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.

 

Americans Hopeful This Will Be Last Mass Shooting Before They Stop On Their Own For No Reason

page: 8
36
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Honest question what guns were used, have they released the list yet?

All I have found is that they believe a bump stock was used, not a bump stock was used. (about 4 hours old)

If we see an official statement on what was used it can then be discussed but right now nobody except a small group of investigators and the swat team that went into the room know for certain.

So any rush to make legislation has no basis in fact just either an agenda push, or an emotional knee jerk reaction.

In the current state of bad news floating about, high emotion, and lack of knowledge (silencers grrr) people like me will say no to gun control without a second thought.

ETA: without FACTS on hand you cannot really have a discussion on the topic.
edit on 3-10-2017 by Irishhaf because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 12:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gaspode
a reply to: joemoe

True - man is evil. Been like that since the beginning of time.

But I find it hard to believe that the human race is intelligent enough to land a satellite on a moving comet, create technology that allows us to have the world's information in the palm of our hands, cure smallpox, prevent an Ebola outbreak of Armageddon proportions, but not smart enough to prevent 600 people from being shot by one man?

Setting aside that point, and we focus just on the issue of this (rampage shootings) being a major issue in the USA.

Some Statistics

Summed up by this:


Isn't it time to look at 1. why mass shootings like this are so prevalent in the USA and 2. what can be learned from countries where this is a non-issue?


When you lump all the data together, it's hard to argue.

But this graph doesn't paint the whole picture. What happens if we break it down?

According to the FBI's data, Single victim/Single offender are the highest murder rate by nearly 50%. knives and handguns were used to kill the most.

What if we break it down by just "violent crime"?

Aggravated assaults accounted for 64.3 percent of violent crimes reported to law enforcement in 2016. Robbery offenses accounted for 26.6 percent of violent crime offenses; rape (legacy definition) accounted for 7.7 percent; and murder accounted for 1.4 percent.

ucr.fbi.gov...



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 12:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: SudoNim
a reply to: Gryphon66



Nah, I mean gun control has no effect on someone putting together an arsenal of assault rifles.

Or you know the other 300 mass shootings each year... no relationship at all to the level of gun ownership.

Where were all the concealed carry heroes? Why didn't a citizen with a gun prevent this? Isn't that why you all have guns?


What constitutes a "mass shooting"?

4 people, or 59?

Sort of a disingenuous statistic when its considered one and the same.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Finspiracy

If the criminal type has one, yes, a gun would be very useful.

If he's got a knife, I should be forced to use a knife, too? Rather than my shotgun, or pistol to either chase him away, or stop his attack?? Is that what you're saying? I should fight fair...



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 12:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
But my dad punched through 1/3" plate steel at about 50 yards with the same ball bearings.


Hold up. A steel ball bearing was able to punch through almost 3/8" thick steel plate? A36 plate? What kind of slingshot on god's green earth can generate enough power to produce the force required to do that at 50 yards, and what kind of hellaciously hard ball bearings was he using?



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 12:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
Sadly, yes. You cannot negotiate with terrorists, otherwise they win.


While I entirely disagree with your stance, I respect the hell out of you for being consistent. Still wouldn't want to be a family member though



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 12:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: JBurns

I am unsure how many others I speak for, but you can have my firearms/suppressors/NFA SBRs when you pry them from my cold, dead hands. Until then? Any discussion to the contrary is unacceptable, and will be met with an automatic "no."


Just so I'm clear, if a terrorist shows up and kidnaps your family and threatens to kill them all unless you give up your guns, you would say 'so long fam, nice knowing ya'?


Find me a terrorist making that demand first, and we'll talk.
I have a feeling I might die before you do.

But I suppose there is always AntiFA...



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Wardaddy454

It was just a hypothetical. The crux of the question is "are there any people that you love that you would willingly sacrifice to keep your guns".



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 12:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: Wardaddy454

It was just a hypothetical. The crux of the question is "are there any people that you love that you would willingly sacrifice to keep your guns".


Its a dumb question that appeals to emotion.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 12:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
I believe the constitution and particularly the second amendment is in dire need of some amendment. Just a wee tweek here and there. The founding fathers could not have forseen the weapons of today.

A mass shooting in the late seventeen hundreds by a lone individual would have been, what? 3 maybe four people dead at most considering the time it takes to load fire and reload a musket, but on the other hand, and i'm trying hard to be fair here.


That as a balance of "fair" is a big disingenuous in my opinion.

The Founding Fathers were quite well aware of machine guns. But lets look at it:

Muskets were .75 caliber, today anything more than .50 caliber is restricted.
Cannons were legal to own.
Swivel guns, which were smaller cannons were around.
Mortars were around.
Hand Grenades existed.
The Puckle gun, a revolving 32mm cannon with 11 an round revolving cylinder existed.
The Girandoni Air Rifle with a .46 caliber and 20 round magazine was around.
The Belton Flintlock which could fire 16+ rounds in a dozen seconds or less.

and ammo - wasn't just metal balls...there was exploding cannon balls, case shot, grape shot, bar shot, hot shot for some of those things.

So in my opinion, the Founding Fathers may not have known about where weapons would go, but they wrote the amendment exactly how they meant it...they wanted us to have the ability to stand against the government should it become so corrupt as to be irredeemable.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not making the argument we should have access to nuclear weapons and the like - there certainly are things which should only exist in the hands of the military...really, some stuff just shouldn't exist at all, but since it does...access should be very limited.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Wardaddy454

You don't have to recognize the emotional aspect of it to answer the question.

Let me rephrase for you: How many people would you let die to keep your guns?



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko



Right now this is looking like the first true mass shooting we've had in quite a while.


So, Sandy Hook, where first graders were slaughtered mercilessly, is the *last true mass shooting* in your eyes...? I guess America was due for another one again to make sure it stays ahead of all developed nations when it comes to gun violence...



The media plays fast and loose with the term and uses it to describe every attack, but Pulse was a terrorist attack more than a mass shooting.


America still has the most gun violence per capita out of all developed nations despite your head in the sand attitude.

Btw, I find it ironic that some people love to play fast and loose with terms all the time right here on this site...


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



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 12:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
But my dad punched through 1/3" plate steel at about 50 yards with the same ball bearings.


Hold up. A steel ball bearing was able to punch through almost 3/8" thick steel plate? A36 plate? What kind of slingshot on god's green earth can generate enough power to produce the force required to do that at 50 yards, and what kind of hellaciously hard ball bearings was he using?


Standard ball bearings.

Look them up online. There is a vid of a dude that had one ricochet and lodge in his frontal plate on his skull. He's using a crappy, home made slingshot. Imagine what a slingshot with a wrist support and stronger tubing would do.

Just regular old steel ball bearings. From the 12th floor (if you don't believe in the conspiracy relating to the 4th floor) the projectile will continue to gain velocity as it travels downward. No noise, no muzzle flash. How long would you be able to fire aimlessly into a crowd before someone created the stampede that moved people away?



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 01:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

Oh, well done with the guilt trip. You should be proud of that one.

By your eye, anyone who owns a gun is guilty of that murderous slaughter the other night? Even though none of us pulled the trigger, or even rented the hotel room.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 01:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: Wardaddy454

You don't have to recognize the emotional aspect of it to answer the question.

Let me rephrase for you: How many people would you let die to keep your guns?


If i didn't kill anyone, why would I need to have to give up anything?

In the US we have a concept (albeit, dying it seems) known as "individual liberty". The rights of society cannot impede my rights as an individual.

If there is a problem with lunatics shooting up society, fix the problem with the lunatics. Or else theyll find a different weapon to kill with.

I'd also add that the media, with their constant drone of hate filled content, likely doesn't help. If you want to improve mental health in the US, do something about our government controlled media.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 01:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Wayfarer
By your eye, anyone who owns a gun is guilty of that murderous slaughter the other night? Even though none of us pulled the trigger, or even rented the hotel room.


Well I've made my point clear, I believe the existence of guns contributes to gun violence, so those fighting for the perpetuation of them share some guilt (though not directly of course). Are you shocked that die-hard supporters of the 2nd amendment suddenly change their tune when they themselves are threatened by or their own loved ones fall victim to gun violence? If not, then it should come as no surprise that I am appealing to emotion in an attempt to demonstrate some of that perspective here in this thread.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

((((Loud Applause!!))))


To all too many, we are guilty by association, even when there is no association.

Increasingly, individual liberties are supposed to be sacrificed for some nebulous "Greater Good". Those advocates have forgotten that if all minded our own business we'd not need this nebulous "Greater Good". What ever that "Greater Good" is.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 01:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

I'm one of those "hard core" second amendment types you're referring to.

Should I lose a member of my family to gun violence, I'm not going to blame my neighbor--unless he's the one who shot, of course--nor am I going to blame the tool used. How insane is it to blame a tool? Nor would I call for everyone to lose their rights over it.

Two main reasons for that...

One, I'm not that self-centered. The world doesn't revolve around me--much as it should--and my family.

Two, my family would smack me upside the head from the next world were I to be so stupid as to wish to violate others rights, simply because tragedy has struck mine.

So, sorry, your hypothetical guilt trip bounced off.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 01:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

Appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy. I shudder to think about legislators passing laws on emotion rather than logic. The last time that happened we got the Patriot Act. Gee...no thanks.

Gun violence is simply violence. Its a method of violence. To single it out seems just morose, as violence is violence. Dead is dead. Its arbitrarily picking one method over another. I cannot follow the logic in that.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 01:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: Gaspode

The US had no army when the second amendment was added. The continental army that fought the revolution was disbanded in 1783. So the people had to form " well regulated" militias .

But Republicans, National Rifle Association, and Russians have turned it into a religion. Now it's a race of state of the art killing machine guns. Like some bored old rich psychopath spending money on 40 rifles he'll never use. He just needed one and thousands of bullets.


Russians have turned guns into a religion? In America? Maybe lay off the CNN for a bit.




top topics



 
36
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join