Blame the shooter, not the gun

reply to post by clayb2004


And that's always a good thing. I would love it that EVERY service member questioned things, because it's better to think things through than to blindly follow without thinking. Cheers for the reply

Originally posted by Taupin Desciple

Originally posted by lambs to lions

To blame guns on gun-related violence is ridiculous.

Taken by itself, I hope you realize just how silly that statement is.

You're right, guns have nothing to do with a bullet leaving the chamber, barrel and nozzle and then lodging itself into the target. How silly of us to think otherwise.

Case & Point!

Silly to blame the gas that was planted in his apartment TO BLOW UP!
Silly to blame a car for running over a pedestrian!
Silly to blame the planes that crashed into the twin towers!
Silly to blame the box cutters that the guys used to overtake the planes!
Silly to blame the U-Haul Truck that the OK City Bomber used!
Silly to blame the knife to cut Nichole Brown and Ron Goldmans throat!

Not silly to blame anything other than what is behind it!

reply to post by Themanwithnoname


reply to post by muse7


To you folks and anyone else who would use this argument, "JUST YOU WAIT TILL IT HAPPENS TO YOUR FAMILY"!!!
How is this?
This man lost a daughter, and still understands what his and her sacrifice means.
Any who would suggest putting ANY restriction on guns spits on the graves and faces of any who have served their country.
To be anti gun is just plain wholly unholy and unpatriotic.
If that is where you find yourself then please by all means leave this country for your own sake, if the shooting starts, the ones with no guns will not stand a chance.
Just ask 12 lambs in Colorado.
Even the jews understand where tyranny and mass death comes from, it comes when you disarm a people.
How do you people not comprehend that criminals do not care about laws?

reply to post by g146541


Well said. I'm glad you made that point.

Star for you sir!

Why is it that every time i run into gun control folks, theyre totally ignorant about guns and the value of human life in general? Have seen several people on ats today who think that ar15s are full auto weapons. Wtf? Hell i tried to tell a waitress about fast n furious a while back. She doesnt like guns. So i guess its ok to kill people to get em banned then. Wtf? and apparently if someone tries to kill me, i have no right to defend myself with deadly force.....

Oh yeah, so what if guns were banned? And this guy walked into the theatre with a few molotov cocktails? What if he stole a gasoline tanker truck and drove it through the freakin wall? Should we ban trucks? I already have to have a freakin tsa security clearance to haul dangerous things in a tanker....but all you gotta do is steal one...

reply to post by phroziac


Why is it every time I run into gun control advocates they use the same ridiculous, tired argument. They have no leg to stand on. I try to stay out of debates in which I am not at least somewhat educated. Most of the anti-gun folks don't really know the first thing about guns. To them, they are mysterious, dark tools of death and carnage. I understand that some people have no experience around firearms, and that guns in general scare them. I'm okay with that. But, I wish they wouldn't push that ignorance and fear onto everyone else as though they are an authority on the subject.

It like one big circle jerk in this thread. It a shame about all the cherry picking of posts. I guess obviously, facts that prove that the need for guns isn't necessary. Is to hard to look at.

I agree.

Are people saying the gun shot the person? No, people should say, the person shot the person.

If they want to ban guns because of gun related crimes, they would be on infringement of the contract called "The USA constitution" (Which possibly doesn't exist anymore) and they will kill millions because we will be like sheep for the slaughter.

I mean, an old man put up a fight and sent 2 boys with weapons scurrying away, why can't us?

reply to post by Bixxi3


Whoa there. I'd be happy to address any facts that you have that would prove that guns are not necessary. Furthermore, I have addressed both those for and against gun control. Obviously, I sit on what I feel is the correct side, so I am biased. However, I'm willing to listen to any facts that you have that would prove me wrong. .

Not everything in life can be painted a certain color, or put in a neat labeled box. Sometimes there is no answers or solutions. There will never be a solution that prevents evil people from harming others. Yes, guns do make it easier for them to commit murder. However, it is not the gun's fault. Blaming inanimate objects for the actions of humans is irresponsible. We must accept that responsibility as humans. Furthermore, taking away an innocent man/woman's rights to protect themselves in a way that they feel necessary is wrong, and isn't for others to decide.

Now, that you have a clear picture of my feelings on this issue. I would be more than happy to listen to what you have to say, and respond in a respectful manner.

Originally posted by muse7
Guns have no other purpose but to cause severe injury or death.

I agree and would like to add that guns are not designed to injure, they are designed to kill.

Take martial arts weapons like the Samurai sword versus say nunchaku. Nunchaku were farming tools turned into weapons. The purpose of the sword was a weapon of death.

All guns are swords in this sense. The purpose of a gun is to kill. In the case of gun advocates, kill or be killed; intimidate through show of force and threat of death.

Either way it involves killing and the ongoing threat thereof.

An example of British thinking in colonial times:

"No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion." --James Burgh (Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses) [London, 1774-1775]

I'm British. I'm not allowed to use a gun in self-defence. I guess I'm a slave like the Indian's were once. Oh, the irony...

If I was American I'd have a gun.

reply to post by danats


Tell that to the millions of gun enthusiasts who enjoy target shooting. But yes, they were designed to kill. Which is sometimes necessary in self-defense or protection of one's property. In addition, they are instrumental in hunting game, which I feel should also be considered an inherent right. Unless that is, you would like everyone to rely strictly on our government to allow us to eat only what can be bought or provided for. Let's not forget that by controlling our food, they control us. Many people live their lives completely okay with that, I'm not one of them and prefer survival skills as a tool to fall back on and supplement my meals.

reply to post by FOXMULDER147


Come on over, I'd be happy to call you an American.

Originally posted by danats

All guns are swords in this sense. The purpose of a gun is to kill. In the case of gun advocates, kill or be killed; intimidate through show of force and threat of death.

Either way it involves killing and the ongoing threat thereof.

Wrong. The purpose of a gun is to fire a projectile. Where that projectile goes is determined by the human operating the gun.

A hammer is designed to hammer stuff. Whether it be a nail, or someones skull, that is again determined by the human wielding the hammer.

A knife is designed to cut stuff. Whether its cutting a juicy steak, or someones throat, that is determined by the human doing the cutting.


I own quite a few guns, and they have never killed anything. If guns were designed to kill as you seem to think, are mine defective since they haven't killed anything?

reply to post by FreeFromTheHerd


LoL, defective...I like that.

reply to post by lambs to lions


I have yet to get an answer from the anti gun lunatics who blame the object and not the person.

Their thinking is infantile and indicative of a very shallow thought process.

I do not expect an answer in this thread either since it requires too much brain power for the typical gun hater to muster.

Guns are created to use as a weapon. Trucks are made for transportation. Fans are made to cool you off. A couch is made to rest on. A stove is made to cook with. I can explain more things to anyone who needs it so all these stupid analogies that make zero sense can stop.

If you gun rights people believe its the shooter and not the gun that causes problems.....wouldnt it make sense to try to limit who can be a shooter by having stricter gun laws?


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by FreeFromTheHerd


I am waiting as well. The overwhelming response to this thread is from those on "our" side. I think the reason is that the anti-gun people don't really have much to stand on. They just hate guns, and it shows by their lack of any valid argument.

It's quite simple: by blaming the gun you are relieving the criminal of some responsibility for the crime.

reply to post by acmpnsfal


We do. You cannot be convicted of a felony and own a firearm. You cannot own a firearm until you reach the age of 18, furthermore, you cannot own a handgun until you are the age of 21. Also, in almost all cases, you have to pass a federal background check. There are other restrictions involving certifiably mental incompetence, and others.

There will always be ways around these things.

There isn't always a solution to the problem. People kill people. I'd rather be allowed to give myself and my family a fighting chance.