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.

 

First Good Example for an Assault Rifle Ban???

page: 16
26
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 08:12 AM
link   
a reply to: EvillerBob

With prefabricated parts maybe, but that isn’t from scratch now is it??


But reguardless, you can make explosives at home so why can’t we have C4 without a license???

Didn’t some kid build a nuclear reactor in his garage??

So why can’t we have nukes without a license??


And honestly I am getting into the same old propaganda trap the conservative types always try to pull...

Changing the argument to something no one is talking about..


The dems say “we want to ban the sale of new assault rifles and grandfather in the rest.”


The conservative rebuttal: “they are comming door to door to confiscate all the guns!!”


Something no elected official has ever even hinted at..




posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 08:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: EvillerBob
What is the functional value of regular citizens owning assault rifles??


I don't see it as my place to decide what value something has for other people.

Why do you see it as your place to be the final arbiter?

As far as I am concerned, have what you want, do what you want, provided you do so without placing others at risk. If you can use bazookas and C4 - or even somehow nukes, though that would be one hell of an impressive firing range - without placing others at risk, go for it, it's not my place to judge why you want to do it.

Society's involvement should be limited to those who have shown themselves unable to act without placing others at an unacceptable level of risk.

Any argument that starts from the premise that people require "valid reasons" or "functional value" to own or do anything, is a failure from the start.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 08:18 AM
link   
a reply to: EvillerBob

Exactly..

He planned well, had resources and wanted to cause the most damage possible. So what weapon did he chose to cause the most damage possible???


So someone who planned it all out, thought an assault rifle was the most damaging weapon he could get his hands on...

Kinda exactly the point huh?
edit on 3-10-2017 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-10-2017 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 08:19 AM
link   
Hmmmm...

A sniper 32 stories up with a clear line of sight to the target.
A crowd standing shoulder to shoulder.
The crowd is fenced in to an area with exits on only one side.

Fish in a barrel anyone? Let me use my own semi-auto rifle and give me five full mags. I am certain I could meet or exceed what this asshole did. But I would ever do something like that. Life is sacred. It shouldn't be taken on a whim and it shouldn't be used as a political device.

Its not about the tool used as much as the tool using it.
edit on 3-10-2017 by Vroomfondel because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 08:20 AM
link   
Why can't people simply admit that they don't like the freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution?

It's not abut guns, it's about trading freedoms for security. It's about placing all power to the state. It's about granting government absolute control over our lives.

Those that espouse a ban or even a limit on what the 2nd Amendment guarantees don't want freedoms, abhor personal responsibility, and would be okay with a fascist government.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 08:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: EvillerBob

With prefabricated parts maybe, but that isn’t from scratch now is it??


But reguardless, you can make explosives at home so why can’t we have C4 without a license???

Didn’t some kid build a nuclear reactor in his garage??

So why can’t we have nukes without a license??


And honestly I am getting into the same old propaganda trap the conservative types always try to pull...

Changing the argument to something no one is talking about..


The dems say “we want to ban the sale of new assault rifles and grandfather in the rest.”


The conservative rebuttal: “they are comming door to door to confiscate all the guns!!”


Something no elected official has ever even hinted at..


The problem here is the poor education of all elected officials on terminology and actually limitations on physical usage of certain types of firearms.

Hillary's "silencer" tweet is a perfect example of this. She's an idiot who has no clue about what she speaks.

A SUPPRESSOR on a full auto platform would have likely resulted in LESS deaths in this instance. Catastrophic failure from overheating being the reason.

The likely reason for the break between the shooters volleys is that he knew of barrel heat properties and allowed time for it to cool before shooting again. That is just the weapon barrel. Add a SUPPRESSOR in and it would have failed quickly because of the way they are built and how an automatic rifle would have caused failure because of heat. A catastrophic failure of the SUPPRESSOR would have caused the same with the rifle barrel and likely caused significant injury to the shooter as well.

The rifle he was apparently using WAS already illegal...so laws obviously didn't help. The only alternative IS to take away guns...hence going back to your argument as to why that comes up.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 08:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: EvillerBob

With prefabricated parts maybe, but that isn’t from scratch now is it??


From scratch.


originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: EvillerBob

But reguardless, you can make explosives at home so why can’t we have C4 without a license???

Didn’t some kid build a nuclear reactor in his garage??

So why can’t we have nukes without a license??



The premise of the argument is that banning something will stop people having it. My point is that people who want something, can get it or make it, regardless of what the law says. The people who pay attention to the law are NOT the people you are trying to control. Your example of the nuclear reactor exactly fits into the category, I'm glad you raised it.

To answer the questions you pose: my position is that those things should not require licensing at all. If someone is able to make C4 or build nuclear reactors and can do it without putting others at risk, then let them. If they are doing so in a way that places others at risk then, and only then, should society throw the book at them.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 08:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Abysha

a assult rifle as define by the army is,

a short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges.
in the strict definition they must meet four characteristics

first and foremost, it must be capable of selective fire.
selective fire means, the capability of a weapon to be adjusted to fire in semi-automatic, multi-shot burst, and/or fully automatic firing mode.

second use a ammunition with, more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle.

third,ammunition must be fed from a detachable box magazine.

fourth, effective range of at least 300 metres (330 yards).

there are military and civilian rifles that meet some of these but are not select fire.

Semi-automatic rifles variants of the AR-15 are not assault rifles they have no select-fire capabilities as sold.




edit on 3-10-2017 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 08:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Vroomfondel

You never lay down the fire he did with a semi auto unless it is rigged..

You have a better hit percentage with a hunting rifle, but not that kinda out put.

He had the resources to chose whatever weapon he wanted, was knowledgeable about firearms and wanted to do the most damage possible..

He chose the best gun available for the job.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 08:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: EvillerBob
So someone who planned it all out, thought an assault rifle was the most damaging weapon he could get his hands on...

Kinda exactly the point huh?


And yet in the list of mass casualty attacks, you will find that bombs, arson, and large vehicles significantly outrank firearms.

Considering the time and money he put into this, there were certainly more effective ways to cause mass casualties. I have my own views on why he used firearms but that's probably for another thread.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 08:32 AM
link   
What kind of wacky logic is required to explain how in 1996 when Australia banned semi-auto,fully-auto, and shot guns they stopped having mass shootings if it wasn't the lack of those type of guns that stopped it?



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 08:32 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

I suppose, but the crux of "gun control" (a relatively unconstitutional concept, IMO) should deal with legality of ownership of a genre (fully-auto, grenade launcher, RPG, etc.) and not specific models or weaponry. And that's pretty much what we already have--I just feel like any further restrictions on gun ownership are pointless, because as we always see, if someone is hell-bent on the destruction of human life, no laws against owning or using any type of this or that weapon is going to make a difference.

You must realize that the Mandalay Bay has a very strict no-weapons policy, at least from what I've read from multiple sources, so the fact that he was even able to amass such a stockpile over the few days that he was staying there raises red flags immediately. I'd like to see security footage of what cases he brought them all in to see why management or security never apparently approached or stopped him.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 08:36 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

Get over yourself--I never blamed a Democrat for anything, let alone discussed a Democrat or alluded to a Democrat.

All that my comment said was that I bet that the possession/ownership of fully-automatic firearms was probably an illegal act by the shooter, and that is wouldn't matter anyway because he used them in an illegal fashion to commit mass murder.

Where in the hell did I imply/infer ANYTHING about Democrats?

Quit trying so hard to think that everyone is politicizing everything. Seriously--that's poor form and a terrible reflection on your reading comprehension and ability to actually read instead of projecting your own biases onto other people's comments. Think a bit more before you reply to me next time, please. I don't accept lazy responses...


edit on 3-10-2017 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 08:36 AM
link   
a reply to: EvillerBob

Then obviously we don’t need to restrict the possession of anything by that logic..


They will never be banning guns nor doing any confiscating.. the only thing even remotely realistic is banning the sale of new guns and that takes a couple centuries before we break the ones we have..


That said the arguments that
A) they could just use something else.

B) it’s not the weapon it’s the person..

Are ridiculously flawed arguments..

If those are legit points. Then we shouldn’t restrict anything because “they could just use something else” and it’s not the weapon it’s the person..”


The weapon makes it easier to kill more.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 08:53 AM
link   
I still think that banning fire arms in America doesnt mean you cant over throw a tyrannous government
even if fire arms were banned humans will always find a way to commit acts of violence where necessary

even if you outright banned guns tomorrow , and then the government became tyrannical then the people would simply revolt , and would gather any types of weapons possible.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 09:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: EvillerBob

Then obviously we don’t need to restrict the possession of anything by that logic..
...

That said the arguments that
A) they could just use something else.

B) it’s not the weapon it’s the person..

Are ridiculously flawed arguments..

If those are legit points. Then we shouldn’t restrict anything because “they could just use something else” and it’s not the weapon it’s the person..”


Exactly, now you're getting it. Yes, those are valid points, and no, we shouldn't restrict things.

Incidentally, if the arguments are flawed, could you explain the Boston bombings? The Nice attacks? The London attacks? Apparently they couldn't happen in your world, as you seem to think (i) it's the weapon, not the person, and (ii) they couldn't use anything other than firearms.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 09:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox


So is this the first legit example where an assault rifle did more damage than more conventional guns could do???



The "assault rifle" did not cause the damage, the PERSON PULLING THE TRIGGER of the assault rifle did ALL OF THE DAMAGE.
I am certain that a room full of assault rifles would not harm a single person on their own. It takes a PERSON to make the conscious decision to aim any gun at another person and pull the trigger.

We do not blame the car when a drunk runs someone over,
We do not blame acid when someone throws it in another persons face,
etc, etc, etc.......



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 09:08 AM
link   
Banning most or all firearms would make for plenty of chaos to report on the news.

Gun fights as the people refuse to comply. People complaining that the police are not stopping crime carried out by criminals with illegal weapons. Crime lord versus crime lord battles.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 09:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

I tend to lean toward it largely being a combination of coincidence and different attitudes/cultures rather than the change in the law. A nutter could still do plenty of damage with the firearms that are still available on the market.

A better example, I think , is Canada. Why doesn't Canada have these incidents? Most of what's available in the US is available there, including many firearms that would be classed as 'assault rifles.' They do limit magazine capacity, but only on centerfire rifles and handguns (5 and 10 rounds, respectively). You can buy a 100 round drum for a semi-auto rimfire rifle legally and easily. So why doesn't it happen there? Its certainly possible with what's available.

No, I don't think the firearms are the root cause here.


edit on 3-10-2017 by vor78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 09:20 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Then we should be allowing people to own bazookas, RPG’s and C4 then huh??

It’s not the weapon right, and they will just find something else, so why not??

Since murder is illegal.. what’s the problem with Americans legally owning say nukes.. we just gotta make yawing them illegal is all...
edit on 3-10-2017 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join