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.

 

"Study: 3 federal laws could reduce gun deaths by more than 90%"

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: mysterioustranger

They'll just go after brass, lead, primers, and powder next. Then once they eliminate ammunition, they'll claim there's no more use for firearms and make their final push to come for them claiming they're useless.

People want to make me into a criminal for owning firearms and buying ammunition, fine. Just don't come crying to me and other gun owners when the government comes after your 1st amendment rights next.




posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 11:38 AM
link   
I think the government should make killing people, illegal.

That way there'd be no deaths.

Ever!

(just noticed, someone beat me to this common sense approach)


edit on 13-3-2016 by DBCowboy because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Laws intended to restrict, ban, register, or track inanimate objects aren't going to make a nickel's worth of difference to criminals. The only thing it would accomplish is to further burden law-abiding gun owners, which generally seems to be the real intention of most of those pushing 'gun control'.

If you want to reduce 'gun crimes', a good start would be instituting much, MUCH stiffer mandatory sentences for using a firearm during the commission of a felony, with no possibility of parole. It won't deter them from committing crimes, nor will anything else, but at least they won't be back on the street to do it again in five years like they are now.



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 12:06 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

The US has a long history of keeping track of arsenal. I read about the Springfield Armory, established in 1777 by George Washington:

Local and colonial militia used the bluff on which the Springfield Armory would become located during the 17th century for militia training, particularly after the Attack on Springfield during King Philip's War.

In 1777, during the American Revolutionary War, George Washington scouted and approved the site of the Springfield Armory, after it was referred to him by General Henry Knox, his artillery chief. Although a small town at the time, Springfield, Massachusetts, offered obvious geographical advantages—it lay at the intersection of three rivers (including the major Connecticut River), and four major roads headed toward New York City, Boston, Albany, New York, and Montreal. Additionally, Springfield is located just north of the Connecticut River's first waterfall (Enfield Falls), which is too steep to be navigated by ocean-going vessels. Thus, Springfield was the first town on the Connecticut River protected from attack by seafaring naval vessels.

The Armory site itself sits atop a high bluff like a citadel, overlooking a wide stretch of the Connecticut River, at its confluence with the Westfield River. General Knox concurred with Washington that "the plain just above Springfield is perhaps one of the most proper spots on every account" for the location of an arsenal.

In 1777, patriot colonists established "The Arsenal at Springfield" to manufacture cartridges and gun carriages for the war effort. During the Revolution, the arsenal stored muskets, cannon, and other weapons. Patriots built barracks, shops, storehouses, and a magazine. Some doubt exists that the colonists manufactured arms during the Revolutionary War.[3] After the war, the Army kept the facility to store arms for future needs. By the 1780s, the Springfield Arsenal functioned as a major ammunition and weapons arsenal.

Some time later, when manufacturing became important, the arsenal expanded to a second area south and west in Springfield, where water power was available. Around that time, the Mill River was dammed to form a mile-long lake called Watershops Pond. The main shops were behind the dam and a foundry was built below it. This factory was modernized, and the greater part of machining for Springfield and Garand rifles was conducted in it.

George Washington appointed David Ames (originally from Bridgewater, Massachusetts) as first superintendent of the armory.[4] His father Capt. John Ames was a blacksmith who had provided guns to the Colonial army.[4]

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 12:07 PM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3

Wonderful cut and paste. How did they track the powder and ball ammunition and how does the current United States Army track serial numbers on the ammunition?






edit on 13-3-2016 by AugustusMasonicus because: Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I was not there at the time, so I can only rely on what history records.

You do not like the idea.



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3

What you cut and pasted said nothing about tracking ammunition, neither did it answer my question about how the current US Army tracks ammunition. You have an answer to those questions or are you going to cut and paste more irrelevant information?



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 12:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: MOMof3
It has always been the practice of militia's and armies to track the ammo.


Did you just make that up?


I tried to answer that I did not make that up.



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3

You answer nothing. You cut and pasted some historical information from Wikipedia about the Springfield Armory and did not address how they Army did and still does track ammunition. So again, did you just make that up?

If you did, just admit it.



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3




1) Requiring universal background checks for firearms sales.
2) Requiring background checks for ammunition purchases.
3) Requiring gun owners to get firearms microchipped for identification purposes.


Why do we really need any of these if the problem is not really an epidemic? If you look at the FBI stats, gun violence is on the decline. These rules will only hinder law abiding citizens as the criminals will only break the laws anyways. The last thing I want is universal gun registration and if you put 1 and 3 together that is exactly what this suggests. Universal gun registration = future confiscation.



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: joemoe

What if we got rid of about 25 of the existing ones and replaced them with 3?



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 12:17 PM
link   
If they are going to track ammo, then what happens to the guy who has a few thousand rounds already?

Is he expected to turn it in?



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 12:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

If they are going to track ammo, then what happens to the guy who has a few thousand rounds already?


We should ask the GAO which reported recently that billions of dollars in ammunition is destroyed yearly because they DO NOT TRACK it properly.

Just what we need, more incompetent, inefficient and dangerous intervention by the Federal government.




edit on 13-3-2016 by AugustusMasonicus because: never go in against a Sicilian with death is on the line



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: EternalSolace

I daily concealed carry, and youre right of course. Ive only got around 6-700 rounds on hand. And I doubt theyll be coming for it...or stop me from buying more like I did this morning.

The criminals will always have ways to get weapons and ammo. As long as they can get them...Ill keep mine. (you too!)

edit on 13-3-2016 by mysterioustranger because: oops



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3

3 solutions that can easily be defeated by criminals and only hinder law abidding citizen to solve a problem that is on a decline? I get it, you don't like guns. Here's a solution ... don't buy one ... and leave the rest of us law abidding gun owners alone.

1) Criminals usually gets their guns illegally.
2) Ammunition are abundant and easily made from components.
3) Electronic microchiping is easily defeated. And if you were talking about "microstamping", a good file is all it takes to defeat that.

edit on 13-3-2016 by joemoe because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-3-2016 by joemoe because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 12:29 PM
link   
I find this another hilarious attempt at trying to take guns away period.

This would do nothing but cause a dramatic affect on:

1) Law abiding gun owners.
2) Manufacturers of ammo
3) Loss of jobs for those that work at the companies that manufacture the ammo.

Criminals do not go out to gun ranges to practice shooting. They instead tend to hold on to the ammo they have.

If background checks are required, or any type of tracking, or make the ammo so expensive that no one can afford it:

Criminals will just steal it. Duh.

Also, as mentioned, many reload their own ammo.....and this will simply create MORE criminals: IE those that will sell ammo illegally and much cheaper prices.

It never fails to make me do a face palm when idiots think that doing the same failed thing over and over will "surely work the next time."

Prohibition proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the only thing that laws prohibiting the purchase of something does is: Makes more criminals and helps organize the existing criminals.

You want to stop people from killing each other with guns? Fine: Then fix the REASON they are doing it in the first place.

It's a no brainer. Anything else is doomed to fail (like all the laws so far have).



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

There are millions of unregistered firearms in America.

There are probably billions of rounds of ammunition unaccounted for.

People will not voluntarily register their firearms or ammo.

The government cannot even make a website for Obamacare correctly. Billions of dollars each year is lost to fraud, waste, abuse.

Hell, the government can't even make Amtrak affordable or run on time.


But they will track and monitor all firearms and ammo?

haa-hah!



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 12:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
Finally, real scientific studies are being done on what really works to curb gun deaths. And it is not confiscation of guns. Background checks is the common deterrent of guns getting in the wrong hands. I like the idea of tracking the ammunition better than background checks.

"Because of the shortcomings of the firearms background checks, "we were very happy when we got the result that background checks for ammunition is effective, and could be more effective than (firearm) background checks alone," she said. Illinois, Massachusetts and New Jersey require a license or permit to buy ammunition.

The researchers found that nine of the 25 laws they analyzed were linked to higher rates of gun-related deaths. Another seven laws did not seem to have an impact one way or the other on gun-related deaths."

www.cnn.com...



Given that 60% of gun deaths are suicide and only 35% are homicides, how is this going to lower the Gun Death rate by 90%?



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: joemoe

I don't believe that it would be easily defeated by criminals. I think it would take a conspiracy of people to get a criminal through those three laws for all states. Those gangs in the gang infested cities are getting guns from someone who got them legal. And they go from state to state, depending on their particular laws, to buy them.



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: anton74

I can't answer that because from what I can tell they did not distinguish suicides from the data.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join