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: 3
24
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 2 2021 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: AaarghZombies


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

Probably. Which kinda makes one scratch their head at the idea of making guns illegal. They already are.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 2 2021 @ 01:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated


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

Third rule of Engineering: Only make something idiot-proof if you want the world to make better idiots.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 2 2021 @ 01:13 PM
link   
They don't care about the philosophy of self-defense in the modern world.

Our gripes about rights don't even register in their world.

All they want is for you and me to be defenseless in their world and be their slaves.
edit on 4 2 2021 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2021 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: DAVID64
I was having a conversation with someone about gun control and my comments actually made them stop and think. They are somewhat anti gun, but I think
[ Hope ] I made an in road to their thinking.

My points were these : If someone is killed with a hammer, do you blame the hammer ?
If someone is beaten to death with a baseball bat, do you blame the bat ?
How about knives, do you blame the knife ?
A pencil can be deadly, even if you're not John Wick.
If a drunk driver kills someone, do you blame the car ?
Hell, a rock can be deadly if the person using it has ill intent.

We were sitting at the bar where I work and I asked, if someone hits you with a beer bottle, is the fault of the bottle ?

A gun is an inanimate object. It has no will of it's own, is not going to suddenly grow arms and legs and pull it's own trigger.

It is not the object, but the intent with which it is used





You'll have to try a different approach.

What's the purpose of a hammer (what's its function)? Killing things or pounding in nails? When they modify hammers is the purpose of the modifications to make the hammer better at killing or better at constructing?
What's the purpose of a baseball bat? Hitting balls or killing things? When they modify bats with cork and other substances is it to make the bat better at killing or better at hitting baseballs?
What's the purpose of a car? Transportation or killing things?

What's the purpose of a gun? Killing things, right? When they make modifications to a gun, it's to make it better at killing things -- right (better bullet prenetrating power, more accurate targeting, etc) rather than better at carrying you safely down a zip line or locating the moons of Saturn or flipping hamburgers or cutting cakes.

The "it's an object" doesn't work since it's an object constructed with the sole purpose of Making Things Dead -- either for real or for pretense (target shooting)



posted on Apr, 2 2021 @ 01:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Byrd

Thats great an all

Yet it is my right to own guns, so where does that leave us?



posted on Apr, 2 2021 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Byrd

Modification intent is about as moot a point as one can have. What's the purpose of post-it note glue? A temporary stickiness, right? Wrong. The purpose it was developed for was a super-strong permanent glue. It was a failure, but someone realized another use for it: sticky notes.

Rockets were developed to explore space; they also get used to deliver ballistic weaponry and kill people. A lot of people. From a very long distance away. Ask the survivors in Oninawa and Nagasaki. Oh, right... they were vaporized by one of the rockets designed originally to explore space.

Speaking of which, nuclear reactions were developed to produce power. 'Nuff said?

Some computers are designed from the ground up for hacking purposes. Does that make every computer owner a hacker?

Many people build cars specifically for the purpose of racing. I did when I was younger. Is every car owner a racer?

One simply cannot attribute intent to an inanimate object. Inanimate objects have no intent, and the purpose they were designed for is not the only purpose they have. Until people can accept that fact, they will forever be immersed in ignorance.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 2 2021 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn


They don't care about the philosophy of self-defense in the modern world.

They don't comprehend the concept of self-defense. I have debated people on these very boards who claimed that a robber had the right to kill the owners of the home he just invaded if they have a gun, in self-defense.

That is the mentality we are talking about. Or lack of.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 2 2021 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: SeektoUnderstand
I agree with it all, except... since when do you pull triggers with your legs? Hehe


Ask Kamala Harris.



posted on Apr, 2 2021 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Byrd

You have a point. Guns are made to kill. But, and I repeat, it's not the object, it is the intent for which it is used. I can use my rifle to feed my family, while some lunatic uses it to murder innocent people.

Why should I be punished for his behavior ?



posted on Apr, 2 2021 @ 03:05 PM
link   
Boom...and just like that we have a "car-killing" at the Capitol in DC.

What was that about firearms again???



posted on Apr, 2 2021 @ 03:05 PM
link   
a reply to: DAVID64




Why should I be punished for his behavior ?


This question is what the "gun control" issue boils down to. Eight simple words.

It's one that the gun control advocates can't answer without sounding like would be tyrants.



posted on Apr, 2 2021 @ 03:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
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 ..."


It makes one wonder just how far this insanity is going to go, and if there will be an end to it.



posted on Apr, 2 2021 @ 04:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Byrd


Rockets were developed to explore space; they also get used to deliver ballistic weaponry and kill people. A lot of people. From a very long distance away. Ask the survivors in Oninawa and Nagasaki. Oh, right... they were vaporized by one of the rockets designed originally to explore space.

TheRedneck

You got your facts wrong the bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima were never delivered by a rocket.

Anyone that took history in high school should know that the were dropped from a B29 bomber.
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 2-4-2021 by ANNED because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2021 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: ANNED

Actually, they were delivered by a rocket (aka "missile" which is a small, guided rocket), launched from the Enola Gay B-29 bomber. Contrary to the links you put up, which makes it sound like Little Boy was simply dropped, it was launched during a turn (which gave it somewhat of a horizontal component) and followed a parabolic curse to its target, using a very unsophisticated (by today's standards) guidance system.

This was necessary because the mushroom cloud resulting from the explosion would have obliterated the Enola Gay. As it was, she survived the shock wave 11.5 miles away from ground zero, although it is reported to have been a very rough ride. Much closer, and she along with her crew would have also been casualties.

The trajectory took 44.4 seconds to complete. Had the Enola Gay been directly above the target at the time of launch she would have had to be doing Mach 1.4 (932 miles/hour) during and after launch to travel that 11.5 mile distance.

I am quite familiar with the technology used. I took a little liberty in that the propulsion system used on Little Boy was so small as to barely able to be classified as a real "rocket," but my point stands: rockets are used regularly to deliver weaponry.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 3 2021 @ 10:14 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I've had similar arguments with what may be toddlers with criminal intent as well.



posted on Apr, 3 2021 @ 10:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Byrd

I agree.

If we're going to argue for our right to bear arms we need to be upfront about what that means.

I've made several posts that show this very stance. I don't own weapons for hunting or any other purpose than to preserve my life.

I don't take jiu jitsu so that I can compete. I don't own and train with guns so that I can go plinking with my buddies. I do these things so that if another human being attacks me it will potentially be the last thing that human being does.

That said, it should not be confused with an intent to kill. That is not the purpose of gun ownership. The purpose of gun ownership should be to preserve your own life should it be threatened.



posted on Apr, 3 2021 @ 11:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Byrd

Modification intent is about as moot a point as one can have. What's the purpose of post-it note glue? A temporary stickiness, right? Wrong. The purpose it was developed for was a super-strong permanent glue. It was a failure, but someone realized another use for it: sticky notes.


You proved my point there.

Everything you listed has multiple uses, including peaceful uses (rockets, for example) and not death or death threat.

The only purpose for a gun is to kill things or to simulate killing things -- so comparing it to a knife (used for a lot of things, including wood carving) or a hammer (primary purpose is to drive nails or shape metal) is a false equivalency.

And that was the point I was making in my post. "Intent" is moot.



posted on Apr, 3 2021 @ 12:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Byrd

I don't take jiu jitsu so that I can compete. I don't own and train with guns so that I can go plinking with my buddies. I do these things so that if another human being attacks me it will potentially be the last thing that human being does.


I acknowledge your intent -- but I think we should also recognize that this justification is a slippery slope and that you aren't everyone who owns guns. A lot of people have been shot because someone felt they were attacked (someone cut their car off, someone's in their territory) and a lot of innocent bystanders have been injured or killed by this same logic -- people were protecting their "turf" from a threat.

Like a stranger in their neighborhood. A gun is a "too easy" answer for that (when a more logical approach is a friendly conversation, "haven't seen you around here before. Are you new?")


That said, it should not be confused with an intent to kill. That is not the purpose of gun ownership. The purpose of gun ownership should be to preserve your own life should it be threatened.


Preserve your life by killing someone. It's my impression that the target on gun ranges is always set to areas of the body that will produce a fatality, correct? There's no courses on self-defense shooting and accurate quick shots to areas that would disable but not lead to death (like shooting someone in the knee) -- am I correct? Many targets at gun ranges appear to be human body shaped and the main impact is the area of the torso that would result in a kill.

I could be wrong about this, but in googling shooting targets I don't see any images of objects marked with places to shoot that would disable and not kill.

So I would argue that the intent here is to kill.


I suppose one could argue that the intent is to intimidate, but (to be quite honest) I've intimidated more people with a live tarantula (as a nature educator, I pick up and handle live tarantulas) than I think I could intimidate with any kind of gun.



posted on Apr, 3 2021 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Byrd

It is not an intent to kill that makes most people buy guns.

The incidents you describe are not the norm. They are amplified by media, but certainly not the course of normal daily life for the vast majority of law abiding gun owners and the numbers reflect it.

Law abiding is the key here. Committing a crime with a gun is NOT exercising a right.

There is a right and wrong way to use a gun. Guns are for deadly force encounters. You train to shoot center mass on a human being in order to stop them from killing you.

INTENT to kill is a psychological state. I don't have an intent to kill anyone when I am aiming at a target. I am training to hit the critical areas that will stop and may kill the individual assailant who is threatening my life. But the idea that I have set out to kill is ludicrous. I don't set out to choke people out and break limbs as a matter of INTENT as a result of my jiu jitsu training.



posted on Apr, 3 2021 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Byrd


"Intent" is moot.

Your entire point is based on intent of use by the manufacturer; based on that, I find the above quoted statement to be quite disingenuous. I could agree only if the manufacturer of a firearm were to kill someone.

Let me ask you a question, Byrd. I know you to be a thoughtful and intelligent person.

Is there any practical difference between one not having a particular tool which can be used for malicious purposes, and one not having any intent to use a tool for malicious purposes?

TheRedneck




top topics



 
24
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join