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.

 

Bernie Sanders Calls for New Zealand-Style Gun Ban in U.S.

page: 6
23
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2019 @ 07:40 AM
link   
a reply to: NeuronDivide

I haven't really noticed what I would consider personal attacks, at least not many.

Terminology is quite important in this debate, and is one thing I think needs more attention, when those advocating for gun control voice their opininions.

There is far more than a trivial difference between auto, and semi auto.

The term "assault weapon" is completely meaningless without a definition. That definition has to be technical, to some extent, because without context, it could mean the appearance, which is subjective.

When someone says "military style", it becomes even more vague. "Style" is irrelevant to a definition of any kind.

Don't take this as personal attack. This is an issue about a right protected by the US Constitution, that many take VERY seriously.
You shouldn't be surprised when individuals want precision when discussing it.

Having said that, I'll ask once again. What is your definition of an "assault weapon" (not a term I like, but it is widely used)? "Military style" isnt going to cut it in any serious conversation.

If you are not able to define it, your opinion on any laws pertaining to it are meaningless to me. I don't mean you personally, in this case. I refer to anyone, especially pols that know how precise laws have to be.

I await your response, though I do not expect it.
edit on 3242019 by Mach2 because: Sp

edit on 3242019 by Mach2 because: Sp




posted on Mar, 24 2019 @ 08:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Mach2

Expecting the anti-gun extremists to be informed on the subject they're call for laws on is racist, or something.



posted on Mar, 24 2019 @ 08:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: Mach2

Expecting the anti-gun extremists to be informed on the subject they're call for laws on is racist, or something.


What was I thinking? Asking someone to be specific, rather than spouting rhetoric, platitudes, and talking points.

Surely racist, my bad.



posted on Mar, 24 2019 @ 08:27 AM
link   
For crying out loud... I'm not an anti-gun extremist and I don't think guns should be banned. Feel free to keep repeating the same mantra over and over like a broken record if you like, it just makes you look like a fool, in my opinion.

a reply to: Mach2

I can appreciate that terminology is very important to the discussion. As I've said, I'm not a gun expert, so I'm going to have to generalise, and speak in laymans terms.

My definition of an assault weapon (as uneducated as it may be) is a long barrelled, high calibre rifle that is capable of shooting very accurately over long distances, can discharge a large number of bullets in a very short amount of time, and the damage it inflicts is lethal, i.e one shot, one kill



posted on Mar, 24 2019 @ 08:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: NeuronDivide
My definition of an assault weapon (as uneducated as it may be) is a long barrelled, high calibre rifle that is capable of shooting very accurately over long distances, can discharge a large number of bullets in a very short amount of time, and the damage it inflicts is lethal, i.e one shot, one kill


Which one of these would you ban?






posted on Mar, 24 2019 @ 08:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Which one of these would you ban?





I'd need more information about each of them to make an informed decision. What calibre of bullets they fire, how many rounds the magazines can hold, are they rapid-fire or can be modified with a bump stock, etc



posted on Mar, 24 2019 @ 08:49 AM
link   
a reply to: NeuronDivide


Top: .30-06, 8 rounds.

Bottom .223 10 rounds.

Lol'ing at 'bump stock', bump stocks are for idiots.




edit on 24-3-2019 by AugustusMasonicus because: Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn



posted on Mar, 24 2019 @ 08:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: NeuronDivide


Top: 30.06, 8 rounds.

Bottom .223 10 rounds.

Lol'ing at 'bump stock', bump stocks are for idiots.


Bump stocks are useless in most situations. They make you less accurate. There's a reason most mass shooters don't use them. You'd actually kill fewer people if you had one. The only situation where it would be useful is one like Las Vegas where you're shooting at a mass of thousands of people and accuracy doesn't matter.



posted on Mar, 24 2019 @ 08:54 AM
link   
a reply to: face23785


They're great for moronic dips***s on YouTube.



posted on Mar, 24 2019 @ 08:58 AM
link   
I appreciate your response, as well as the admittance that your knowledge is limited.

The way you framed your definition, IMO, is still too vague.

That definition could/would apply to a vast majority of hunting/sporting weapons already in public use, by law abiding citizens. It isn't the least bit realistic to ban firearms that would be included in that definition.

I'm not even going to go into the constitutionality of such a ban.

I respectfully suggest you do some research on not only the different types of weapons out there, but also the terms you are using.

Most murders, by far, are not committed with "long barrelled weapons.

"High caliber" is subjective, and also does not directly correlate to killing power. A .22 short round, a .223 Remington, and a 5.56 NATO round are all similar bore size, but not the same round.


Any quality rifle is able to shoot accurately over long distances, when used by a competent person.

What do you consider a "large number? 5? 10? 30? 100?

What do you consider a short amount of time?

Lastly, any firearm has the potential to be lethal.

Im not trying to beat you up for your views. I am trying to point out that you are really oversimplifying a complex issue.

I don't think most 2A supporters are going to be on board with any legislation that leaves so many open questions, like your nebulous definition leaves room for.

If you want to debate regulation legislation, you need to come better "armed" with knowledge, pun intended.


edit on 3242019 by Mach2 because: Sp



posted on Mar, 24 2019 @ 09:06 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

So bump stocks are for idiots, are they? I didn't know that. Thanks for pointing out my stupidity.

I get it. You know much more about guns than I do. We simply don't have access to them here in Australia, but it's not something I'll ever lose sleep over. Guns and violence are so entrenched in your culture that you can no longer see the forest for the trees.
edit on 24-3-2019 by NeuronDivide because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2019 @ 09:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: NeuronDivide
So bump stocks are for idiots, are they? I didn't know that. Thanks for pointing out my stupidity.


No worries, I'm here to help.


I get it. You know much more about guns than I do. We simply don't have access to them here in Australia, but it's not something I'll ever lose sleep over. Guns and violence are so entrenched in your culture that you can no longer see the forest for the trees. Trying to have a rational discussion about this is a waste of time. I'm out.


Before the door hits you in the ass how about an answer to my question since I gave you the parameters you requested.



posted on Mar, 24 2019 @ 09:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: NeuronDivide
So bump stocks are for idiots, are they? I didn't know that. Thanks for pointing out my stupidity.


No worries, I'm here to help.


I get it. You know much more about guns than I do. We simply don't have access to them here in Australia, but it's not something I'll ever lose sleep over. Guns and violence are so entrenched in your culture that you can no longer see the forest for the trees.


Before the door hits you in the ass how about an answer to my question since I gave you the parameters you requested.


I'd say restrict access to both of them



posted on Mar, 24 2019 @ 09:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Mach2

The funny part is, the thing most people think is an "assault weapon" fires a round that was specifically designed to be less lethal than it could've been. 5.56 was developed ideally to wound, not kill. Of course, it can kill, as any round can. .223 and 5.56 aren't exactly the same but they're very similar. Just look at the Las Vegas shooting though. Around 500 people were shot, 59 died. That's a kill rate of just over 10%. That's not particularly lethal.

The reason, for those who don't know, the 5.56 was designed to wound rather than kill is because in tactical terms, a wounded soldier is worth 2 or 3 dead soldiers. If you shoot an enemy soldier dead, he's dead, that's one guy out of the battle. If you just wound him, he's out, plus one or two of his buddies may try to recover him to safety so he can get medical attention. It forces militaries to expend time, resources and manpower caring for wounded soldiers, whereas a dead soldier on the battlefield might just be left there.

The entire media narrative about these weapons is false. That's not surprising. The narrative was developed by people who don't know anything about guns.

Washington Providence hospital used to have a medical study available online that talked about the reduced lethality of these rounds. I had a link saved to it for those who actually wanted to get informed. Curiously, the article has been taken down. Gee, what a shocker.



posted on Mar, 24 2019 @ 09:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: NeuronDivide

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Which one of these would you ban?





I'd need more information about each of them to make an informed decision. What calibre of bullets they fire, how many rounds the magazines can hold, are they rapid-fire or can be modified with a bump stock, etc


A reasonable answer given your level of knowledge, but the answer is, the difference in the two would be hard to legislate against one, as opposed to the other.

One looks like a high tech killing machine.
The other, however has a far greater "stopping power".



posted on Mar, 24 2019 @ 09:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: NeuronDivide
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

So bump stocks are for idiots, are they? I didn't know that. Thanks for pointing out my stupidity.

I get it. You know much more about guns than I do. We simply don't have access to them here in Australia, but it's not something I'll ever lose sleep over. Guns and violence are so entrenched in your culture that you can no longer see the forest for the trees.


Interesting that when confronted with a completely reasonable response, you just quit.

You don't want to learn about the subject, you just wanted to spout uninformed talking points. Just proving the point that people on your side of the issue aren't interested in having an actual meaningful conversation on the issue. This is why nothing gets done is because of people like you. People who are educated on the issue absolutely refuse to bow down to nonsensical laws based on emotion rather than facts. It's not because the NRA pays everyone off. It's because many members of Congress know their constituents won't approve of useless laws that are merely designed to make uneducated people feel better but won't actually impact the problem.

People like you are actually a barrier to making progress on this issue. It's sad that you contribute to the very thing you think is a problem.



posted on Mar, 24 2019 @ 09:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: NeuronDivide
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

So bump stocks are for idiots, are they? I didn't know that. Thanks for pointing out my stupidity.

I get it. You know much more about guns than I do. We simply don't have access to them here in Australia, but it's not something I'll ever lose sleep over. Guns and violence are so entrenched in your culture that you can no longer see the forest for the trees.


Now you are loosing all credibility by conflating guns, and violence.

Do criminals use guns for violent purpose? Absolutetly, but if they used a knife, the victim would be just as dead.

Difference is, if the potential victim was armed, the chances of survival are increased exponentially.



posted on Mar, 24 2019 @ 09:22 AM
link   
Thanks for making the effort to educate me instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks. I know this is an extremely complex issue, with no simple answers.



posted on Mar, 24 2019 @ 09:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Mach2

originally posted by: NeuronDivide
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

So bump stocks are for idiots, are they? I didn't know that. Thanks for pointing out my stupidity.

I get it. You know much more about guns than I do. We simply don't have access to them here in Australia, but it's not something I'll ever lose sleep over. Guns and violence are so entrenched in your culture that you can no longer see the forest for the trees.


Now you are loosing all credibility by conflating guns, and violence.

Do criminals use guns for violent purpose? Absolutetly, but if they used a knife, the victim would be just as dead.

Difference is, if the potential victim was armed, the chances of survival are increased exponentially.


1/3rd of murders in the US don't involve a gun. If people can't get a gun, they just kill with something else. We have an overall crime and violence problem. It's not driven by guns. If it was driven by guns, we should have the highest murder rate in the world. We have far more guns and guns per capita than any other country.

If you look at actual data, murder rates much more closely correlate to the overall crime rate of a country than they do to gun availability. These facts are inconvenient to the gun control narrative though.



posted on Mar, 24 2019 @ 09:24 AM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Not saying you meant to be condescending, but I know they are similer. Some weapons accept either. The remington round can be fired from a rifle chambered for 5.56. I know you knew that.

I was just trying to make a point to the woefully uninformed poster.







 
23
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join