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: 6
26
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 2 2017 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: BestinShow

Assuming he can get a straight shot enough to get to 80 and there are no stairs or barriers... which I double seriously.




posted on Oct, 2 2017 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

Not one guy lol...



posted on Oct, 2 2017 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: scraedtosleep

Who said we should ban them?!?

If anything , isn't this being the lone example maybe evidence against a ban???



posted on Oct, 2 2017 @ 12:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: vor78
a reply to: Abysha

Your definition of 'assault rifles' as being fully automatic is actually the correct one. The popular definition of the term, pushed by the media and political hacks, however, includes certain semi-automatic rifles such as AR-15s in order conflate these with fully automatic weapons in order to further an anti-gun agenda.


Gotcha, thank you. So media definition is scary looking gun while real definition is full auto.

I think having a legal definition in place that the media has to stick to would help tons.


Media definition. Has been failed for a long time. They initially used the AR from AR-15 And attributed it to mean Assault Rifle....massive fail and completely ignorant though I can understand why they derived that.

But yes...an assault rifle is full auto.

Media has extended it to even semi auto hunting rifles with magazine load capability....basically any rifle that isn't bolt action.



posted on Oct, 2 2017 @ 12:48 PM
link   
No ban on assault rifle but maybe a better screening process?



posted on Oct, 2 2017 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: vor78

Didn't say it was..

If this is the only case in history where an assault rifle made it worse. It is hard to make the case a ban would help..



posted on Oct, 2 2017 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785




You shouldn't try to wade into that conversation since you seem unprepared to look at factors that might conflict with your pre-drawn conclusions.


I never actually set out what my beliefs and conclusions where really I was only pointing out that I don't think its possible to have a meaningful discussion regarding gun crime on ATS.



I encourage you to open your mind,


And I encourage you to use yours.



don't just walk in and make oversimplified posts and then try to claim some false high ground like you don't want to discuss it.


Well thats just tough for you eh?

Because so long as I abide by the T&Cs I can post what I want, even if it is only to say that this is a topic that I don't think can be handled very well on this forum because of the strong beliefs of some members regarding it.

You can of course disagree with me on that, which is fine, but it does not change my view that gun laws can't not really be debated adequately on ATS.

I say this as a member who has been about for a long time and I have been involved in loads of threads on this very topic, and its usually always after tens of innocent people have been killed that the usual suspects turn up to to defend gun.



posted on Oct, 2 2017 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

again source please....



posted on Oct, 2 2017 @ 12:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: netwarrior
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Never let a crisis go to waste, huh? Despicable.


Beautiful way to ignore an issue.


@ shooterbrody: I think he's using the incident as the source.


When I see the same level of concern for the number of vehicular deaths, child drownings in pools, aborted babies, the list is long, then it may become an issue. Until such a time, selective issues are treated as they deserve...with skepticism.
edit on 2-10-2017 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2017 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

It was a suggestion not a demand. You've clearly got a closed mind on this issue so it's unproductive for you to try to discuss it. It's your time to waste though. Google the difference between correlation and causation, then report back and we can proceed.



posted on Oct, 2 2017 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

No it wasn't "obviously" anything! You have no proof of this. All you know is what you heard, which was a rapid firing firearm, likely a rifle. Semi-auto firearms can be fired very rapidly, especially with (legal) trigger modifications.

The real "question" is...what motivated this sick and twisted piece of S# to go kill a bunch of innocent people. Forget how he did it, the real question is why. That is the question.



posted on Oct, 2 2017 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: havok

Now I NEVER said we should ban assault rifles.. I don't see the point in civilian ownership since a regular gun would handle any lawful purposes, but they are like .002% of gun murders.. do not exactly the primary issue.



That said that argument is super flawed, because then why shouldn't bazookas be legal, or anthrax???

We limit stuff like that when it allows one perso the do maximum damage all the time.



posted on Oct, 2 2017 @ 12:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer
I appreciate you taking the time to list all that, but it beleaguers the point that the 85% is entirely feckless when it comes to voting in politicians that would do something about it. Surely you must recognize a disconnect between an overwhelming majority supporting a cause, and the net result of the type of politicians we vote into power and their lack of action on this front.


In most cases, the 'politicians who would do something about it' are inherently anti-gun and want to go much further than the public wants them to. That's why they're not getting elected.



posted on Oct, 2 2017 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: KawRider9

I never sad to ban them nor that it would help much.

Just that every other mass shooting either was done, or could have been done with a conventional weapon.

This specifically took an assault rifle to pull off.



posted on Oct, 2 2017 @ 12:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: vor78

originally posted by: Wayfarer
I appreciate you taking the time to list all that, but it beleaguers the point that the 85% is entirely feckless when it comes to voting in politicians that would do something about it. Surely you must recognize a disconnect between an overwhelming majority supporting a cause, and the net result of the type of politicians we vote into power and their lack of action on this front.


In most cases, the 'politicians who would do something about it' are inherently anti-gun and want to go much further than the public wants them to. That's why they're not getting elected.


This is also why they failed to "take action" after Sandy Hook. They went overboard, and reasonable politicians voted it down.



posted on Oct, 2 2017 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: shooterbrody

It was obviously full auto.. weather a flat out illegal gun or a legal one modified for full auto is the question.

If it is "flat out illegal" there is no reason for this thread.
Unless you have a way to stop people from illegal activity in a free society.



posted on Oct, 2 2017 @ 12:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: KawRider9

I never sad to ban them nor that it would help much.

Just that every other mass shooting either was done, or could have been done with a conventional weapon.

This specifically took an assault rifle to pull off.


Not really. From his vantage point, with literally 10s of thousands of people confined in a relatively small space, you could have easily hit that many people in roughly that amount of time with a semi-auto. All you really need is some high capacity mags, like a 50 or 100 round drum magazine. If you've got an easy trigger pull and low recoil you could easily burn through one of those mags in a minute or so.



posted on Oct, 2 2017 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785




Google the difference between correlation and causation, then report back and we can proceed.


Why do you assume that I do not know the difference.

You see this is one of those little things that really does annoy me about the way some members express themselves on ATS.

I have a different view to you so it must be because you are ohhh so much smarter than me, the reason I must hold a different view is because I don't know the difference between causation and correlation, because I am a moron who needs it spoon fed to me. It could not possibly be that I just happened to have a different yet just as valid view based the information I have on the issue and my wider beliefs and views of the world.

I really don't understand why some members express themselves in this way by being so disrespectful to others.



posted on Oct, 2 2017 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

A Ford F-250 can do far more damage in far less time. A tractor trailer can wreak even more horror in less time that that. This was exemplified in Nice, France where the death toll was 85+/-.

So we should ban trucks too, right? Oh, but wait...that's what brings my video games and Cheetos to the store...strike that idea!




edit on 10/2/2017 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2017 @ 01:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: netwarrior
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Never let a crisis go to waste, huh? Despicable.


Please, tell us a better time to talk about gun restrictions other than after the worst mass shooting in US history.

This'll be good.....


I'll take that bait. The time to talk about gun restrictions and how they do not work (I hate to keep pointing at Chicago and pretty much the entirety of California but the examples just fit) is not after the worst mass shooting in US history. The time to talk about it was a week ago that way we can have a conversation without knee-jerk "muh feels!" reactions from either side.

As it's been mentioned before, the vast majority of gun-owning America doesn't mind the background check, or even mandated safety classes. My biggest issue regarding these two methods is this:

1. There are far too many ways one can lose their constitutionally-protected right to bear arms, and few (and very expensive/time consuming) ways one can get it back. Guilt or innocence often does not play into whether you've lost this right or not. Nowadays a woman merely has to breathe the word assault (whether founded or unfounded) and the man's lost his right to arms, permanently, due to the Lautenberg amendment. This must be changed if a background check law is expanded. Theoretically the outcome can be the same if the genders are reversed..but I've never heard of it happening.

2. Financial cost. An American has the right to bear arms. If we attach mandated safety classes to this right, then those safety classes should be minimal cost, or free. We should not allow these classes to be a barrier to rightful gun ownership.


That being said, you will never eliminate guns from the human race. Ever. Pandora's Box; they're already out there and will never be put back into the bottle.

Speaking of, none of the above measures would have prevented the Vegas tragedy one bit. Not one bit. Guess what. There's crazy people out there, and the nearest law enforcement officer is three minutes away. What do you do? Do you stick your head up your own ass and hope you can singularity your way out of your predicament? I did that once and I can still see the scar from the armed robbing asshole that hit me with the revolver.

I played the part of the sheep once. Didn't help much. Things are much better as a sheepdog.




top topics



 
26
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join