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: 22
26
<< 19  20  21    23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: intrepid

Does anyone even know WHAT weapon was used?






posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Soloprotocol

Just passing on photos or have the forensics come back yet?



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Soloprotocol

Just passing on photos or have the forensics come back yet?

Thast's the shooter dead on the floor. Dont know the weapons in the pics but i guess he used them at some point. There are other pics our there of the room full of weapons and the floor littered with spent shells..and of course the perp with a mouth shot.



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 09:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: vor78
Do we know if this guy used a civilian-legal weapon at this point?

Unless he was using a semi-automatic rifle with a bump-fire stock, I don't think this is much of a gun-control issue. Even then, I would consider it more about the bump-fire stocks, and yes, I'm open to the idea of restricting or banning those.


Then you will have to ban belt loops. People have been bump firing with a hooked finger in a belt loop for a long time.



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 11:51 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

ummm a good swordsman can kill hundreds of un armed citizens in 10 or les sminutes if properly planned and executed.



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 06:18 AM
link   
a reply to: DrumJunkie

I'm well aware of that, but fingers and belt loops don't exist solely as a means to allow people to bump fire their rifle and therefore circumvent the existing restrictions on fully automatic weapons, either.



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 11:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: soberbacchus

ummm a good swordsman can kill hundreds of un armed citizens in 10 or les sminutes if properly planned and executed.


And a child with a gun can kill the swordsman with no planning or training.

The argument that all killing tools are equal if profoundly idiotic.



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 11:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: soberbacchus

ummm a good swordsman can kill hundreds of un armed citizens in 10 or les sminutes if properly planned and executed.


And a child with a gun can kill the swordsman with no planning or training.

The argument that all killing tools are equal if profoundly idiotic.


So you are saying that a child with a gun could save many lives. Just imagine how many lives an adult with a gun, properly trained, could save.



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 11:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus

Sure. But some things are built to kill large numbers of people quickly and efficiently. That shouldn't be a debate rational people engage in.



If you want to get really picky, most machinegun doctrine uses it to suppress (ie, forcing the enemy to retreat to cover) while other units maneuver. The machinegun itself isn't strictly "built to kill large numbers of people quickly and efficiently".

Regardless, tens of thousands of people own them across America without ever using them in anger. They sound like far more rational people than the ones who claim that anything exists only to commit murder. That sounds an awful lot like projection to me.


edit on Ev36ThursdayThursdayAmerica/ChicagoThu, 05 Oct 2017 11:36:03 -05007332017b by EvillerBob because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 11:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: soberbacchus

Sure. But some things are built to kill large numbers of people quickly and efficiently. That shouldn't be a debate rational people engage in.



If you want to get really picky, most machinegun doctrine uses it to suppress (ie, forcing the enemy to retreat to cover) while other units maneuver. The machinegun itself isn't strictly "built to kill large numbers of people quickly and efficiently".

Regardless, tens of thousands of people own them across America without ever using them in anger. They sound like far more rational people than the ones who claim that anything exists only to commit murder. That sounds an awful lot like projection to me.



And how is it that they make enemy retreat to cover? Is it by using harsh language?

Or is it possible that they retreat because failure to do so will result in a lot of deaths?

Machine guns are designed to kill human beings.



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 12:16 PM
link   
MisterSpock:

Recommendation, stop focusing on the tool and look at the source.


Yeah, good idea. You can simply ban all people from having guns, let no one have them, including cops. Let domestic law enforcement agencies have tasers, batons, and sprays. Only allow the military to have guns, and only on the base, or in a theatre of war. Of course, you can easily change the 2nd amendment.

You can phase it in over a decade, and allow people to voluntarily give up their weapons/s, but after a certain time period of amnesty, anyone caught with a weapon in their house or on their property, or discovered to be hoarding their weapons in a secret hiding place, will have all their weapons confiscated and destroyed, they will pay a very hefty fine, and/or face a stiff prison sentence.

It is time to ostracise all gun owners who put their gun rights over the lives of other people.



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: elysiumfire

Relinquishing all your weapons to those who have the monopoly on violence seems to be at best imprudent, but at worst, the height of human stupidity.



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 12:46 PM
link   
LesMisanthrope:

Relinquishing all your weapons to those who have the monopoly on violence seems to be at best imprudent, but at worst, the height of human stupidity.


Why? What are you afraid of? Stupidity is not even attempting to cure the disease!
edit on 5/10/17 by elysiumfire because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: soberbacchus

ummm a good swordsman can kill hundreds of un armed citizens in 10 or les sminutes if properly planned and executed.


And a child with a gun can kill the swordsman with no planning or training.

The argument that all killing tools are equal if profoundly idiotic.


So you are saying that a child with a gun could save many lives. Just imagine how many lives an adult with a gun, properly trained, could save.


I am saying a gun is a more efficient killing tool than a sword.
Reality clearly demonstrate that a child with a gun usually ends up killing themselves, their parents or friends.


edit on 5-10-2017 by soberbacchus because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 01:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: soberbacchus

Wow, did you just accuse me of obtuse thinking after comparing nuclear bomb ownership to gun ownership? Good one.


Awesome!!!..this is progress, albeit at the toddler level.

Now that you understand a Nuclear Weapon is more deadly than a gun.

Let's see if you are capable of even greater distinctions!

What is more efficient at killing people?

A Pencil or a knife?

A knife or Glock 9mm semi-automatic?

A Glock 9mm semi-automatic or an AR-15 rifle with a bump-stock to make it functionally automatic?




posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 01:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: UKTruth

not to mention you would need at least a decade of study in one of the most complicated subjects science has ever discovered,
let alone access to an institution with the capacity to even enrich the material required and put it all together without poisoning yourself to death before even delivering the damn thing!


LOL

Why This 14-Year-Old Kid Built a Nuclear Reactor (in his garage)
news.nationalgeographic.com...



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: elysiumfire




Why? What are you afraid of? Stupidity is not even attempting to cure the disease!


Not being able to fight back and protect myself and my loved ones, but mainly I fear having my freedoms stolen for a false sense of security.

Many people own guns and never shoot a soul, and that is because it is not guns that lead people to shoot others.



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: elysiumfire




Why? What are you afraid of? Stupidity is not even attempting to cure the disease!


Many people own guns and never shoot a soul, and that is because it is not guns that lead people to shoot others.


Of course not, but it is guns that make it possible for people to shoot others.

Often children who don't even know what a gun is end up killing people.



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus




Of course not, but it is guns that make it possible for people to shoot others.

Often children who don't even know what a gun is end up killing people.


Fire makes it possible to burn others. Knives make it possible to stab others. We could go down the list, banning each, until we are each in a padded cell and hooked up to a happiness machine, free from all fears and finally at peace.



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 02:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: elysiumfire
MisterSpock:

Recommendation, stop focusing on the tool and look at the source.


Yeah, good idea. You can simply ban all people from having guns, let no one have them, including cops. Let domestic law enforcement agencies have tasers, batons, and sprays. Only allow the military to have guns, and only on the base, or in a theatre of war. Of course, you can easily change the 2nd amendment.

You can phase it in over a decade, and allow people to voluntarily give up their weapons/s, but after a certain time period of amnesty, anyone caught with a weapon in their house or on their property, or discovered to be hoarding their weapons in a secret hiding place, will have all their weapons confiscated and destroyed, they will pay a very hefty fine, and/or face a stiff prison sentence.

It is time to ostracise all gun owners who put their gun rights over the lives of other people.


So you are saying trust our government to not run roughshod over our rights when they have all the guns and we have butter knives? Your trust is what we call a suckers trust.

Ill defend the second to the very last american. ive been shot before myself but i didnt blame the gun or the ability of having them. No i blamed the idiot who didnt check downrange.
What you suggest abridges Way more than just the second amendment.
But hey thats to be expected when people who do what parliment tells them to do ask how high.



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 19  20  21    23  24 >>

log in

join