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.

 

The Reality of Gun Control

page: 5
44
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 07:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: WeRpeons
If seems in my case, never being a gun owner, the media isn't doing a good job explaining the current gun laws. I was under the assumption anyone can easily acquire these semi-automatic weapon and they were easily available. In that case I was ignorant of the fact.


Hold on--if you're talking about semi-automatic AR-15s, then yes, they are relatively easy to obtain: You go into the gun store, fill out the paperwork, show identification, await the results of your federal background check, and if it comes back clean, you pay the cost of the rifle and leave with a new weapon. Some states have mandatory wait times (often a few days before you can pick up the weapon), and others do not.

Here in KY, we have no wait time, and I can literally walk into a gun store knowing with rifle I want, do all of the above, and can walk out with a semi-automatic AR-15 in about 15 minutes. Of course, I take advantage of the free 30 min. of range time that I also get with the purchase, so it's more like about an hour before I walk out, but you get the point.

What I was referencing are the fully automatic firearms that the media does a piss-poor job distinguishing the difference between, and they lead the general public (much like yourself, who don't know much about firearms or the laws concerning their purchase) to think that all AR-15s are like the ones in the military (fully automatic or with a 3-round burst option) when they are absolutely NOT the same.


Thanks for enlightening me instead of attacking me. Usually when someone voices an opinion about the gun laws, some gun owners just want to attack you for bringing up the issue. For many people who have never owned or handled a gun, or don't even find interest in them, it's an issue that many of us really can't relate to.


Any time--I prefer to try and educate rather than berate people. At least you listen and appreciate it, but many times, people put ideological beliefs or incorrect information ahead of someone trying to help them understand, and so it's generally fruitless. To be honest, I should thank you for actually listening and appreciating the information--it's a rare interaction.

Best regards!




posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 08:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: AMPTAH
Err..Murder is not illegal, otherwise all wars would be illegal.


War is not murder--it is killing, but it's not murder.

I think that you're not in complete comprehension of what the legal definition of "murder" actually is. Nor do I think that you understand the rules of engagement and how that pertains to using lethal force in wartime situations.

Yes, killing is killing, but not all killing is equally horrific. Personally, I think killing done in the name of borders and ideology is worse.



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 09:23 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Most people have no idea how long semi autos have been around.

I have a semi auto .223 (mini 14) that doesn't look in away like a tactical weapon and most people would probably say oh that's a hunting rifle.

Especially because if you hunt with it the mag size is greatly restricted. (Accept for hogs).
edit on 22-6-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 11:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Indigo5

I agree: as long as lobbies are allowed, all lobbies are allowed. You seem to want the NRA and GAO to disappear, however. Or am I misreading your posts?



I think the NRA sucks..But wanting them to disappear is a different question? Not sure what disappear means? I used to be an NRA member..Maybe 15-20 years ago. Not to liken them to one another...but I think the KKK sucks, but if the gov forbid them from existing, I'd fight for their rights of free speech and assembly? Does that make sense?



The framework we operate under is not negotiable unless the legal steps are taken to change it. We are speaking of the United States of America. The framework is the Constitution and laws of the United States of America. Feel free to act to change those if you do not like the framework. There is even a process for amending the Constitution.



I think we have a different understanding of "Framework"..The courts have consistently determined that gun ownership can be regulated. The debate is around what those regulations involve.



Now as to magazine capacity... Considering that the Orlando shooter did not use a weapon that required magazines, I fail to see where you get this.


???
The Sig Sauer MCX is sold with a standard, rapidly inter-changable, 30 round magazine and obviously he used several?
Nothing personal...but the above is factually false as far as I am aware. Where did you get that idea?



If we are looking to prevent another such tragedy, the reasonable response is to at least pass legislation that could have prevented this act. To attempt to push legislation that is not related to the act is a thinly veiled attempt at pushing a personal agenda.


Law enforcement will tell you that mass shooters are most often taken out by civilians or law enforcement while reloading. Logic will tell you the same. The seconds it takes for a shooter to stand near a crowd of victims and reload saves lives.




As to due process: that is determined by a COURT, not by an investigator. It does not matter what the investigator says; what can the investigator PROVE in COURT to a JUDGE (or JURY)? If there is sufficient evidence for a case, make a formal charge. Take that formal charge to a judge for determination of whether or not there is sufficient cause to suspend a suspect's rights until a trial has completed and their guilt or innocence is known.


Gun ownership is often "suspended" during domestic abuse trials or when restraining orders are put in place.


Not "denied", but suspended...that goes for all other rights as suspected criminals are often jailed until trial if there is sufficient risk of flight or violence.

So sure...lets call the Gov. on their evidence before "denying" a gun purchase...They can issue charges or opt for a closer look at the person on the terrorist watch list before approving a gun sale, but as it stands, the background check system can't even notify the FBI that someone wants to buy a gun. They can't even check the terrorist watch list and even the criminal background check? If the agency doesn't respond in 72 hours the sale is approved by default. That is how Dylan Roof in NC bought his guns and murdered a dozen people and then a week later his application was denied. It's out of balance.



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 11:51 AM
link   
If we ban one particular type of semi-auto rifle; what do we do when the exact same carnage happens with a semi-auto hand gun? Are we just going to keep banning guns until we're down to single action revolvers?



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: AMPTAH
Err..Murder is not illegal, otherwise all wars would be illegal.


War is not murder--it is killing, but it's not murder.



That's only true, if you and I decide to go to war. You put on your battle dress, I put on my battle dress, we arrange the battlefield, and we meet and spar it out.

But, when one side decides to go to war, and people who don't want to fight any war get killed, it's just murder.



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

You made some very good points.


(post by ShadowsOfEridu removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 06:47 PM
link   
a reply to: AMPTAH

Are you serious? You do realize that enabling the govt to have complete control over all the firearms negates the purpose of the second amendment right? And criminals will purchase hacks, while law abiding citizens will be controlled..lol...

Jaden



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: WeRpeons

When in hell did the second amendment become about hunting, insert progressive liberal talking point, ?

JAden



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 06:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

You just seem to have somewhat of a chip on your shoulder when it comes to the NRA. We do apparently agree on this point: people are free to support lobbyist organizations of their choice, whether we agree with them or not.

As to what the courts have determined: I again refer you to the US Constitution, Amendment 2. "Shall not be infringed." Whether or not those judges who decided to ignore that part of the document they swore to uphold is an act of treason is a subject for another thread.

I have made an error, and thank you for calling out my ignorance. Mateen did indeed use a magazine-fed rifle. I was under the false impression that he used something more akin to a traditional "hunting rifle."

You do make a point from a practical perspective on the use of high-capacity magazines. Yet, there'should that pesky Constitution again. Why not just amend it and it can say whatever we want it to say?

I know the excuse: it takes too long, and there would be too much of a fight against it. That's just another way of saying the laws we pass are unpopular, but the people will swallow them anyway because we say so. That's not how it's supposed to work. Simply put forth an amendment that restricts the reference to "arms" to not include certain weapons that the vast majority of the people agree with. It'll pass quickly. The only problem getting an amendment passed is when the people do not want it.

And finally, let me point out that 'suspended' is double-speak for 'denied but we might give it back.' In the case of rights, it is not the FBI's to take for any time or to give back. It is a right and cannot be denied without due process: a court of law.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 06:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

Actually M16's are perfectly legal if manufactured prior to 1986. You have to pay a $200 stamp and pass a background check to own one, because it's considered a class III firearm.

Technically it is unconstiutional to have a ban on ANY arm. You should be able to walk down the street carrying a sword if you so chose.

Jaden



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 07:00 PM
link   
a reply to: WeRpeons

It was created to ensure that the govt couldn't take arms away from the people and ensue totalitarian rule, if you're referring to the second amendment. You responded to the amendment process which is what would be necessary in order to further restrict firearms.

Jaden
edit on 22-6-2016 by Masterjaden because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 07:00 PM
link   
a reply to: ShadowsOfEridu

First off races don't exist.

Second don't ' think "race" has anything to do with it.

The recent history of segregation and poverty, drug addiction, law enforcement corruption, political corruption, bad schools and education etc will do that to any race.

For instance polish people are the highest violent crime levels in much of Europe and definitely England.



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 07:12 PM
link   
Gun research faces roadblocks and a dearth of data


In fact, questions loom about the impact of all sorts of policies, from background checks to assault weapons bans to gun buybacks. That’s partly because gun research faces roadblocks at every turn: Scientists have to deal with data shutouts, slashed funding and, occasionally, harassment.

For a few questions, however, researchers have come up with solid answers: There’s a convincing link between gun availability and gun suicide, for one. And studies from the United States and abroad suggest that some gun laws do rein in gun violence. To make firm conclusions, though, scientists are desperate for more data.

But the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention can’t collect gun data like it used to, and information about guns used in individual crimes is locked up tight. Under current federal laws, Hemenway says, “It’s almost impossible for researchers to get even the data that are available.”



Webster has used this data to paint a rough picture of how Missouri’s repeal affected the flow of guns to criminals. In 2006, when buying a handgun required a permit, 56.4 percent of guns recovered by police had been originally sold by a Missouri gun dealer. In 2012, five years after the state nixed the permit requirement, the number rose to 71.8 percent, Webster and colleagues reported in the Journal of Urban Health in 2014.

The findings suggest that it’s easier now for criminals in Missouri to get their hands on legally purchased guns. But Webster can’t say for certain whether more guns are moving to criminals — or whether legal gun owners are committing more crimes. For that, he’d need to see the individual gun traces.



Gun laws vary dramatically across the United States. Public health researchers have linked states’ gun laws to levels of gun violence. Louisiana and Alaska, for example, led the country in the number of gun deaths per 100,000 people in 2014. These states also have weaker gun laws than states such as California and New York .


It's interesting reading.

From another article linked in the 'further reading' section ("The Epidemiology of Firearm Violence in the Twenty-First Century United States") comes this statement: "Compared with other industrialized nations, the United States has uniquely high mortality rates from firearm violence."

How does that make you feel? Is it really o.k. to just carry on? Surely enacting some form of gun control to help prevent such devastating figures is a good thing?

I don't know what else to say. It seems like there is an illness fueled by denial and fear.

SMH.

Edit: It seems that gun control can and does significantly lessen the risk of death by gunshot: Australia's successful gun reforms could inform US policies, researchers say


Although America led the world in successful campaigns to reduce the death toll from car crashes, tobacco-related disease and HIV/Aids, when it comes to gun death, it seems ideology and politics are delaying standard public health measures,” Alpers said.

By analyzing Australian government data, Alpers and his fellow University of Sydney researchers found that two decades after Australia introduced these sweeping reforms, the risk of an Australian dying by gunshot dropped by more than half. These reforms were also followed by an end to fatal mass shootings, defined as five or more people dead.

In that 20-year period, the number of firearms deaths also fell rapidly. From 1979 to 1996, the firearm death rate declined, on average, 3% per year, while from 1997 to 2013, the death rate declined at an average of 4.9% per year...“Research evidence should inform the way forward to advance the most effective policies to reduce violence. However, research alone will not be enough.

“Australian citizens, professional organizations and academic researchers all played productive roles in developing and promoting evidence-informed policies and demanding that their lawmakers adopt measures to prevent the loss of life and terror of gun violence,” Webster wrote. “Citizens in the United States should follow their lead.”


Gun violence is an epidemic that isn't being addressed. In fact, it's being excused.

edit on 22-6-2016 by aorAki because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 07:28 PM
link   
a reply to: aorAki

A little perspective.

www.romans322.com...

Hardly an epidemic and hardly worth the time. Surely not worth changing the constitution over.

Good thing is, no one died from spontaneous combustion yet this year! ! !



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 07:31 PM
link   
a reply to: aorAki

I have read it and it's a bad study. Usually ins studies you have to account for outside factors.

For instance can you compare Louisana one of the poorest, worst educated states to California which is one of the world's largest economies?

What factors are accounted for? What about Chicago?

It is extremely difficult to prove causation in situations like this. Particularly if there is an agenda.


California also has very high gun crime per capita in certain areas. Like Stockton, LA, and Oakland. How is that possible?
edit on 22-6-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 08:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: AMPTAH

Are you serious? You do realize that enabling the govt to have complete control over all the firearms negates the purpose of the second amendment right? And criminals will purchase hacks, while law abiding citizens will be controlled..lol...

Jaden


But, if the government is such a problem, trying to control the population, why not just get rid of government all together and not bother with all this hassle of telling them they can't have the laws and rules they need to do their job?

Don't hire a fisherman, to catch the fish, and then tell him sorry, he can't have the fishing rod, nor the bait, nor the fishing net, but he must wade into the lake and try to catch the fish with his bare hands.



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 08:48 PM
link   
I think most people are just trying to get back to the reagan ban. I don't think that's asking too much

the "good guy with a gun" was actually there in orlando, but didn't stand a chance



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 09:13 PM
link   
a reply to: syrinx high priest

For me it is far beyound gun rights


Guns laws are not going to solve violent crime and organized crime that plagues these stats.

People will do the easy thing and pass this stuff and forget there is actually cause to these violent behavior. The gun itself didn't do anything

Still have crap schools, ghettos, drug addiction , poverty, no mental health support on and on.

Guns are an election platform. A stall tactic to solving real issues.




top topics



 
44
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join