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.

 

NYT: Americans With Assault Rifles Should 'Give Them Up For The Good Of Their Fellow Citizens'

page: 5
53
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 01:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sunwolf

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

I don't know much about guns either. But the AR-15 was the gun used in the Port Arthur massacre, he managed to kill 35 people and wound 23... A very efficient ratio for your average mass shooting and also quite an astonishing kill rate for a person who apparently had the mental capacity of a 10 year old.

I guess so called "assault rifles" (semi-auto or fully auto) just have a structure that makes them every efficient in taking out a large amount of moving targets in a short period... Add a high capacity magazine to the situation and it becomes very apparent they are firearms that the public really shouldn't be able to easily obtain.







Yes,isn`t that amazing?Mental capacity of a 10 yr old?35 people?Way too amazing to be believable,especially as they were all shot in the head and neck from the hip of the perpetrator.

I know I couldn`t do it and I know several operators who say they couldn`t do it.


No,the AR does not have a special structure that makes it any better than any other semi-auto rifle for taking out moving targets.In fact the weapon of choice for close quarters would have been a pump shotgun.
The whole scenario is unbelievable.


Ya, that is like the 3 shots that aswald hit Kennedy with, most folks can't even chamber 3 rounds that fast, let alone aim and hit a moving target at range, crazy stuff.




posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 01:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero


The crazy criminal with the cheep handgun is your biggest threat, but they want to take rifles because they look mean. Solve the gang violence where in every case it is illegal hand guns being used, and as I wrote before 50 people shot 8 dead in one weekend in Chicago all with ilegal handguns.


Yes, but the drug and turf war killings in the US could hardly be considered as senseless or shocking... Its when mentally disturbed people are rocking up to movie theaters or elementary schools with a legal purchased "assault rifle" with the intent of taking out as much innocent people as possible that it becomes evident there is a problem with the ease of purchasing a weapon that is designed with the structure of a military rifle.



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 01:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

Now that makes more sense..... Essentially not addressing the problem just pandering to peoples sensibilities.... Thx for clarifying



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 01:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: Xtrozero


The crazy criminal with the cheep handgun is your biggest threat, but they want to take rifles because they look mean. Solve the gang violence where in every case it is illegal hand guns being used, and as I wrote before 50 people shot 8 dead in one weekend in Chicago all with ilegal handguns.


Yes, but the drug and turf war killings in the US could hardly be considered as senseless or shocking... Its when mentally disturbed people are rocking up to movie theaters or elementary schools with a legal purchased "assault rifle" with the intent of taking out as much innocent people as possible that it becomes evident there is a problem with the ease of purchasing a weapon that is designed with the structure of a military rifle.


By "structure " you mean outside appearance?

Because my son has an air soft gun that looks the exact same way, does that make it more dangerous?

Lol!

How do you consider many times more folks killed by drug and gang violence to be less tragic?

Hammers and feet kill more people in America every year than "assault rifles", should we ban those?

Oh I get it, they don't look like military weapons, but feet are used to kill in the military, as well as blunt force trauma exactly like that caused by a hamm er.

It is called a "butt stroke".

So what was your point again?

Oh ya , they "look" like military weapons.

I guess if I wear boots and camo I'm a better shot too then huh?

Or does looks only make guns more dangerous and nothing else?



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 01:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

Yes, but the drug and turf war killings in the US could hardly be considered as senseless or shocking... Its when mentally disturbed people are rocking up to movie theaters or elementary schools with a legal purchased "assault rifle" with the intent of taking out as much innocent people as possible that it becomes evident there is a problem with the ease of purchasing a weapon that is designed with the structure of a military rifle.


Well the question is why are people doing the old murder suicide route in the first place? I think that is where they need to look. If some crazy guy gets in a car and mows down 30 people are they going to say holy crap we need to limit cars. To me a dead person is a dead person, but most of the 22 murder everyday really do not count in the media since they were killed by illegal handguns in bad parts of towns/cities.

The whole mentally disturbed thing is a hard nut to crack. I think Holmes is close to the only one that had reported issues and bought his own guns. The problem is when do you do it? I do not think even Holmes did any real violence before the attack, so how does anyone pick and choose who should or should not have guns?

Also that weapon you talk about is less than 300 murders out of the 8000 per year. Though horrible situations do happen I'm not sure if Holmes situation is worst than a typical weekend in Chicago. Holmes is one case 12 people dead with AR, Chicago is year round 444 to date with handguns.



edit on 7-12-2015 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 01:44 AM
link   
a reply to: forkedtongue

I never said less tragic. I believe I said less senseless & shocking, since most of those people probably chose a life that has the possibility of death. Where as kids just going to school or people just catching a movie never did anything to deserve to be cut down in there prime.

btw, where do you get the statistics from to say more people are murdered by hammers or feet? 16,121 people died from murder in 2013 in the US, 11,208 of those murders where by gun.

gunpolicy.org

Also, the military obviously choose a design of firearm for a good reason and that reason isn't because it's less efficient at killing moving targets.



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 01:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: Xtrozero


The crazy criminal with the cheep handgun is your biggest threat, but they want to take rifles because they look mean. Solve the gang violence where in every case it is illegal hand guns being used, and as I wrote before 50 people shot 8 dead in one weekend in Chicago all with ilegal handguns.


Yes, but the drug and turf war killings in the US could hardly be considered as senseless or shocking... Its when mentally disturbed people are rocking up to movie theaters or elementary schools with a legal purchased "assault rifle" with the intent of taking out as much innocent people as possible that it becomes evident there is a problem with the ease of purchasing a weapon that is designed with the structure of a military rifle.



The AR that Holmes used in the theater shooting jammed quickly which caused him to go to the pump shotgun which more than likely did most of the mayhem.



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 01:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

Yes, but the drug and turf war killings in the US could hardly be considered as senseless or shocking... Its when mentally disturbed people are rocking up to movie theaters or elementary schools with a legal purchased "assault rifle" with the intent of taking out as much innocent people as possible that it becomes evident there is a problem with the ease of purchasing a weapon that is designed with the structure of a military rifle.


If some crazy guy gets in a car and mows down 30 people are they going to say holy crap we need to limit cars.


Well I guess that's why the right to drive a car on public roads is heavily regulated... Yeah?



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 01:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: forkedtongue

I never said less tragic. I believe I said less senseless & shocking, since most of those people probably chose a life that has the possibility of death. Where as kids just going to school or people just catching a movie never did anything to deserve to be cut down in there prime.

btw, where do you get the statistics from to say more people are murdered by hammers or feet? 16,121 people died from murder in 2013 in the US, 11,208 of those murders where by gun.

gunpolicy.org

Also, the military obviously choose a design of firearm for a good reason and that reason isn't because it's less efficient at killing moving targets.



What does moving targets have to do with anything?
The military chose the M-16 because it was lighter and the ammunition was smaller hence improved logistics.If you are looking for weapons that are better at killing look to the rifles used in WW2.The M-1 was a monster in comparison and later the M-14 also.The Armalite is constantly referred to as a "mouse" gun.It just doesn`t have the power in comparison.



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 01:56 AM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Someone's had enough Irn-Bru for the night and is being all saucy!

So man, the issue isn't gun confiscation for most of us. That's probably not going to happen. The issue is needless restriction on certain types of firearms, accessories and ammunition. That HAS happened in the past.

You may think it's ridiculous for someone to want an AR-15, but I think if you lived in certain parts of the US for awhile you would probably understand why most of us want to be able to keep them, why we want to be able to have high capacity magazines, and why banning "assault rifles" is actually fairly ludicrous. In the past, it was pretty much just a ban on guns that looked a certain way.

Pistols are incredibly ineffective at any sort of distance, especially when the adrenaline is going. Think how many bullets actually hit someone even when police (who aren't well trained but are expected to be better than a civilian) usually end up missing with. They're just not very accurate (I was going for handguns, but police too). Our properties even in the suburbs are pretty freaking big. There are a TON of rural areas where people live on an acre, 20 acres, 500 acres. So one night you hear a scuffle, and you know it's the freaking pack of coyotes that's been hassling your livestock, or horse, whatever. The best way to shoot them is going to be with an AR-15. You're not going to be able to do it with a shotgun or a handgun as accurately, and having to rack the bolt between shots like you do with a hunting rifle you can line up and use to take one animal with one shot from super far away isn't going to be effective if there are more than one coyote/wolf/bobcat (probably only one bobcat).

Home invasions in the US happen often, and often with incredibly disturbing consequences for the people living in those homes. So if you remove the right for people to have a high capacity magazine, make everyone have a revolver or shotgun, they're not going to be able to defend themselves effectively from more than one person. People miss in those situations, cops miss in those situations.

The amount of guns in the US is staggering. There is no way that all the illegal guns in circulation would ever be confiscated, so restricting lawful gun owner's rights and ability to defend themselves further just emboldens criminals.

Many people live incredibly far away from any sort of police assistance, and often you will have very few police to actually respond in a timely manner the farther away you live, the fewer police in the department and the larger the geographical area they need to patrol and are responsible for. So perhaps you call 911, and the TWO cops within 20 miles are both already engaged in a dangerous situation, you're on your own.



You're population is INCREDIBLY condensed compared to the US. Don't think big cities, think the OTHER parts. Huge swaths of land where there may be 3 cops for an incredible distance in this country.

You ever hear what's his face (ugh if I keep typing I'll remember) (oh crap it worked) Joe Rogan (I think it was) talk about big foot? He said something along the lines of "If you've ever flown over the Pacific Northwest, you'll understand how it seems like something could actually hide for so long.) the country is HUGE and so many of us live on large properties and just want the ability to protect ourselves from predators of any sort, and one of the best ways to do that is with an AR-15, the boogeyman of guns.

You should Google what percent of gun crime in the US involves an "assault rifle". OK I'll do it. Also, LOL at the picture:




It turns out that big, scary military rifles don’t kill the vast majority of the 11,000 Americans murdered with guns each year. Little handguns do.

In 2012, only 322 people were murdered with any kind of rifle, F.B.I. data shows.

The continuing focus on assault weapons stems from the media’s obsessive focus on mass shootings, which disproportionately involve weapons like the AR-15, a civilian version of the military M16 rifle. This, in turn, obscures some grim truths about who is really dying from gunshots.


Guess where that's from? The NY Times. Link

I really suggest you read that article. You're a smart guy. You just have a completely different frame of reference about guns, and which ones are more dangerous.

Homicide rates involving a firearm have dropped significantly in the US, like astronomically. People predicted that when the Clinton gun ban sunset "blood would flow in the streets". Nope, it keeps dropping. The assault rifle ban (which included high capacity magazines) was lifted, and crime continues to go down across the board.

Living in a "free society" means taking some risks. I find it preferable.

I said in another thread that it's important we realize the majority of people want the same things, but sometimes disagree about how we get there. I understand that your beliefs about guns are coming from a GOOD place! Instead of throwing around names and accusing you of this and that, I just wanted to explain where I was coming from.

I wish you could come to my gun range. You've got pros, cops, grandmas, kids learning how to shoot a .22, Muslims, people from India, a weird number of Asians that are either incredibly good or terrible shots (there is no in between), guys in suits, housewives, guys with too many tattoos, the old guys that are super creepy good shots, and everyone else. And they're ALL nice. You can ask for advice, I've shot a lot of guns that weren't mine, I've let a lot of people shoot my guns, it's weirdly inclusive.

I bet if you lived here and went shooting with me you would start to think a little different about guns. One of the hardest decisions I've ever made was to carry a concealed pistol. I know if I ever have to use it I'll be completely wrecked, most of us are like that. It's a fire extinguisher.

There's a book called "In the gravest extreme" written by Assad Ayoob (no joke, I'll send you a copy somehow) and the line that stuck out the most to me was from his Dad giving him a gun, or him giving his daughter a gun, and I'm paraphrasing but "I pray you'll never have to use this, but if you do, don't miss." and that's how I feel about my guns.



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 02:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: Xtrozero

Guns don't do it for me.....

Like I said correct me if I am wrong.... I assumed the term assault rifle was referring to either semi or automatic rifles...





AR actually stands for ArmaLite rifle, an assault is military use full automatic. Not really a big deal other than anything not with a wood stock is an evil assault rifle. Its like people want to band guns on their looks.
GH


Please excuse my lack of knowledge here.....so they want to remove rifles like AR15s....? Are you able to modify these into automatics and how many rounds do the hold?.... I'm not sure I get it but from what you are saying these rifles are essentially hunting rifles not military ....so what then is the point of taking them... It doesn't make sense as just as many people could be killed with handguns.....

I know I could research this I would rather hear from someone with knowledge on the matter




Armalite rifle?Pahh!I think I would rather have the Enfield.


Just about as fast and 3 times the power.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 02:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Domo1

Truth is, I don't personally have anything against guns. I'd never turn down the chance to fire off a few rounds and think anyone living on a rural property should be allowed to own one... Especially in the US where you have bears, large cats and dangerous canines everywhere, lol.

But I just don't personally think "assault rifles" or guns of any kind for that matter, belong in suburban homes. Its blatant over kill, it also puts the American people at more risk (imo), rather than less.



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 02:16 AM
link   
There are people that like to kill others, and have no respect for the lives of others, or even their own for life, that matter.

Guns make it easier for them, but take them away and you have knives, swords, bombs and anything they can throw at you.

Take them away, and manufacturing/trade will go more underground, where you will not even be able to trace how many there are, where they came from and who has them.

Not a solution.



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 02:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: Domo1

Truth is, I don't personally have anything against guns. I'd never turn down the chance to fire off a few rounds and think anyone living on a rural property should be allowed to own one... Especially in the US where you have bears, large cats and dangerous canines everywhere, lol.

But I just don't personally think "assault rifles" or guns of any kind for that matter, belong in suburban homes. Its blatant over kill, it also puts the American people at more risk (imo), rather than less.




What difference does it make?"Assault Rifle" is a made up name by the anti`s.

I would rather have the Enfield...www.youtube.com...



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 02:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: Domo1

Truth is, I don't personally have anything against guns. I'd never turn down the chance to fire off a few rounds and think anyone living on a rural property should be allowed to own one... Especially in the US where you have bears, large cats and dangerous canines everywhere, lol.

But I just don't personally think "assault rifles" or guns of any kind for that matter, belong in suburban homes. Its blatant over kill, it also puts the American people at more risk (imo), rather than less.





You just summed up pretty much how I feel about the situation.....



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 02:30 AM
link   
There are more gun murders in chicago alone each year than the grand total of rifle killings for all states each year according to fbi statistics.


FBI firearm stats

Unconstitutiionally making everybody turn in their rifles might prevent a couple hundred deaths each year.

Frequently searching repeat violent offender gang bangers in crime hot spots and locking them away for life if they are caught with firearms would save thousands.

edit on 7-12-2015 by Deny Arrogance because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-12-2015 by Deny Arrogance because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 02:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Sunwolf

I'm with you on that front mate. I'd much rather go for a sturdy, reliable & powerful rifle... than a cool looking one with a pistol hand grip that's to prone jamming.

But then again, I'd never purchase a weapon for the intent of taking out as much people as possible.



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 02:58 AM
link   
If taking out a max number of people was the intent(especially at long range) the Enfield will do just fine,unfortunately.



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 03:23 AM
link   
from my cold dead hands..!

plus, i trust the average guy with legal guns more than the police or military.



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 03:32 AM
link   
a reply to: anticitizen
They tried that long gun registry nonsense in Canada...its done nd gone...and we are a gun restrictive country(just not as much as you would think)..but the cops rarely murder people in the streets here, because we aren't as likely to be armed...



new topics

top topics



 
53
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join