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.

 

Serious Question: Would you be willing to give up semi-automatic guns?

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 09:59 AM
link   
Freedom to bear arms isn't about thrills or entertainment.

“For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well organized and armed militia is their best security.” Thomas Jefferson

I wonder how many lives would be loss if we as a society would be willing to do such a thing.

I have been to quite a few gun shows where there are thousands of people. I have never, and I mean never seen a fight, a yelling match or a brawl. Of course this is non scientific but my experience is people are armed, everyone is on their best behavior.




posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 09:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: veracity
when I say "handgun" I mean a simple not automatic in any way handgun.


Machine pistols are almost impossible to get, they are already heavily restricted.

Most current handguns are semi-automatic.

This is what frustrates me about people who want to ban guns, they do not even understand what they are talking about and what the current restrictions are regarding them.



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 10:00 AM
link   
a reply to: jupiter869

If governments wants less violence then show us some example and start cutting down the military and other violent systems they have in place. Stop chasing down "little" ppl and start chasing those big bosses, we all know things are not right or even legal what they do to us and this world.

I dont see there common trust between Americans and their rulers, so nope i dont think Americans will give up their guns any day soon.



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 10:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: veracity
a reply to: XTexan

NO,

ITS SIMPLE

Ban any automatic gun purchases.

We have too many MASSACRES in the United States. On average we have 2 (TWO) per year. The chances of one in your city are higher if people have easy access to these guns~!!!!!



So you would ban something that causes 2 massacres per year in the US, but your ok with something that causes massive worldwide death, and environmental destruction?



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

If we ban guns will you still allow law enforcement to have guns? If so why?


And the answer to the OP is a resounding ..... "NO!"
edit on 14-6-2016 by joemoe because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: XTexan

Nice twist on words, Im not talking about massive worldwide deaths or environmental destruction, that's another 2 cans of worms, im talking about MASSACRES...2 a year is too many.



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 10:03 AM
link   
a reply to: veracity

I live in a nation where gun ownership is heavily restricted, and I mean HEAVILY.

I will garuantee to you, right now, that if I wanted a firearm, I could get one faster and easier by the illegal method, than I could by the legal methods. It's not even a debate point, it's just a fact. I could have an automatic weapon by tomorrow done the illegal way.

Forced to go through legal channels I would maybe get a liscence for a shotgun after a lengthy applications process, involving much paperwork, postage delays for that paperwork, the red tape guantlets of central government and the police, and so on, probably lasting months.

Your understanding of these things MUST improve if you are to make proper arguments on this subject.
edit on 14-6-2016 by TrueBrit because: Clarity



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 10:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: veracity
a reply to: XTexan

Nice twist on words, Im not talking about massive worldwide deaths or environmental destruction, that's another 2 cans of worms, im talking about MASSACRES...2 a year is too many.



So the manner of death is more important than the actual death?

Also, as me and others have asked, please define semi-automatic so we can know what your actually asking us?



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 10:06 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

I understand you can get them illegally, maybe even faster, I dunno.

However, its LEGAL here!

At least if bought illegally and you are caught you have a felony on your record.



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 10:08 AM
link   
a reply to: XTexan

This is a thread for semi-automatic guns, right?

Lets keep it to that, not other ways people are murdered or mangled.



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 10:08 AM
link   
a reply to: jupiter869
OP you are forgetting Mateen was a Security Cleared agent for G4S International. He would have semi-auto weapons even if in another parallel universe Americans had no access to semi-auto weapons. You have no point.



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 10:08 AM
link   
a reply to: veracity

You're still very confused as to what is automatic, semi-automatic, etc.

Think I might need to make a video you can watch so you can see how each one is different.

Except the automatic one. I don't have the thousands of dollars it cost to have a license for one of those. But at least you'd learn the difference.



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 10:11 AM
link   
a reply to: jupiter869

No way, and it is not just entertainment, I want to have the best advantage I can afford over any fool thinking of harming me or mine.



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 10:11 AM
link   
a reply to: veracity

Criminals by definition are law breakers ... so laws will not stop them .. then what is the point? If you make it illegal for people to own guns then the only thing you really achieve is to prevent law abiding citizens the ability to protect themselves from criminals and perhaps a tyrannical government.



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 10:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: jupiter869

serious question, how would law abiding citizens giving up their semi-auto weapons save any lives? Please expound on that a bit.


1. You don't know it wouldn't save lives.

2. The law-abiding, nice, quiet citizen until said citizen snaps?

Yeah. Okay.


1, please explain how that might occur.

2, what?


Dude, it's pretty self-explanatory.


So your concern is regular law abiding citizens "snapping"? how is it you propose to protect against that?



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 10:12 AM
link   
I would venture to say gun confiscation and gun control measures would have a bad impact on the crime rate.

The absolute most conservative estimate of defensive gun defenses is between 55-85k incidents the highest estimate around 2.5 million.

Those people would all be part of crime stats in a much worse area ...as victims.

Let's all also assume getting rid of legal gun ownership will not get rid of circulated guns. Especially the masses of illegal ones.

What would happen is criminals would harbour the mass of guns in circulation and now know far less people have guns.


If we want to lower gun violence we need to adress serious social issue.

Poverty is the largest. Gang violence and hand guns account for more than half the alarming stats of violence in the us.

Obviously law enforcement has not made these gangs a priority. If they stop the criminals they don't need the funding they do when under fire.

Radical Islam. We have created a crap storm in the middle East we need to adress that as the problem of radicalization and mass murders.

Crazy psychotic young men. We have serious social issues. These men are often already showing signs of crazy behaviour. Schools have become more hazard than care. The public school system and level of thinking especially around ethics and philosophy has degraded substantially. Children are not encouraged to think but rather do and do well.



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 10:12 AM
link   
a reply to: jupiter869

Are people willing to give up Cars if it meant saving 1000 lives due to accidents?

Are people willing to give up alcohol if it meant saving 200 lives?

Why should I give up a right due to the actions of .001% of the population?



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 10:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: network dude

Child


I am not the one calling semi-automatic weapons "machine guns". I happen to understand what it is we are discussing here. If you really want to be involved in this, I do strongly suggest you find a way to get informed on the subject matter. It does make a difference.



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 10:14 AM
link   
a reply to: eriktheawful

Sorry, I thought semi-automatic weapons were holding down the trigger and it shooting till you let up.

So is everyone ok with not being able to have fully automatic weapons?

Its just semi-automatic weapons that are the issue?

Lets start small then and give up our rights to fully automatic weapons.
Does that make people upset?



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 10:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Feltrick

THis is a thread about Guns, not cars, alcohol, etc.

(yes I would give up cars and walk or ride bikes everywhere if everyone else had to as well, bring back horses)


edit on 14-6-2016 by veracity because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join