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.
originally posted by: Aazadan
originally posted by: cynicalheathen
a reply to: Aazadan
You mean they never occur with legally acquired automatic weapons. Plenty of auto AK's and SKS's in the hands of criminals.
And how many of the illegally acquired ones are used in mass shootings? What percentage? How about school shootings specifically? How about petty crime like robbing stores?
originally posted by: cynicalheathen
Owners of actual fully automatic weapons have to jump through many, many hoops and spend a bunch of money just to own one. The barrier to entry is high and they have a lot to lose if they misuse one.
originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Wardaddy454
I didn't say you make a colony out of ruins. It can easily be done when you "mass murder whole countries". So, which country that we've "mass murdered" has become a colony, or puppet state, if you prefer?
Puppet states are the desired outcome. If they refuse to submit, then they become Libyas, destabilized regions of infighting between minor groups vying for power.
We are currently doing the same thing in Iraq and Syria. Google Mosul ruins, Iraq.
Millions of tons of rubble, rotting corpses, sown with unexploded ordnance and mines.
Medieval.
image search result
Oh I know, the US created ISIS.
Scott-Dani Pappalardo tried to give us a shovel full of Moral Superiority and ended up breaking Federal Firearm Laws by creating a Short Barrel Rifle without the proper NFA Tax Stamp. I cued the video to the important part bypassing almost four minutes of Virtue Signaling and self-aggrandizing bullsh**:
originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: waynos
Sorry, but I'm going to politely disagree with you.
No one is forced to have a firearm. If my fellow Americans, or some of them, don't feel the need to have them, fine, I'm OK with that. If I misbehave with my firearms, which ever one, there are already a sufficiency of laws on the books to cover, I'm guessing, every eventuality.
I have absolutely no need, nor will I ever, nor have a reason to justify my owning firearms. You don't like it? I'm OK with that, too. You see, I mind my own business.
originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: seagull
1 person kills people with a gun and all gun owners are labeled and they want guns banned.
Yet when a person kills someone when they are drunk nothing.
When an illegal immigrant kills someone nothing.
originally posted by: Violater1
originally posted by: PaddyInf
originally posted by: RalagaNarHallas
a reply to: PaddyInf
because the USA has 5 times (roughly) more people then the UK and the UK is an island
You seem to have a problem understanding statistics...
I don't profess to having a solution to the problem, but until you acknowledge there is an issue then you will never have a solution either, and people will keep dying.
You seem to have a problem yourself. Let's call it reality.
This is from www.theguardian.com...
"Crime rise is biggest in a decade, ONS figures show ...Police record 10% rise in crime in England and Wales, with 18% increase in violent crime and significant rise in murder rate. Police-recorded crime has risen by 10% across England and Wales – the largest annual rise for a decade – according to the Office for National Statistics.
The latest crime figures for the 12 months to March also show an 18% rise in violent crime, including a 20% surge in gun and knife crime. The official figures also show a 26% rise to 723 in the homicide rate, which includes the 96 cases of manslaughter at Hillsborough in 1989.
More alarmingly, the statisticians say the rise in crime is accelerating, with a 3% increase recorded in the year to March 2015, followed by an 8% rise in the following year, and now a 10% increase in the 12 months to this March."
"The home secretary, Amber Rudd, at Southwark police station in London this month. There has been a 20% surge in gun and knife crime."
originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: Xcathdra
Why should anyone care what a guy from Hollywood thinks..right?, I'm just making a point about the hatred of Hollywood peeps, and how their opinions are sh#t..IF they are left leaning.
I don't believe there is a chance in hell of controlling the gun issue at this point anyway, so I'm not making to the point for any reason other than to point out hypocrisy(not from you per se.)
originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: seagull
Here's a story you might be interested in, this part of the narrative is new to me.
www.nydailynews.com...
As it turns out, this high school actually had an armed security guard on staff. He had a gun, he was at the school, and he still couldn't respond fast enough to save anyone or even confront the shooter.
We have three options here. More guns, equal guns, or less guns. More guns isn't going to work, because as we just saw the entire concept of armed security failed. Keeping the number of guns the same hasn't worked. The only option left to try on the gun front is fewer guns simply by the process of elimination. Every other strategy that could possibly have been used to leave guns in the hands of law abiding citizens has been tried, and it has failed.
originally posted by: waynos
Evidently not the case.
1: No gun owners are being labelled. It has been pointed out that sometimes in these incidents the guns may be stolen. It’s the sheer numbers of guns you have in circulation making them so easy to misuse for those who shouldn’t have accesss that is the problem. If someone goes postal on my street, they cannot simply pick up their gun, or steal one and go on a rampage. Mental illness or instability can strike ANYONE at any time, this is the prime reason, IMO, why the “reasonable careful owner” argument is invalid.
originally posted by: waynos
2: That would be murder or manslaughter, if they haven’t got access to a gun, the drunk can’t shoot anyone and would be easier to overpower in the first place.
originally posted by: waynos
3: is that why Trump made such strenuous efforts to ban Muslims entering the country after a tiny fraction of deaths compared to the gun incidents you see all the time? Thousands can die from gunshot wounds every year and guns aren’t a problem, but a foreigner kills one person and all hell breaks loose, and you don’t see this as ridiculous? Muslims banned through the fear that a terrorist MAY come into the country and cause an incident, compared to the incidents that regular Americans carrying guns cause every day. The sheer hypocrisy is astounding.
The paucity of the argument in favour of gun ownership is illuminated brightly by the examples being put forward.
originally posted by: Violater1
Enough is enough! Public massacres and school shootings must stop!
The Clackamas Mall shooting in Oregon...
Some critics lambasted mainstream media for underplaying Meli's story, exposing a bias against reporting on how guns can play a part in saving innocent lives. Newsbusters.org, dedicated to "exposing and combating liberal media bias," posted a story proclaiming, "Virtually Unreported: CCW Holder Likely Prevented Larger Clackamas Mall Death Toll." And it's true that Meli's story was absent from liberal discussions on MSNBC.
Clackamas Town Center shooting: Story of armed shopper fuels national debate
A Google News search on Nick Meli's full name in quotes at 11:00 a.m. ET returned no other story. Earlier this week, a group of Democratic Party politicians in Oregon co-sponsored "a bill that would ban semi-automatic rifles classified as assault weapons." It appears that the legislation would, if enacted, have banned Meli from carrying his Glock (disclosed in the video coverage, but not the text). Mall shoppers who survived that day, their families, and the public should be asking the dimwitted dozen how much worse the death toll might have been on December 11 if Meli had instead been unarmed -- if they only knew the story the press won't tell.
Virtually Unreported: CCW Holder Likely Prevented Larger Clackamas Mall Death Toll
originally posted by: Murgatroid
originally posted by: Violater1
Enough is enough! Public massacres and school shootings must stop!
The Clackamas Mall shooting in Oregon...
The MSM is a huge part of this problem that needs to be dealt with...
Some critics lambasted mainstream media for underplaying Meli's story, exposing a bias against reporting on how guns can play a part in saving innocent lives. Newsbusters.org, dedicated to "exposing and combating liberal media bias," posted a story proclaiming, "Virtually Unreported: CCW Holder Likely Prevented Larger Clackamas Mall Death Toll." And it's true that Meli's story was absent from liberal discussions on MSNBC.
Clackamas Town Center shooting: Story of armed shopper fuels national debate
A Google News search on Nick Meli's full name in quotes at 11:00 a.m. ET returned no other story. Earlier this week, a group of Democratic Party politicians in Oregon co-sponsored "a bill that would ban semi-automatic rifles classified as assault weapons." It appears that the legislation would, if enacted, have banned Meli from carrying his Glock (disclosed in the video coverage, but not the text). Mall shoppers who survived that day, their families, and the public should be asking the dimwitted dozen how much worse the death toll might have been on December 11 if Meli had instead been unarmed -- if they only knew the story the press won't tell.
Virtually Unreported: CCW Holder Likely Prevented Larger Clackamas Mall Death Toll