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.

 

So, after mass shooting, Australia "banned" guns 20 years ago = ZERO mass killings since

page: 8
29
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 11:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Verse

unfortunately gun control translates to gun ban to some. making compromise and progress incredibly difficult, at the cost of other people's lives. a ban on guns for people on watch lists has and is proposed, but our congress is unwilling to do anything just to spite our president. shame, seems like a pretty obvious law that should already be in place.




posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 11:24 PM
link   
a reply to: SomeDumbBroad

Are there many hot guns that have been stolen that have been used to commit mass murders like this recent one?
I get the feeling , we always read that the attacker bought them legally when he had no reason to. It's been way too many cases where a nut could buy guns in the gun shop without any further notice...or he at least had access to them through other means. It's never really, a hardened criminal's gun was stolen and used to commit mass murder...because, really...these guys don't let their guns be stolen.



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 11:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Verse

A couple of the more high profile mass shootings have been done with stolen weapons usually they steal them from a family member. Sandy Hook and TJ lane are the 2 biggest examples of this.



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 11:29 PM
link   
a reply to: vjr1113

The problem with banning gun from people on any watch lists is due process. People on watch lists are not convicted of any crime and many times they are place there arbitrary . So are we to become a nation where we are presume guilty until we prove our innocence now?



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 11:29 PM
link   
a reply to: vjr1113

That's true. That's definitely a law they should enforce. They should have more check ups and actually..further check ups. If people own a gun they SHOULD have to go through some kinda mental checking, every year or something...I mean, in the very least it's good for the soul to know where you stand mentally
Owning a gun is a huge responsibility and people who do should do all they can to show they're big enough to have one.



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 11:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Verse
a reply to: SomeDumbBroad

Are there many hot guns that have been stolen that have been used to commit mass murders like this recent one?
I get the feeling , we always read that the attacker bought them legally when he had no reason to. It's been way too many cases where a nut could buy guns in the gun shop without any further notice...or he at least had access to them through other means. It's never really, a hardened criminal's gun was stolen and used to commit mass murder...because, really...these guys don't let their guns be stolen.


Frontline: Hot Guns




In fact, there are a number of sources that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands, with gun thefts at the bottom of the list. Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales. A straw purchase occurs when someone who may not legally acquire a firearm, or who wants to do so anonymously, has a companion buy it on their behalf. According to a 1994 ATF study on "Sources of Crime Guns in Southern California," many straw purchases are conducted in an openly "suggestive" manner where two people walk into a gun store, one selects a firearm, and then the other uses identification for the purchase and pays for the gun. Or, several underage people walk into a store and an adult with them makes the purchases. Both of these are illegal activities. The next biggest source of illegal gun transactions where criminals get guns are sales made by legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial gun dealers. Several recent reports back up Wachtel's own studies about this, and make the case that illegal activity by those licensed to sell guns, known as Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs), is a huge source of crime guns and greatly surpasses the sale of guns stolen from John Q. Citizen. Like bank robbers, who are interested in banks, gun traffickers are interested in FFLs because that's where the guns are. This is why FFLs are a large source of illegal guns for traffickers, who ultimately wind up selling the guns on the street.



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 11:33 PM
link   
a reply to: nancyliedersdeaddog

Sandy Hook wasn't really a stolen gun....like the song said "I GOT IT FROM MY MOMA!!"

He had access to it and had been trained prior to shoot it....can't you see what's wrong with that picture??



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 11:34 PM
link   
a reply to: vjr1113

The party our President belongs to (and other people who support a gun ban for people who are on the list) have for years pointed out flaws and been critical of the no fly list but now they want to use the admitted flawed list to limit constitutional rights. How many US terrorist attacks (where the guy bought a gun while on the no fly list) have been done by someone on the no fly list in the past year ? Do you support limiting their rights in other areas like putting all people on the no fly list who live in America on house arrest until the investigation is complete since dangerous people shouldn't be on the streets?



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 11:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Verse
a reply to: nancyliedersdeaddog

Sandy Hook wasn't really a stolen gun....like the song said "I GOT IT FROM MY MOMA!!"

He had access to it and had been trained prior to shoot it....can't you see what's wrong with that picture??


The gun didn't legally belong to him.... so that would make it stolen.



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 11:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Verse

i think a better way to about this is to keep track of what is being sold more carefully. watch ammo and mag sales closer. how much does one person need to protect themselves or their family really? if we let people have the right to own enough to kill 50 people, someone will do it eventually for crime or terrorism. i think the question that needs to be asked is how much a person can arm themselves without having the ability to kill a large number of people and still be able to protect themselves from lets say at least 3 people, 5 people. this is not an easy problem to fix, but not acknowledging there is a flaw is the real problem.



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 11:39 PM
link   
a reply to: SomeDumbBroad

Thank you for that link. I'd never heard of this way before, so I'm learning now

But still...what I want to know is...do they go this way to purchase the weaponry for the mass murders? Has that been proofen?
Anyway, interesting link and this is why I come to ATS. To deny ignorance.



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 11:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Verse

It was a stolen gun though since it was his mom's and the evidence points to he used/took the gun to commit this mass shooting without approval from the owner (because he killed her). Let's look at a hypothetical situation I have a kid and I let him sometimes shoot my firearm and then later on he decides to take possession of my fire without my approval/knowledge then he stole it.



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 11:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: nancyliedersdeaddog
a reply to: vjr1113

The party our President belongs to (and other people who support a gun ban for people who are on the list) have for years pointed out flaws and been critical of the no fly list but now they want to use the admitted flawed list to limit constitutional rights. How many US terrorist attacks (where the guy bought a gun while on the no fly list) have been done by someone on the no fly list in the past year ? Do you support limiting their rights in other areas like putting all people on the no fly list who live in America on house arrest until the investigation is complete since dangerous people shouldn't be on the streets?


its a very fine line how we treat suspicious people as they haven't technically broken the law, only have the potential. i think the more potential to carry out violence, the less rights you should have to go through with your intentions.



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 11:41 PM
link   
a reply to: SomeDumbBroad

Yeah legally....but that still means his access to it was way too easy. That's what I'm worried about here too. Folks raising their kids up as shooters, then the kid knows where all the weapons are...snaps and boom!! That's just bad parenting imo.



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 11:44 PM
link   
a reply to: vjr1113

You do realize a lot of gun owner buy tons of ammo for plenty of legal reasons and large amounts of ammo usually get used quickly by many people especially when they visit a gun range? Isn't actually a good thing for gun owners to use large amounts ammo because it means they are training and becoming more comfortable using it? I would also love for you to answer my questions above.



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 11:45 PM
link   
a reply to: vjr1113

That's true. Nobody really needs all that ammo, unless they're going to fill the infiltrator of led. Make'em dance! That's just murder anyway so yeah...a good way would be to limit the number of bullets. Maybe have people train harder, to hit that one shot. I agree this is definitely not an easy problem to fix...especially with the numbers of firearms out there already.
Yeah, we can't silence this problem forever...t's only going to get worse. At least, talking about it like we're doing here is a step in the right direction. Even if it's just baby steps, it´s still progress.



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 11:49 PM
link   
a reply to: vjr1113

You didn't answer my question though how many US terrorist attacks (where the guy bought a gun while on the no fly list) have been done by someone on the no fly list in the past year and do you support limiting their rights in other areas like putting all people on the no fly list who live in America on house arrest until the investigation is complete?


I'm pretty sure the guy today and the terrorist in California both were not on the no fly list .



posted on Jun, 13 2016 @ 12:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Verse

Again many people do need access to large amount of ammo since many gun owners like to practice shooting and ammo can go really fast. What is the "one shot" and how do you practice it?



posted on Jun, 13 2016 @ 12:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: nancyliedersdeaddog
a reply to: vjr1113

You do realize a lot of gun owner buy tons of ammo for plenty of legal reasons and large amounts of ammo usually get used quickly by many people especially when they visit a gun range? Isn't actually a good thing for gun owners to use large amounts ammo because it means they are training and becoming more comfortable using it? I would also love for you to answer my questions above.


im aware of the rediculous amount of ammo that is made so easily. if it was taken more seriously other than just recreation and entertainment, maybe criminals wouldn't have access to as much ammo as they need. i do think ammo, and mags should be carefully watched just like the fire arms are watched. any criminal or potential criminal can buy as much ammo, mags, and guns as they want, is this not a problem to you? maybe we should take ammo and mag manufacturing as seriously as guns. and even then there is no limit to how many guns one person can buy. its a lot to tackle.



posted on Jun, 13 2016 @ 12:05 AM
link   
a reply to: nancyliedersdeaddog

im not sure that people on the no fly list are potentially dangerous. im not sure what constitutes putting someone on a no fly list. im talking about a terrorist watch list by the fbi cia nsa so on and so on. i do think people on that list should have no access to fire arms ever.
edit on 13-6-2016 by vjr1113 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join