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.
Oh, but it was! You are committing ad hoc, ergo propter hoc without delivering appropriate evidence to support the claim. Did you not state that your country had also had massacres? Did you account, since you like statistics, for variations in population density? Of course not! In fact, all of your evidence is anecdotal based on your fear of guns. And none has been statistically normalized to account for the THOUSANDS of variables that ensure there is no correlation between Australia and The United States.
So yes, possession of firearms by the citizenry always gives pause to those who would so easily conquer a peoples and makes them take stock of their potential losses should they fail. Do you claim and unarmed populace would fair better than an armed populace? Hence the originating purpose of the 2nd Amendment!
Perhaps you failed to read my entire post. I am a Vietnam Veteran. Robert McNamara came out on national news outlets and confessed to fabricating the Gulf of Tonkin incident which led directly to the Vietnam Conflict costing 58,000 Americans, and God knows how many Vietnamese citizens, their lives. Hmmmm.... let me see........ I'm old ya know........but I am pretty sure the "Whiz Kid" was a Cabinet Member for LBJ, a Democrat. Yea thats right. I think most Americans affected by that particular debacle would have no problem labelling that as a lie foisted upon the public by the government they were supposed to be able to trust.
Originally posted by nixie_nox
Originally posted by spock51
Also, I do not think offerring US .gov statistics will convince anyone. The US government has been known to fib.
This is a total copout. You can't deny stats just because you like the source. It gives a pansy way out by making a paltry excuse to deny the information.
Most people, including some relatives living in that area, say DC is a war zone out on the streets. I will take my sister's word over the .gov's word.
As someone who has relatives who work and live in DC, and who is in DC frequently myself, I will call bunk. ANd I will call your sister a drama queen.
Don't know a bloody thing about UK stats. However, most .gov stats are suspect every where in the world.
Call me paranoid, but I have been lied to by government entirely too many times to trust them unconditionally.
Have any truth about those lies, or are we supposed to take your word for it?
As stated previously, subjectivity must be guarded against, or at least recognized in a debate. You are highly intelligent and motivated, but you must realize that the American way and your way are vastly different. And the reasons for said difference IS an essential element in deciding such a volatile and divisive issue.
I am pretty sure that if the poster came out with a pro gun thread, you people would be jumping all over his support.
Just because you live in another country doesn't mean you can't understand the situation.
Anyone want to challenge RA on JFK? But he doesn't know anything since he isn't American, right?
Convince me that someone would not be able to obtain a firearm illegally, and you win.
It is far too easy to get your hands on any type of illegal countraband in this country.
What we need is a greater accountability for firearm owners. I would even submit to a yearly evaluation. If I am not responsible enough to manage my weapons, then I hope someone takes them away from me.
Originally posted by foodstamp
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
Your gonna have to be more specific. Canada when? And australia when? Because I'm not aware of any change except for the British coming in a saying it was theirs. Heh
What does evaluations and greater accountability do for gun control? Really... It doesn't stop guns from being stolen. It doesn't stop them by being bought legally through a proxy (90% of all illegl guns owned are bought legally) It doesn't stop anything. Just gives law abiding citizens more headaches and higher taxes to implement such a board to oversee a futile worthless form of control. Gun control will not stop a law abiding citizen turned madman from getting a gun and using it. Not ever... Your solution of more control does nothing to counter act the problem. Never has, never will. Our history of gun control is a testament to that..
Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff
In the 10 years after guns were banned in DC death by gun went down as compared to the 10 years before and despite what gun advocates seem to think it didnt rise by knife, bat or anything else.
The only statistical variance was that gun deaths were lower.
Isnt violent crime and gun crime getting lower in New York?
Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
I can only guess that you do not have problems with wild dogs where you live. Even though most of America has been tamed there still are areas where carrying a firearm is the only way to insure your safety when I lived in Tennessee I worried about more than just dogs. When I was growing up we kept rifles on gun racks in our trucks and there was never a problem maybe that deterred shootings at schools I can only guess.
I have read where people from other countries have stated they have problems with gangs and knives yet they say they would rather face that. I have no fear of gangs because I am armed. I would much rather be able to defend myself with a pistol than a knife especially if I am defending myself against more than one person. I can’t remember the country but it wasn’t that long ago a psycho killed a bunch of kids on an island where guns were not readily available to citizens so there is an instance where anti-gun laws did more harm than good.
You can think what you want but America is still wild in many aspects depending on where you live if you have never lived here you probably wouldn’t understand yet these are not the only reasons for keeping our firearms but it is enough for me.
Originally posted by tamusan
reply to post by CosmicCitizen
At any distance, a sane and rational person makes a conscious choice to pull the trigger.
Mentally ill people should not have access any type of weapon. They should also be watched closely, if they are a possible threat.
A firearm owner should be held responsible for not securing their firearms adequately. If their firearms are easily taken, especially by a mentally ill family member, then they should also be charged with the crime.
Well, I just have a couple things in follow up to the reply. First, on the Constitution part.....Indeed, the original wording was old. However, that 2009 decision has the force of the Constitution itself. They quite literally, under our system, are directly interpreting and re-interpreting the document for all things forward of the day of a Supreme Court decision. So, when they said in 09 that is is an absolute individual right...that ended the debate on gun ownership. It doesn't end a thing on regulation of WHAT guns you can own...but it pulled the ban idea clear off the table by law.
However, I'll say that I envy a place like England at times because guns were never a cultural staple to the nation. While England doesn't BAN guns....the degree they are found in society has no comparison whatsoever to ours, of course. In a different America? I wouldn't mind a bit......and I can hear people making me a Foe as I type this.
Originally posted by foodstamp
reply to post by tamusan
What do you mean by accountable?
And how does it reduce gun crime as a whole?
Please don't take it the wrong way. I am curious as to what you propose.
Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff
reply to post by tamusan
Convince me that someone would not be able to obtain a firearm illegally, and you win.
It is far too easy to get your hands on any type of illegal countraband in this country.
What we need is a greater accountability for firearm owners. I would even submit to a yearly evaluation. If I am not responsible enough to manage my weapons, then I hope someone takes them away from me.
You cant stop crims from getting guns by taking them away from the public I acknowledged that in my OP, you can however stop school children from getting them.
You do understand that guns are so easily accessible on the black market because they are easily accessible legally dont you?
I agree with your idea for greater accountability, also making the fine for a lost or stolen gun ridiculously high might help prevent people selling them on