Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
MaKaElectric

The United Nations Wants Your Guns America

278 posts in this topic

[media=]

[/media]

Excellent video and a good example of a responsible gun owner. Those two idiots in the truck had worked themselves into a frenzy and there is no telling what they would have done.

I love that it's all on tape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

You do know this isn't the only place that this is being discussed right?

Yep... I'm quite aware of that.

I wouldn't presume to speak for Flombie, but in the context of his post that you were replying to, he was specifically telling you to cool down, imo.

Does the fact that a topic is being discussed elsewhere give you the right to post like an a** here...?

Cz

Edited by Czero 101
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Excellent video and a good example of a responsible gun owner. Those two idiots in the truck had worked themselves into a frenzy and there is no telling what they would have done.

it's safe to say, at the least, that the car would have been severely damaged and the woman terrorized.

this cinema shooting could have been curtailed if just one person in the cinema had been armed. I understand that some of the victims were military vets, capable and likely responsible enough to have taken down the shooter without need of the "state" to handle the situation - I remember previous incidents where the "authorities" sat back for hours preparing while the shooter went on his rampage. if people were armed these incidents would be taken care of quickly and efficiently. gun control is all about disarming the people to empower the state. during the London riots I remember the government tried to stop amazon selling baseball bats. I feel most of these incidents are staged at some level for political purposes. when the US gives up its gun rights the fun is really going to start -don't give up those rights!

Edited by Little Fish
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's safe to say, at the least, that the car would have been severely damaged and the woman terrorized.

I think it would have ended up very badly with both of the victims severely injured.

In the beginning they were making threats about the car...towards the end they were threatening the man. "He's gonna wish he was dead by the time we get through with him."

This is a perfect example of road rage. I have a couple of friends that are hotheads, when they get behind the wheel, and I keep trying to tell them they don't know who they are messing with. I can't wait to show them this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this cinema shooting could have been curtailed if just one person in the cinema had been armed. I understand that some of the victims were military vets, capable and likely responsible enough to have taken down the shooter without need of the "state" to handle the situation

Holmes was in full body armor.

Holmes was wearing "full ballistic gear," including a helmet, vest, throat protector, gas mask and black tactical gloves, {Aurora Police Chief Dan} Oates said.
[SOURCE]
He "was dressed all in black, he was wearing a ballistic helmet, a tactical ballistic vest, ballistic leggings, a throat protector and a groin protector and a gas mask, and black tactical gloves," said Mr. Oates, the police chief.
[SOURCE]

How many people carry the kind of firepower necessary to get through all that with them, and how many more casualties would likely to have been from well-intentioned, but either poorly timed, poorly aimed - or both - "return fire"?

The following article from TheAtlantic.com gives an interesting perspective on the point you've brought up:

I don't have too much to say about yesterday's events, except to note that the victims are very much in my thoughts, and in my heart.

Reading through the Times coverage this morning, however, I caught this:

...

Luke O'Dell of the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, a Colorado group on the other side of the debate over gun control, took a nearly opposite view. "Potentially, if there had been a law-abiding citizen who had been able to carry in the theater, it's possible the death toll would have been less." Some survivors thought at first they were witnessing a promotional stunt.

...

...

But there's something fantastical about O'Dell's argument, when you carry it out. It's worth considering the wisdom of waging a shoot-out in a crowded theater with a mad-man in body-armor. More than that, we should consider the import of the the argument's implication--a fully, and heavily, armed citizenry. If we all are going to agree to be armed, surely I don't want my arms to be inferior to the arms of my potential adversaries--a category including virtually any other citizen. The Aurora shooter was evidently in full body-armor. I need to upgrade to hand-grenades. And so we arrive at a kind of personal arms race,

And we arrive at a world with minimal trust in the state's ability to deploy violence on our behalf--a distrust of the authorities whom we pay to protect us, a cynicism which says those authorities are beyond reform, and that only through this personal arms race, can a person sleep at night.

And too we are left with the deeply held belief that, somehow, we can always outgun those who would do us harm, or at least our end can come at the place of our choosing. Now we are cousined to immortality. Now we are chin-level with our various Gods.

It's worth considering what we mean by a safer society, and whether it can be secured through a cold war of all against all. It's worth asking if the world really needs more George Zimmermans.

I'll reiterate a point I made yesterday in this thread:

However, if it had been harder for him to get is hands on the AR-15, .40 cal Glock pistol(s) and the Remington 12-guage (and / or the ammo for those weapons) that were recovered at the scene[SOURCE], then maybe the 12 - 15 people (reports are still varying) he killed last night might still be alive this afternoon, and maybe he would have found some other way - hopefully non-violent - of dealing with whatever potential issues he was dealing with, although I do not disagree that some other weapon could have been used if guns were not as available.

I personally think that the chances of there being a lower body count from Holmes NOT having the weapons he was able to purchase his weapons from Denver gun shops, are significantly higher than they would be had there been a "shoot-out" as you suggest.

Cz

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe the government should just ban crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You wouldn't like any of the pro gun sites that have lots of example so I looked up "muggings thwarted by guns" and "robberies thwarted by guns" There were endless lists from various sources.

Personally, I know of quite a few examples.

That's true. But it varies by state and locality. There are just as many that show the "stopper" was arrested and carted off to jail.

A gun owner was available in the Gifford shooting. They were afraid of being targeted by the shooter and by law enforcement and did nothing. Consider what many claim here on UM, a gun owner in the theater, sees the shooter. Is it a special effect by the theater - you shoot and get charged with murder. OR/ You find he's really shooting people so whip out your gun and shoot him - law enforcement then shoots you dead. I'm sure you feel good in your hereafter. OR/ multiple gun owners decide to open fire on each other and you have a wild shootout. I see this happening yet in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's true. But it varies by state and locality. There are just as many that show the "stopper" was arrested and carted off to jail.

A gun owner was available in the Gifford shooting. They were afraid of being targeted by the shooter and by law enforcement and did nothing. Consider what many claim here on UM, a gun owner in the theater, sees the shooter. Is it a special effect by the theater - you shoot and get charged with murder. OR/ You find he's really shooting people so whip out your gun and shoot him - law enforcement then shoots you dead. I'm sure you feel good in your hereafter. OR/ multiple gun owners decide to open fire on each other and you have a wild shootout. I see this happening yet in the future.

All things considered Nijadude, if someone is dumb enough to pull a theatrical stunt like that to scare people then they're playing Russian Roulette. Kinda like a person dressed up in a bigfoot costume running around the woods during hunting season. It is sad no one took him down. His armour might have saved his life if he was shot, but it certainly wouldn't stop a few 9mm's from ringing his bell enough to incapacitate him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I was explaining that the Jews never had a chance to defend themselves because their right to bear arms was taken away. Would they have stood a chance? Not against what Hitler had, no. But at least they would have had the choice to fight.

It would not have made a real difference. And as you explain later, anything can be used as a weapon to fight back.

People want us to cool down and not get heated over this. While you guys voice your opinions from Berlin and Australia, it's only effecting us. I'm the one who wouldn't be able to go on hunting trips with my family and friends. Not any of you. We are raised to be proud of our ancestors who fought and gave their lives to defend our rights. It's who we are and what we came from. Maybe it wouldn't effect all Americans as it would myself. But I don't care who it is, even our own President, nobody will be removing or modifying our 2nd Amendment. And nobody ever will. They can raise our taxes, we'll b****.

I only meant you to cool down. You take this way to personal. I do not mean you any harm. I only want to debate weather a constitutional right makes a society more safe or dangerous.

You revolted against the evil British with guns, kicked them out, and rightfully founded a great nation, indeed, but why do does that give you the right to own guns these days? What about all the other countries with revolutions, how come they don't do that?

And for the hunting, well, you could actually acquire a hunting license. It takes time, sure, but if you love it so much, it would be well worth the time.

So I actually get to see what makes owning a gun so important to you: You can go out to the woods with your friends and go hunting, and you honour your ancestors with them. And you keep them for a "just in case" scenario, like getting robbed, or being able to fight against an invading nation.

Is life really so different without guns? We all in Europe are just as free as you. Yes, banging around in the woods (no pun intended!) will be over, but hat would make your life so bad without guns? I only see advantages: It's much easier to identify crooks. And illegal guns are also more difficult to obtain in countries with strict gun control.

What you people don't understand is, anything can be used as a weapon. If someone wants to kill multiple people without a gun, well, they could easily take a Escalade out and run people over. There is plenty of legal everyday materials that could be used to build bombs.

Do you really believe we do not know this? We may not like guns, but we are not stupid. But it's not the point you can kill with a pencil, we talk about guns, advanced killing devices. Besides, objects like combat knives, batons and brass knuckles are criminalised here as well.

Yes, there will always be morons who misuse property to harm others. But guns are just the same as those mentioned. Property.

Yes, that's a good excuse for everything.

I raise the question again you have neglected before: In which democracy, besides the US, do the citizens have a constitutional right to own a gun?

And why is it only for you such a fundamental right in a democracy?

Edited by FLOMBIE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's an interesting comment. Every time those outside the US suggest that reducing the availability of firearms might be a good idea, there seems to be a common call from some that we shouldn't be telling them what's best for their country. A couple of points:

1. Why isn't it possible that in fact, yes, we DO know better than you?

2. When you say "don't tell us how to run our country", remember the US has had a history of doing exactly that to other countries.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are simple minded and have absolutely ZERO common sense. You honestly asked me, what do I need guns for? Haven't I told you NUMEROUS times why I love and use them? Ah but I did just check your profile and found you are just 19 and think you know everything still. Probably haven't even moved out of the parents yet.

Throughout history do you know what type of leaders never want their citizens to defend themselves? Dictators.

I'm done even replying to your half brained comments and ridiculous thoughts. Keep yourself in Australia, I'm just glad you have no power to vote here in my country.

Do you seriously think your government is going to kill you all, stuff you in concentration camps and take away all your rights?

You're living in fear of your government, and your fellow man.

And you think I'm the half brained one.

But then you go back to bows and arrows and slingshots or throwing axes

That hasnt happened anywhere around the world, stop being afraid of your fellow man and government.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you live on a farm, buy a dog to defend your flock. a Marmara sheep dog or a cattle dog.

I see no reason anyone needs a gun.

A dog must sleep. A dog costs money and is another animal reliant on me. i have a small dog that can travel with us. But he's inside at night. The animals get my chickens at night.

It's OK to own guns. There are uses for them. More people die from cars than guns. it doesn't matter what they are used for. It matters how they are misused.

No matter how hard you try, Zarakitty, you cannot see the future. You do not no when a gun may be needed for personal protection. Mostly i speak of a collaps of the power in the USA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

What a crying shame you can't go out and hunt wild innocent animals for fun. Maybe you want to stick their head up in your house and use their fur for mat in your house. Its disgusting killing animals for sport

Edited by Toadie
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

That's true. But it varies by state and locality. There are just as many that show the "stopper" was arrested and carted off to jail.

A gun owner was available in the Gifford shooting. They were afraid of being targeted by the shooter and by law enforcement and did nothing. Consider what many claim here on UM, a gun owner in the theater, sees the shooter. Is it a special effect by the theater - you shoot and get charged with murder. OR/ You find he's really shooting people so whip out your gun and shoot him - law enforcement then shoots you dead. I'm sure you feel good in your hereafter. OR/ multiple gun owners decide to open fire on each other and you have a wild shootout. I see this happening yet in the future.

In my neck of the woods the "stopper" is very rarely carted off to jail. Of course there is an investigation, but it is usually justifiable. Simply because the majority have guns doesn't mean it is the wild west. There have been many instances where business owners have held armed robbers until the police arrived. A few instances haven't turned out so well, but by in large, most of them do. It is rarely in the news, but is not uncommon among the business owners in the area where we have our own business.

Of course common sense needs to be used. The Gifford shooting was in a political arena, where there was a large crowd..not to mention probably having security. A wise, responsible, legal gun owner would certainly think twice about pulling a gun in that situation. It shows a level head as far as I am concerned.

As for the shooting in the theater...it's difficult for me to imagine the scenario. It's too surreal for me. My first instinct is to say it wouldn't have been wise to pull a gun in such chaos. Apparently there aren't as many trigger happy, gun carrying yahoos, in the US, as a lot of people think, or they are calculating, reasonable people that know when to use them and more importantly...when not to.

Edited by Michelle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a crying shame you can't go out and hunt wild innocent animals for fun. Maybe you want to stick their head up in your house and use their fur for mat in your house. Its disgusting killing animals for sport

Where did someone mention killing animals for sport?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

yes lets ban firearms. because hey, if we did that, all crime would completely cease to exist. oh thats right, it wouldn't!

but since some people want to ban guns we should also ban all of the following.

1. water (responsible for thousands of deaths all throughout history)

2. rocks. (one of the number 1 killers back in the day)

3. gasoline (its pretty easy to throw it on someone and light a match)

4. finger nails ( if i let mine grow long enough, i can slit peoples wrists or jugular veins)

5.rope (used a lot in the past and still to this day)

6. cars ( you know how many people i could kill by driving one into a packed mall?)

7. kitchen knifes (used in countless murders)

8. pharmaceutical pills (great weapon, especially if the victim was a pill popper)

9. wild animals ( all i gotta do is hook up a battery powered bug zapper to their butts and their good to go)

10. arms and legs (they can be very dangerous you know)

the list could go on and on. all of these can be used for good or evil. if we banned guns and all of these except 1. and 10. it wouldn't make a difference. killers will be killers, but if we banned guns, we would leave ourselves wide open to this.

Warning! The Following Link Is Very Graphic ( not for children)

History Of Gun Control

lets play a game of "would you rather"

would you rather be one of those armenians?

one of those soviets?

one of those chinese?

one of those germans?

one of those cambodians?

a former citizen of uganda?

should i keep going?

now do you see the importance of fire arms?

i would only concider giving up my right to own them right after every government gets rid of all of theirs.

in an ideal world there would be no crime, but we do not live in that world and anyone thinking of making a peaceful world by force is only gonna be met with force.

let me guess, i'm paranoid right? even after all this documented history, i'm nuts because i don't trust any of the corrupt criminal governments all around the world enough to let go of my 2nd amendment.

Edited by psychoticmike
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"He was already amassing an arsenal of weapons and ammunition. He bought two Glock pistols, a semi-automatic rifle and a shotgun during the last two months from guns stores, and 6000 rounds from websites. All were purchased legally"

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/the-making-of-a-sick-joker-20120722-22hr8.html#ixzz21Kamo81Y

Yeah, you guys don't need to think about gun control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

You know, the funny thing here is that this topic is really not about "banning guns".

Its interesting that the "pro-gun" crowd here seem to take the stance that "gun control" = "taking away my guns", when in reality, the treaty that this thread is about is concerned with regulating and safeguarding the international arms trade to prevent weapons of all kinds from illegally falling into the "wrong hands".

Has any one of the "pro gun" side who is here screaming (virtually, of course) "only from my cold dead hands!!!11!!" even bothered to look at the website that was linked in the first post?

http://www.un.org/di...varms/ArmsTrade

Oh wait... let me guess... some did go look at the site and saw where it occasionally refers to the "States" and, instead of understanding that this refers to "Member States" that are part of the United Nations (in other simpler words "other countries in the UN"), assumed that it was referring only to the "United States"....?

:rolleyes:

The section that is probably most relevant to this whole topic is the section on Small Arms and Light Weapons...

http://www.un.org/di.../convarms/SALW/

Small Arms

Insurgents, armed gang members, pirates, terrorists - they can all multiply their force through the use of unlawfully acquired firepower. The illicit circulation of small arms, light weapons and their ammunition destabilizes communities, and impacts security and development in all regions of the world.

A worldwide scourge

The illicit trade in small arms, light weapons and ammunition wreaks havoc everywhere. Mobs terrorizing a neighbourhood. Rebels attacking civilians or peacekeepers. Drug lords randomly killing law enforcers or anyone else interfering with their illegal businesses. Bandits hijacking humanitarian aid convoys. In all continents, uncontrolled small arms form a persisting problem.

Weapons of choice

Small arms are cheap, light, and easy to handle, transport and conceal. A build-up of small arms alone may not create the conflicts in which they are used, but their excessive accumulation and wide availability aggravates the tension. The violence becomes more lethal and lasts longer, and a sense of insecurity grows, which in turn lead to a greater demand for weapons.

Most present-day conflicts are fought mainly with small arms, which are broadly used in inter-State conflict. They are the weapons of choice in civil wars and for terrorism, organized crime and gang warfare.

Taking their toll, violating rights

The majority of conflict deaths are caused by the use of small arms, and civilian populations bear the brunt of armed conflict more than ever. Also, small arms are the dominant tools of criminal violence. The rate of firearms-related homicides in post-conflict societies often outnumbers battlefield deaths. These weapons are also linked to the increasing number of killings of UN employees and peacekeepers, as well as workers from humanitarian and non-governmental organizations.

Small arms facilitate a vast spectrum of human rights violations, including killing, maiming, rape and other forms of sexual violence, enforced disappearance, torture, and forced recruitment of children by armed groups. More human rights abuses are committed with small arms than with any other weapon. Furthermore, where the use of armed violence becomes a means for resolving grievances and conflicts, legal and peaceful dispute resolution suffers and the rule of law cannot be upheld.

Development denied

Contemporary armed conflict is the main cause of people fleeing their homes, and is now the most common cause of food insecurity. Armed violence can aggravate poverty, inhibit access to social services and divert energy and resources away from efforts to improve human development. Countries plagued by armed violence are behind in attaining the Millennium Development Goals. High levels of armed violence impede economic growth. According to the World Bank, nothing undermines investment climates as much as armed insecurity.

Less information on small arms than on nuclear weapons

Reliable data sets on small arms can only be built if countries provide information on production, holdings, trade, legislation and use. But of all transparency measures on weapons systems, those on small arms are the least developed. According to the Small Arms Survey, "more is known about the number of nuclear warheads, stocks of chemical weapons and transfers of major conventional weapons than about small arms".

There are no accurate figures for the number of small arms and light weapons currently in circulation globally. Sources estimate the total to be at least 875 million. The majority of small arms - generally the only category of weapons not falling under Government monopoly of possession and use - are in private hands.

How do small arms become illicit?

Sources of small arms supplies to areas of crisis and conflict are varied. Domestically, small arms can enter illicit circulation through distribution, theft, leakage, divergence, pilferage or resale. Shipments of small arms to conflict zones from abroad are most often small-scale consignments - a steady trickle of weapons across porous borders. The cumulative destabilizing force of such small-scale trade is not to be underestimated, particularly in unstable regions where small arms are traded from one conflict to another.

Small arms and the UN

Governments have a responsibility to ensure public safety and they have an interest in providing human security and development to their citizens. So they should ensure that small arms from Government stocks or from private ownership are not misused and do not enter illicit circuits, where their use may contribute to instability and to exacerbating poverty.

To attain those goals, within the UN, countries have agreed on several commitments on small arms control: the Firearms Protocol, the Programme of Action on small arms - including an Instrument on marking and tracing - and the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials.

The topic of small arms comes up in other discussions as well. Countries are giving separate attention to closely related issues, such as armed violence, child soldiers, the protection of civilians in armed conflict, ammunition, the arms trade treaty and the UN register of conventional arms.

Please... someone else go through that site and tell me where it says that the UN intends to take legally obtained guns away from the US populace. I've looked... I can't find it... of course, its possible I missed it, though.

Oh, and I tried watching the OP's video about this, really I did.... but he's so paranoid an misinformed to the point of willful ignorance about this topic that I couldn't get through more than the first few minutes before I was in real danger of clawing my eyes / ears out.

Cz

Edited by Czero 101
5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A dog must sleep. A dog costs money and is another animal reliant on me. i have a small dog that can travel with us. But he's inside at night. The animals get my chickens at night.

It's OK to own guns. There are uses for them. More people die from cars than guns. it doesn't matter what they are used for. It matters how they are misused.

No matter how hard you try, Zarakitty, you cannot see the future. You do not no when a gun may be needed for personal protection. Mostly i speak of a collaps of the power in the USA.

Dog's have been specifically BRED to protect your animals. After 14000 years I think they got it right, the dog sleeps with the animals and you usually have three.

Why are people in the USA so afraid of their government?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, did I mention that about 500 gun related fatalities happen per year in Australia, England and Germany COMBINED. There's something like 9000 (closer to 10) in America per year. You can say cars do the same, you can say knives do the same. But the maths is simple. If you restrict the ability to obtain firearms you would save lives.

Are guns really worth all those lives?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zara Im not American lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

More people die from cars than guns.

Let's address this point.

(Not meaning to pick on you, Myles... you just had the right quote)

While the above quote is true, it is only just barely true.

In 2010 in the U.S. there were 32,885 motor vehicle deaths.[SOURCE]

Also in the U.S. in 2010 there were 31,513 deaths by firearms.[SOURCE]

Not quite the wide gap that people tend to assume when they state that "more people die from cars than from guns", is it...?

It is also interesting to note that the number of motor vehicle fatalities has been trending downward, while the number of firearms fatalities has been trending upward.

Cz

Edited by Czero 101
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad that here in the UK there is strict firearms control.Doesn't mean that I can't get a shotgun or a .22 rimfire as long as I have a legitimate reason and suitable land to use one, and as long as I pass background checks.

I currently have a 12ft/lb .177 air rifle that I go out stalking cute little bunnies (much to my childrens dismay) and use it just to fire at targets, and I think it's good fun.

Now maybe you Americans will roll over on your backs laughing at me and my pea shooter, but I'm hoping to maybe get a licence for a .22 rimfire with landowners permission.......tell me, why would I need anything else?Why does anyone think that they need to own a semi or fully automatic assault rifle and not only that , but build up an armory of them with god knows what else!

Yeah any firearm, even my peashooter has the potential to kill, but the difference between a nutjob running amok with a bolt action rifle with small rounds and the same nutjob with an AK47 should be obvious.

During my teenage years I was in the army cadets and did get the opportunity to fire machine guns, and yeah it was good fun, so I can understand the fun factor in it, but the thought of my next door neghbour owning an Uzi scares the bejeezus out of me.

My opinion is that anyone who wants to have fun and aquire skill at fireing militaria should join the army and put it to good use protecting the state/nation.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or by doing shooting events or joining a club

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Gosh America is not very good

Australian stats

2.23 Selected Underlying Causes, Assault (X85-Y09, Y87.1) - 2006

Assault by rifle, shotgun and larger firearm discharge (X94) males 5 females 6

Assault by sharp object (X99) males 44 females 17

2.19 Selected Underlying Causes, External Causes (V01-Y98) - 2006

Transport accidents (V01-V99, Y85)(a) males 1262 females 406

Massive difference in our country between car and gun deaths

Edited by Toadie
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.