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: 20
26
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Unfortunately you don't know what you're talking about. There are public officials who advocate for bans and confiscation. Obama himself said we should look at "the Australian model", which was a ban and confiscate model. The President doesn't matter? You're also missing the fact that these public official answer to these "random numbskulls" and if enough of them are of voting age, you can be damn sure your officials are listening.

I'd also point out we had an assault weapons ban for 10 years. Congress let it expire because it had zero impact on gun violence rates. You yourself acknowledged that assault rifles are rarely used in crimes, so what do you suppose is their motivation for wanting to ban them? It's very simple, my friend. It is a first step.




posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 07:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: JBurns

I agree with that entire post. And most gun owners I know would agree with most if not all of it. Most of us are reasonable people. It's the unreasonable extremists on the other side who lead us to take such a rigid stance.


The quickest way to cut down on mass killings is to tie NICS in to the voter registration databases and stop selling guns to registered Democrats.

Thankfully, I support their right to have whatever they want just as strongly as I support everyone else's right.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 08:39 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Look at the Australia policy does not equal a concerted effort to ban guns...


If that is the best quote you have, talk about weak sauce...



Let’s say we are in some fantasy world where a law is passed.. who enforces it???

Local police ? Nope..

Military?? Nope..


It is a totally unrealistic fear..


Just like with the assault rifle ban from the 90’s all assault rifles already in circulation are grandfathered in...



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 08:39 PM
link   
a reply to: EvillerBob

What a “paid” shill......



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 08:40 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

If that is what the democrats want. I’m sure you can provide some attempted legislation or quote actually saying that.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 10:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: JoshuaCox

this is the slippery slope logical fallacy that you refer to

if we allow X, Y , or Z to happen then it wont be long before X, Y , or Z happens

A strawman is where someone misrepresents someone else's argument to make it easier to attack

e.g.

John said we should increase funding to the education system in this campaign run
Dave said that John is an idiot and unpatriotic for wanting to cut military spending in this campaign.


What? Your example isn't of a strawman, it's argumentum ad hominem. He's not misrepresenting the argument, he's attacking the character of the person to devalue the message, I.E. Dave results to insulting John to discredit his point of view. That's not a straw man.

A real strawman is as follows;

John feels like gun control laws are too strict
Gary says John is wrong because if there was no gun control laws at all everyone would be in tremendous danger.

This is a strawman because John didn't say to lift gun control laws, and Gary has secretly changed John's argument from They are too strict, to, there shouldn't be any at all, which isn't what John said.



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



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 04:14 AM
link   
I love this game... You should research before acting as though you know what your talking about. So any firearm out there can and most likely at some point have been modified. From hand guns to hunting rifles. Assualt riffles to shot guns. Bigger mags, or automatic fire are fairly easy to accomplish. A bumper stock for example is a legal way to get a somewhat automatic fire rate. Magazines are easily bought online. What if you want accuracy? Upgraded barrels or scopes is a good place to start.

So quick answer. No. Its not a good example for an Assualt rifle ban... Sorry.

Nice try though.



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 04:26 AM
link   
Wouldnt introducing DNA tagged guns , that will only fire by the person who owns it , therefore every gun can be traced to its original owner, DNA activated owner.

Upon purchase the guns are set to the persons DNA so that they are then responsible for that fire arm and the receiver wont work unless its used by the owner.

This technology would allow the authorities to identify which gun was used in a crime so that if the weapons are used illegally then there is no doubt what so ever who fired it .

Wouldnt this make the gun world more reasonable in the sense that , you are ultimately responsible for the consequences

Not sure if this tech even exists but I think it could help

edit on 4-10-2017 by sapien82 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 07:30 AM
link   
a reply to: sapien82
Biometric guns do exist. The industry played around with them in the mid 2000's but were not well received by the general public. They used finger print scanners like many laptops or cell phones have, not DNA. A DNA lock would be too intrusive, complicated and less likely to be as attractive than even the finger print ones.

I don't think there is a single law that people can come up with right now that would have stopped this tragedy. They have not even provided the full description of the weapon involved and all its mods. Bump stock trick is not even that common of a mod. I think more people just end up messing with the sear pins or whatever you call those things people can mill, file or replace to achieve a fully automatic effect.

However, I can live with a ban on bump stocks, I have never really been a big proponent of FA anyways. I'm a semi-auto kind of guy with a double tap finger.



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 08:24 AM
link   
a reply to: worldstarcountry

Aye I can see what you mean Americans love their privacy laws and so asking them for DNA to lock their guns safe so no one else can use them Id imagine the backlash , "invasion of privacy"! "we are being cloned against our will"

This would be ideal in the military as well as then the enemy couldnt even use your weapons if captured.

Thing is people leave their DNA everywhere and if the government really did want your DNA they could obtain it easily without your permission or knowledge.

I think DNA locked guns would be perfect. Meaning it would be more difficult to sell them on 2nd hand
only new guns would only be issued to one person for life etc.

There is no need for anyone to have fully automatic rifle , unless you are in the business of killing people
so the public shouldnt be allowed to own fully automatic weapons .

Gun manufacturers should invent a system that means you cant change its fire mode through modding etc
make it so that the piece cant be modded to allow for multiple fire modes.

make the internal chambers of the receiver so that once made they cannot be opened or modded in any way.

or maybe just make the gun license laws a little more strict in terms of who can own one, more psychological screening etc , more training to ensure that you know how to handle a gun before being given a license. Also ethical training where people are asked to attend a group on gun laws / gun violence etc

so that they are fully aware of the implications of such events.
For the most part these would work , but they will never stop a determined individual who has already decided to kill in large numbers. They will do whatever it takes and use anything they can get their hands on.



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 08:33 AM
link   
a reply to: sapien82

The tech sort of exists as your are talking but last time I read up on it, reliability factor was pretty low and the gun was exceedingly expensive.

Also there is literally no way to prevent a gun from being dismantled, any guy or gal with a little knowledge and access to tools will be able to tear a gun apart.

Also lets say you did prevent access to the internals; as you shoot a gun the build up of carbon on the internals could lead to a malfunction from it not being cleaned properly making it unsafe.

Problem with Pysch screenings is you would have to turn over the medical papers of the country to the Fed to viewed by people not cleared by existing laws to view the information. (didnt sleep well so I know this last sentence seems pretty tortured sorry)
edit on 4-10-2017 by Irishhaf because: additional thought



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 08:44 AM
link   
a reply to: sapien82
You can just forget about DNA locked guns, it is unrealistic and will not happen. Not only that, it would not have stopped this tragedy. The man was very wealthy and most if not all those guns he purchased through the exact legal channels you have already described.

He could have easily achieved this casualty rate in a weapon that was not FA. If you got a quick trigger finger you could easily match the rate of fire especially when your target is a large mass of thousands of people that does not require precision sighting.


Not a single thing you mentioned or anybody for that matter would have prevented this tragedy. The key here is intent. The same intent that took a cargo truck and murdered 80+ in France, or that used a car bomb to destroy the Oklahoma city Federal building. Or the same intent that saw Norway's Anders Breivik murder 77 with bombs and firearms. Explosives are illegal everywhere, and firearms are heavily regulated in Norway as well.

However, with all those laws, nothing could stop the intent. There are no laws of man that can be drawn yesterday, today, or tomorrow that can prevent or stop homicidal intent. Hell, even in Japan they have still suffered mass murder at the use of chemical weapons. They also have strict gun laws, and yet people can and will still murder en masse with banned and illegal material.

What we need to be looking at is why there is no mention of the University of Buffalo's breakthrough in demonstrating the capability to remotely take over the motor control of the brain in August (a capability that has existed since at least 2002 with equipment) and why the Russians ran an article the day before the attack praying these discoveries would not be used for evil means.

That is where we should be focusing. Some retired FBI says he did not fit not one of the 56 profiles they have for criminals that commit mass murder like this. That tells me mind control. And we all know who was a Senator in New York, has a death count following her family from Arkansas since the 80's , and has received money from this same University a few years back.



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 09:16 AM
link   
a reply to: sapien82

Realistically, you can't make a firearm that can't be serviced by the consumer. The internals need routine maintenance and cleaning, preferably after each use, or they're going to develop functionality problems. Rimfire rounds like 22LR are particularly bad about it and can foul a firearm quickly.

The biometric stuff isn't going to happen, either. The exorbitant cost to the end user and questions over reliability will create a massive backlash among 2A advocates. This isn't an assumption, either, its a fact. It already happened a few years ago when a company (Armatix) tried to do it and the reaction was so bad that dealers refused to carry it and they had to pull it from the market within a few days.

The industry might be able to put a heavier trigger with a longer trigger pull onto semi-automatic rifles that might bring the rate of fire down closer to a pump action rifle. That wouldn't be well-received, either, mind you. Nor does it address the fact that there are tens of millions of semi-automatic rifles on the market not equipped with it.

Aside from banning the bump-fire stocks, I think most of the proposals geared toward the firearms themselves won't work.
edit on 4-10-2017 by vor78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 09:42 AM
link   
a reply to: vor78

The government could subsidize the technology.

I personally don’t find dna or fingerprint recognition feasible, but rfid chips would work perfectly..

That technology is already , compact , solid, cheap and reliable.


Honestly if anyone is being honest. Mass shooting and even regylular murders are a super small percentage of shooting deaths. The vast majority are accidental shootings.

Kids finding the parents guns, exc.


Well RFID chips would almost totally fix that and cut gun deaths in half..


They could easily be put into a fashionable wristband or ring , and even be easily replacable if lost.


It is sad how much cannot be done do to irrational fears..


Can’t have a registry because “the black helicopters are coming to get your guns..”

Lol..

A) no law enforcement body would be willing to go door to door confiscating guns..

B) if we imagaine some fantasy world where Washington did pass a law and get someone to enforce it. good luck going up against the US military with your semi auto Chinese knock off AK...



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 09:46 AM
link   
a reply to: sapien82

I don’t think biometrics are there yet, hypothetically they could be with a big enough investment, but RFID chips...

Those are good to go.



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 09:53 AM
link   
The battery that powers the RFID reader or biometrics dies just when you need the fire arm for personal protection. Oops...



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 09:55 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox
wrong again. The majority of firearms deaths are intentional suicide, not accidental. Accidental shootings are the smallest category of firearms deaths. You have repeatedly spread false information that is easily refuted these last few days including the claim that Not one elected official has wanted to confiscate all guns . I replied to you in another thread with Diane Feinsteins own words in video that she wanted to do just that.

Now you are trying to scaremonger with the kids accidental deaths by firearms as being the majority, it is less than 3%.


Firearms death statistics
As with any data, it helps to put statistics about guns into perspective. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released these figures for 2014, the most recent year for which complete data on firearms-related deaths and injuries are available:
CDC report opens in a .pdf file
33,594: injuries from guns
21,386: suicides
11,008: homicides
275: undetermined or unintentional

Those accidental detahs by firearms of minors is also quite insignificant considering how many other unregulated way children accidently die every year that dwarf this number by firearms, especially pools and automobiles. Firearms are literally one of the least common, if not the least common way children die every year. A fraction of one percent.
I am beginning to wonder if you have your own motives here lately...
edit on 10-4-2017 by worldstarcountry because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 10:14 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

You're right about the mass shootings being a very small percentage of the total, but accidental deaths from firearms are also a small number. According to the CDC database there were 489 accidental firearm deaths in the most recent year covered, 2015. Only 77 were ages 17 or under. Having looked into these numbers before, that's consistent year-to-year.

The two main sources of homicides will be related to gang, drug or other additional felony activity and also domestic situations between spouses, etc.

As for the RFIDs, you'll have a hard time convincing 2A advocates that it will be reliable and will stand up to the recoil of firing the weapon. They'll certainly want to see widespread law enforcement adoption of the technology first to prove that the government believes in the technology. I don't know if the .gov could afford to subsidize it, either, because if the Armatix pistol a few years is any indicator, the government would have to eat $1500 each to be cost competitive with a traditional handgun.



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: worldstarcountry

Fair enough on the statistics, but I doubt seriously anyone who read my post thought “scare monger..”


If you want to see a scare monger.. all anyone has to do is scan the threads you have started..

It’s a buffet of Muslim scare mongering..



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 12:27 PM
link   
after reading these replies Im shocked to find that guns , things that are generally sold by the millions every year are so hard wearing compared to other items on the market , in a world where products are built with a shelf life I find it really interesting that guns arent manufactured to break after x amount of years .
They can be restored or fixed with new parts, I find that really strange , odd that manufacturers dont just make guns that cant be tampered with that break after a certain length of time , like every other product on the shelf.

Interesting about the mind control , ive always thought these mass shootings were all pre planned with mind control .
it's like naked gun was telling us all the truth !

I think the best way to stop these kinds of things from happening would be to change the mind set rather than inhibit our ability to purchase guns. Id love it if guns werent being manufactured and all weapons were banned, but thats just me. The best approach seems to be identifying the people who need help to prevent them from ever picking up a gun in the first place.
Although a fat load of good that will do if they are already pre programmed killers waiting on their trigger word.



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join