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.

 

Assault weapons are the devil!

page: 19
10
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 03:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: InTheLight



Trump calls for bipartisan efforts to strengthen gun laws after mass shootings

that is not from your link
it is a link to an entirely different story

you really dont read the crap you post

wow



Oh, yes, it is in the link.




posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 03:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
Gun control advocates:

Shooter guns down people: guns are bad take them away, we don't need civilians to have them! Let the gov and law enforcement handle it!

Cop shoots black man: That cop is responsible for his actions!!!! Our police and gov are corrupt and want to murder people in the streets!!!?!

Is it me or are gun control advocates always in a hurry to demonstrate how stupid they are?


Shooter guns down people: violent and mentally ill people are bad, take their guns away. It's you.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 03:06 PM
link   
I would wager the person planning on using 2 X 10 mags versus 1 X 20 mag will end up with more hits. Technique.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: caterpillage

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: caterpillage

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: caterpillage
a reply to: InTheLight


Well over 99 percent of gun owners in the US are law abiding, non murdering, safe responsible people.

If your ban on over 10 round mags were to be implemented, and they all turned them in or destroyed them to avoid risking jail time, no lives would be saved, no shootings would be negated, due to the premise of my first paragraph.

Now lets examine that less than 1 percent of gun owners who are evil psychotic murdering scumbags.

They likely wont care about your ban, and since they are looking to break and even bigger law, murder, additional laws will likely not impress them much.

With a 3D printer, it is suuuuuper easy peasy to make 30 round mags, 40, 50, or even, gasp! 100 round mags.
Only the addition of a spring is needed.

If the murdering scumbags want a high capacity mag, they will get one. If they have to black market it, print it, or form one out of sheet metal.

Its not that hard to do.

You ban will ONLY affect the 99 percent of honest people.

My question to you, is why do you feel the need to punish the 99% for the actions of 1%, even in the face of that punishment have little to no effect on the 1% in the long run?


Why is reducing your round number from 30 to 10 considered punishment, as well as mental health background history and references (red flags)?



Please dont dance around the question. Its a pretty cut and dry one.
And im not interested in background mental health checks here, as those cant be printed in 60 seconds with a 3d printer like 60 round assault magazines can.


Dancing around the question seems to be your forte.


Yes, you caught me red handed. By asking a direct question, and explaining my reasoning behind asking, i in fact danced a circle around my own question and by default never really asked anything.

Your pretty good at deep conversations.


I am extremely good at deep conversations with people that are objective.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 03:09 PM
link   
a reply to: o0oTOPCATo0o
thanks for the well posted and concise reply
we simply disagree on "judging" deaths
imo both are tragic and shocking

we don't change our laws over 600k deaths, hell we are almost callous to them, why would we entertain changing our laws for less than 400 deaths?




edit on 6/9/2019 by shooterbrody because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

Not seeing where i was being unobjective, but ok.
It was just a question thats been on my mind for a while.

Heres another, maybe this one you can answer,

You think more than 10 rounds in a semi auto should be banned, does that mean you're cool with a 30 round mag in a bolt action single fire gun? Totally not an assault weapon by any stretch of imagination. Its even got a wood stock.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 03:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: caterpillage

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: caterpillage

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: caterpillage
a reply to: InTheLight


Well over 99 percent of gun owners in the US are law abiding, non murdering, safe responsible people.

If your ban on over 10 round mags were to be implemented, and they all turned them in or destroyed them to avoid risking jail time, no lives would be saved, no shootings would be negated, due to the premise of my first paragraph.

Now lets examine that less than 1 percent of gun owners who are evil psychotic murdering scumbags.

They likely wont care about your ban, and since they are looking to break and even bigger law, murder, additional laws will likely not impress them much.

With a 3D printer, it is suuuuuper easy peasy to make 30 round mags, 40, 50, or even, gasp! 100 round mags.
Only the addition of a spring is needed.

If the murdering scumbags want a high capacity mag, they will get one. If they have to black market it, print it, or form one out of sheet metal.

Its not that hard to do.

You ban will ONLY affect the 99 percent of honest people.

My question to you, is why do you feel the need to punish the 99% for the actions of 1%, even in the face of that punishment have little to no effect on the 1% in the long run?


Why is reducing your round number from 30 to 10 considered punishment, as well as mental health background history and references (red flags)?



Please dont dance around the question. Its a pretty cut and dry one.
And im not interested in background mental health checks here, as those cant be printed in 60 seconds with a 3d printer like 60 round assault magazines can.


Dancing around the question seems to be your forte.


Yes, you caught me red handed. By asking a direct question, and explaining my reasoning behind asking, i in fact danced a circle around my own question and by default never really asked anything.

Your pretty good at deep conversations.


I am extremely good at deep conversations with people that are objective.


prove it. What is it you really want to see? And why.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 03:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: caterpillage
a reply to: InTheLight

Not seeing where i was being unobjective, but ok.
It was just a question thats been on my mind for a while.

Heres another, maybe this one you can answer,

You think more than 10 rounds in a semi auto should be banned, does that mean you're cool with a 30 round mag in a bolt action single fire gun? Totally not an assault weapon by any stretch of imagination. Its even got a wood stock.


It has to do with interrupting the shooting or forcing the shooter to reload, thereby in all aliklihood saving lives.



One way to do that would be to pass a federal restriction on high-capacity magazines. This would limit the number of rounds a mass shooter could fire uninterrupted, meaning they’d have to reload more often, and not be able to shoot as many people in between. More reloading would result in a higher probability of a malfunction or mistake, giving law enforcement more time to respond and bystanders more opportunity to flee or fight back.

“Even though it’s fairly easy to interchange magazines, any time you do is a point at which firing stops,” said Robert Spitzer, a professor at SUNY Cortland who’s written five books on gun policy. “People drop the magazines. They jam. In a real live fire situation, people are often nervous, even including those who are committing these crimes.”




“If the federal government enacted a high-capacity magazine ban, it would be constitutionally permissible,” said Adam Winkler, a professor of constitutional law at the UCLA School of Law who has written extensively on gun policy.

“I don’t think anyone would argue with a straight face that if we limit people to magazines of 10 or 15 rounds we’d solve the entire gun violence problem, but what we can do is expect to have a real effect on how many people are injured and killed in mass shooting incidents,” said Skaggs.


www.huffingtonpost.ca...



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 03:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: caterpillage

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: caterpillage

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: caterpillage
a reply to: InTheLight


Well over 99 percent of gun owners in the US are law abiding, non murdering, safe responsible people.

If your ban on over 10 round mags were to be implemented, and they all turned them in or destroyed them to avoid risking jail time, no lives would be saved, no shootings would be negated, due to the premise of my first paragraph.

Now lets examine that less than 1 percent of gun owners who are evil psychotic murdering scumbags.

They likely wont care about your ban, and since they are looking to break and even bigger law, murder, additional laws will likely not impress them much.

With a 3D printer, it is suuuuuper easy peasy to make 30 round mags, 40, 50, or even, gasp! 100 round mags.
Only the addition of a spring is needed.

If the murdering scumbags want a high capacity mag, they will get one. If they have to black market it, print it, or form one out of sheet metal.

Its not that hard to do.

You ban will ONLY affect the 99 percent of honest people.

My question to you, is why do you feel the need to punish the 99% for the actions of 1%, even in the face of that punishment have little to no effect on the 1% in the long run?


Why is reducing your round number from 30 to 10 considered punishment, as well as mental health background history and references (red flags)?



Please dont dance around the question. Its a pretty cut and dry one.
And im not interested in background mental health checks here, as those cant be printed in 60 seconds with a 3d printer like 60 round assault magazines can.


Dancing around the question seems to be your forte.


Yes, you caught me red handed. By asking a direct question, and explaining my reasoning behind asking, i in fact danced a circle around my own question and by default never really asked anything.

Your pretty good at deep conversations.


I am extremely good at deep conversations with people that are objective.


prove it. What is it you really want to see? And why.


I can't prove it on this thread - impossible.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 03:36 PM
link   
I'm still trying to figure out this "assault weapon" terminology the libs keep spewing. Are they talking about a machine, a tool? Because a Mod 94 Winchester can get many folks I know the libs/commies definition, of an "assault weapon". Other than the libs being natural cowards, ignorant in how to maintain your own freedom, or defend one's self against evil in general? They obviously don't understand the meaning of "assault" or "weapon".

I don't get the liberal/commie "assault weapon", "30 bullet holder clip", "military style", "ghost gun" angle. Yet, they want to have a "rational discussion"?
Why would anyone with actual knowledge, argue/discuss anything, with anyone that is so ignorant?
Not just that. But a "discussion", based on their hopliphobic illness and the inability to use educated terminology.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

So, thats a yes? Bolt actions too?
Cycling the bolt would probably be considered interupting the shooting. But then again changing mags every 10 rounds on a bolt action would be a pretty insignificant additional delay.

The dreaded ar15 can be configered as a pistol and fired from 1 hand, if a shooter had one in each hand with 10 round mags, he could shoot 20 people in seconds flat and go down in the top 10 all time worst shootings in american history and be fully compliant with your law.

Im not arguing with you per say, i know i cant change your mind, or even make you objectively hear my side.

Personally, i think the real conversation needs to be about why its happening. The cause of the shootings aint 30 round mags.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 03:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: caterpillage
a reply to: InTheLight

So, thats a yes? Bolt actions too?
Cycling the bolt would probably be considered interupting the shooting. But then again changing mags every 10 rounds on a bolt action would be a pretty insignificant additional delay.

The dreaded ar15 can be configered as a pistol and fired from 1 hand, if a shooter had one in each hand with 10 round mags, he could shoot 20 people in seconds flat and go down in the top 10 all time worst shootings in american history and be fully compliant with your law.

Im not arguing with you per say, i know i cant change your mind, or even make you objectively hear my side.

Personally, i think the real conversation needs to be about why its happening. The cause of the shootings aint 30 round mags.


Have you ever heard of a mass shooter with two in each hand, I haven't so where are you going with that thought?

Sure, change my mind. Tell me why figuring out a way to interrupt a shooter is not a good idea.

There are probably many causes but how to stop a shooter before he picks up or buys that weapon is a better idea, IMO.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 03:54 PM
link   


It has to do with interrupting the shooting or forcing the shooter to reload, thereby in all aliklihood saving lives.


Someone proficient with the weapon can reload with another magazine in 2 or 3 seconds.

I suppose it makes you feel safer though.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 03:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel



It has to do with interrupting the shooting or forcing the shooter to reload, thereby in all aliklihood saving lives.


Someone proficient with the weapon can reload with another magazine in 2 or 3 seconds.

I suppose it makes you feel safer though.


Just enough time to make a run for it. Moving target vs sitting duck.
edit on 19CDT03America/Chicago05730330 by InTheLight because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 04:00 PM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight




Just enough time to make a run for it. Moving target vs sitting duck.


About the time you have decided it's reload time and decide to run, he is reloaded. But as I said, if it makes you feel safer.

edit:

Moving vs sitting, why not run anyway.
edit on 9/6/2019 by roadgravel because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 04:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: InTheLight




Just enough time to make a run for it. Moving target vs sitting duck.


About the time you have decided it's reload time and decide to run, he is reloaded. But as I said, if it makes you feel safer.


It's better than waiting for it, at least you might have a chance of escape.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 04:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: InTheLight




Just enough time to make a run for it. Moving target vs sitting duck.


About the time you have decided it's reload time and decide to run, he is reloaded. But as I said, if it makes you feel safer.


It's better than waiting for it, at least you might have a chance of escape.


So why are you waiting for a reload? Just run.

You should work on you plan.

edit on 9/6/2019 by roadgravel because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 04:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: InTheLight




Just enough time to make a run for it. Moving target vs sitting duck.


About the time you have decided it's reload time and decide to run, he is reloaded. But as I said, if it makes you feel safer.


It's better than waiting for it, at least you might have a chance of escape.


So why are you waiting for a reload? Just run.

You should work on you plan.


I was thinking of someone in a hiding position with a means of escape, but just needs those few seconds to make the run. Sure, I will work on my plan but giving the shooter the inconvenience of having to reload often gives people more chance of escape.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 04:53 PM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

the pink glock on top any where from 6-50 if you get a drum and Glock 18 1,100–1,200 RPM (rounds per minute) but 33 is standard where im from

the smith and wesson any where from 5-8 (i think that one holds 6 but cant see the whole cylinder) some tauras revolvers hold 10(in .22) and in ye olden times the lemat held 9 plus a shotgun shell ,and the ever popular "assault revolver meme" that holds close to 50 lol museum-of-artifacts.blogspot.com...

www.youtube.com... this guy can fire 16 in less then 4 seconds
but he is widely regarded as the fastest shooter on earth

www.youtube.com...
this guy fires more rounds then an "assault rifle" holds in less then 40 seconds with multiple fire arms an note he didn't even have rounds in the shot gun he loaded them one at a time via the breach



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 05:03 PM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

The Sun - London Knife Crime

Okay, ban all the guns, sure, people won't kill eachother.

Let's make it perfectly clear, guns are not banned in the UK, you can own a shotgun or hunting rifle if you get a license for it.

Just saying, if you take away the guns, people will use knives.

This is a liberal large city and I'd imagine not many legally own guns.


Drugs are a problem in London as such as in Chicago, gang violence is a huge proponent to these crimes, these kids as young as 12 carry knives, as in the US some of these kids carry guns.

Just because you ban something, it does not mean it's not accessible, look how well banning narcotics has done both of our countries, they're still everywhere and kids still have access to them as easily as buying them in a shop.

It's an extreme problem, but banning guns will not stop people from wanting to kill each other.

Political and Religious beliefs seem to be the motivation for most of these crimes, focus on the disenfranchised and help them instead of trying to make law abiding citizens the scapegoat, a dying middle class and wage stagnation seems to be a contributing factor in this.

Giving everybody a gun is not the solution, however, taking away all the guns and making them less effective will make people less hesitant to break into your property and take all of your things because you have an ineffective means of defending yourself.

Police response time may be 10-15 minutes and by that time you may already be dead.

Your police do not have to legally defend you, look at the Broward county incident where the police were instructed not to enter.

In this case I believe both of your political parties are wrong on this issue.




top topics



 
10
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join