming of course that guns are made to kill humans. That's the argument, right?

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 2 2021 @ 11:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated

Yet, the left wants to inact laws that mainly only affect legal gun ownership in suburban and rural areas and mainly impacts the ability to buy a gun that is used in like 5% of gun deaths. Keeping Billy Bob from buying his tacticool AR-15 at Cabelas has zero impact on day to day gun violence in Chicago. Statistically, mass shootings are very rare. So again, who and what problems are leftist policies trying to address?


What further laws can a place like Chicago enforce when guns are basically illegal there already. If I'm walking around and I'm the only one with a bat then I'm top dog... If many have bats I'm not going to freely use mine... In Cities were guns are basically outlawed only the criminals have them and we see how that plays out with cities like Chicago.

Oh and then defund the police there too...



posted on Apr, 2 2021 @ 12:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero


What further laws can a place like Chicago enforce

Answer: they can't. With the police defunded, they can't enforce any laws.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 2 2021 @ 12:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: BerkshireEntity
Spot on man. More people need to wake up to this fact! Its protection for you and your family and protection from tyranny in government. These are facts! S&F



So far, all of the other things have two things in common.

1) Killing people isn't in their top originally 5 intended uses,
2) It's actually pretty difficult to kill people with them.

The thing about guns is that they make it ridiculously easy to kill somebody without really even meaning to. A lot of people involved in shootings do it on the spur of the moment and in a fit of anger, then they realize what they've done and are distraught. For example, people involved in road rage killings.

A person is much more likely to survive a hammer or a knife attack than a shooting. A single shot to the chest will kill you quite easily, a single hammer blow to the head probably won't. It will be extremely bad, but unlikely fatal.

A gun also allows you to kill multiple people very quickly. A person armed with a knife will struggle to kill 3-4 adults, a person with a gun can do it in a matter of seconds, and they can do it from across the street.

Now, for the elephant in the room. The main purpose of a gun is to kill somebody.

In a home defense situation, do you aim your gun at somebody and ask them nicely to stand with their hands in the air while they wait for the cops to come, or do you put three rounds in them, spit on their cold dead body, then call 911 safely in the knowledge that castle doctrine has your back? It's the same with street crime. Do you A) ask your attacker to wait patiently for the cops to come and arrest them, or B) turn them into swiss cheese on the spot?

Yes, guns also have uses for hunting, target shooting and pest control. Which is the strictest gun regulations are aimed at "assault" weapons and hand guns. Not bolt action rifles and shot guns. Which are what you're average hunter competitive shooter, or person with a rat problem uses.

A lot of products are regulated in today's America. Poisons, explosives, and precursor chemicals used to make illegal drugs. Because while all of these products have perfectly legitimate uses, they're also commonly misused.

Now, I'm no liberal snowflake. You're going to have to pry my gun out of my cold dead hands, but I do understand where liberals are coming from and why they want there to be fewer guns on the street. And I do understand why your argument is a total no-sale to them.

I think that we're just going to have to accept that there are too many irresponsible gun owners out there, and rather than being angry at the liberals for being afraid we should be angry at the stupid people who do stupid things.



posted on Apr, 2 2021 @ 12:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Xtrozero


What further laws can a place like Chicago enforce

Answer: they can't. With the police defunded, they can't enforce any laws.

TheRedneck


Aren't a lot of the guns used in crimes in Chicago purchased outside of Chicago and illegally brought in?



posted on Apr, 2 2021 @ 12:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Klassified

Exactly! Someone else said vehicles were able to kill as many as guns, and I was thinking, "Well they want to ban combustion engine private vehicles ..."



posted on Apr, 2 2021 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: AaarghZombies

Statistically most guns used in crimes are illegally obtained.



posted on Apr, 2 2021 @ 12:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Xtrozero


What further laws can a place like Chicago enforce

Answer: they can't. With the police defunded, they can't enforce any laws.

TheRedneck


Aren't a lot of the guns used in crimes in Chicago purchased outside of Chicago and illegally brought in?


Some are... but straw buying is already illegal. Gun control advocates love to try to blame Indiana, but the reality is that logically if ease of buying were the issue, then Indiana's murder rate should mirror Chicagos. However, it doesn't because that isn't the issue. The issue in Chicago (and almost every major city) s black on black gang violence... nothing more.



posted on Apr, 2 2021 @ 12:32 PM
link   
a reply to: AaarghZombies

No matter what we do, Darwin will always build a better idiot.

You cannot legislate stupidity and irresponsibility away. Again, going back to the car example. I am a safe driver. I cannot necessarily control what other people do on the road. The answer isn't to ban all cars.

Speed is most often the cited reason for a car accident. Maybe we should limit speed to 30 mph. Silly, right? I mean no one needs to own a sports car just like no one needs a 19 round magazine?
edit on 2-4-2021 by Edumakated because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2021 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: AaarghZombies


So far, all of the other things have two things in common.

1) Killing people isn't in their top originally 5 intended uses,
2) It's actually pretty difficult to kill people with them.

If killing people is one of the "top originally 5 intended cases" for guns, then it is pretty difficult to kill people with them. Look at my post right above. It seems to take almost 227,000 tries to kill one people.

If I break a bottle in a bar fight, is it not intended to cut someone with? If I carry a bat in my car, am I going to play baseball? Is a hunting knife not intended to separate body parts of a creature (including peoples)?


The thing about guns is that they make it ridiculously easy to kill somebody without really even meaning to. A lot of people involved in shootings do it on the spur of the moment and in a fit of anger, then they realize what they've done and are distraught. For example, people involved in road rage killings.

I think you're reaching here... reaching as in, you could scratch someone's back in Hawaii while standing in Alabama. In order to get a permit to just have a gun in one's car, one must pass a background check, even in Alabama. Killing people during a fit of road rage, I'm pretty sure, is one of the disqualifiers for that.

I know I have carried a gun in my car for many, many, many years. I have never used it on anyone. I have never pulled in in a fit of road rage. Heck, I only pulled it out once, and that one time saved my life. Am I doing it wrong, do you think?


A person is much more likely to survive a hammer or a knife attack than a shooting. A single shot to the chest will kill you quite easily, a single hammer blow to the head probably won't. It will be extremely bad, but unlikely fatal.

Actually, a hammer blow directly to the head is almost always fatal. Probably moreso than a bullet wound to the chest. People survive perforated lung damage all the time; few survive having their skulls cracked open and their brains leaking out.


A gun also allows you to kill multiple people very quickly. A person armed with a knife will struggle to kill 3-4 adults, a person with a gun can do it in a matter of seconds, and they can do it from across the street.

I addressed that claim in another post just above as well. Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people and injured more than 500 within less than a minute, and he was miles away from them when he did it. No gun was involved. On September 11, 2001, 19 hijackers killed 2,977 people in a matter of moments and injured over 6000 more. No guns were involved, and their weapon of choice was "fired" from a distance of many miles. Edumakated's post above correctly points out how a single terrorist in Nice, France, killed 87 and injured 434 with a U-Haul truck (which, I might add, is not classified as a "gun") in a matter of moments.

So that argument is complete BS.


Now, for the elephant in the room. The main purpose of a gun is to kill somebody.

They're certainly not very good at it. Again, it apparently takes almost 227,000 tries to kill a single person.

No, your premise is incorrect. The purpose of a gun is to prevent others from killing me.


In a home defense situation, do you aim your gun at somebody and ask them nicely to stand with their hands in the air while they wait for the cops to come, or do you put three rounds in them, spit on their cold dead body, then call 911 safely in the knowledge that castle doctrine has your back? It's the same with street crime. Do you A) ask your attacker to wait patiently for the cops to come and arrest them, or B) turn them into swiss cheese on the spot?

Actually, if there is time to do so, yes, I would point that barrel with the really big hole in the end of it in their face and politely ask them to lie on the floor with their hands behind their back until the police arrived. I would only pull the trigger if my life (or the lives of my family) were in imminent danger... i.e, if the criminal was pointing a gun.

Methinks you have been watching "Gunsmoke" a little too much. That's not really Matt Dillon... his real name is James Arness, and that hogleg is a plastic prop made to look like a real gun. No one dies when they get shot; they just fall to the ground and act like they're dead. Sorry to burst your bubble.


Yes, guns also have uses for hunting, target shooting and pest control. Which is the strictest gun regulations are aimed at "assault" weapons and hand guns. Not bolt action rifles and shot guns. Which are what you're average hunter competitive shooter, or person with a rat problem uses.

Howell Heflin, is that you?

I hunt with a Mini-14 quite often. Why? Because it's lightweight, easy to carry, and it fires the military-style .223 caliber bullet. They have a very long range, a flat trajectory, and are quite lethal. Howell Heflin didn't think people could hunt with a Mini-14 either; that's why he said he voted for that particular weapons ban. And that's why I never voted for him again.

It holds a 30-round clip. So? Do you think that means it spits all 30 rounds every time I pull the trigger? It doesn't. I need one (maybe two on a bad day) shots to hunt. There's no reason for me to empty the clip to get one or two shots in. Just like there's no reason for me to go buy a new clip because someone who obviously knows absolutely nothing about guns (you) thinks I have too many bullets in it.

Incidentally, should I encounter, say, a pack of coyotes (a real possibility), those 30 rounds might suddenly become quite desirable to have on hand. Of course, I suppose you think it would be better if I asked them to stop attacking me while I reload?


A lot of products are regulated in today's America. Poisons, explosives, and precursor chemicals used to make illegal drugs. Because while all of these products have perfectly legitimate uses, they're also commonly misused.

Explosives are not regulated. They tried that once; it didn't work. I can walk into any convenience store in this country with $20 and buy everything I need to leave a crater where it once stood. And I don't claim to be an explosives expert.

Regulation of poisons doesn't seem to be working either; millions of poisoning cases happen every year. It's actually very, very easy to poison someone... we live in a society where breathing in someone's vicinity seems to be considered an attack. They're trying to regulate that now, too.


Now, I'm no liberal snowflake. You're going to have to pry my gun out of my cold dead hands, but I do understand where liberals are coming from and why they want there to be fewer guns on the street. And I do understand why your argument is a total no-sale to them.

Forgive me, but yes you are and no they won't. You will happily hand over any weapons you have as soon as someone asks for them. Heck, you'll probably thank them for saving you from yourself. Please stop lying to yourself; it's not healthy.


I think that we're just going to have to accept that there are too many irresponsible gun owners out there, and rather than being angry at the liberals for being afraid we should be angry at the stupid people who do stupid things.

No, we're not. Sorry to keep bursting that bubble.

TheRedneck



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join