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.

 

Small arms are the REAL weapons of mass destruction

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 01:06 PM
link   
IMO the best form of gun control already exist in the US and that is high prices for firearms and ammunition.

the cheapest firearms still run around a 100 dollars and many low income households can't readilly afford that much since groceries are a priority and un top of that is the prices for ammo, any viable self-defense ammo is atleast 20 dollars a box and proper practicing is expensive too.

It's not like you can step into a store and buy a gun over the counter either, i'm a US service member but not a citizen (permanent resident) and I have to jump through all sorts of hoops to buy a firearm.

I know there are stories of people opening a bank account and are given a gun as a bonus to signing up, this may have been true in the 50's or 60's but this is also not the case anymore.

A firearm is only capable of killing a few individuals, a true WMD can destroy entire populations so comparing a gun to a WMD is borderline absurd.

And there are plenty of other things in the world that kill just as efficiently as a firearm, some even better.

Anything is potentionally a weapon, it's only when it's USED as a weapon that it's considdered a weapon, IMO calling a gun a weapon is idiotic, this is implying the only sole purpose of a firearm is to kill...statistically 99% of firearms have never killed a human being in the US and perhaps only 30-50% is used for hunting.

Most serious hunters considderer it more sportsman like to hunt with a bow anyway and a bow is even more deadly than a firearm.




posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by circuitsports
 


I'd rather get myself a traditional metal workshop with turners, cutting tools, drills and precision computerised CAD-application driven cutters. You could produce a whole series of guns in notime. A bit of googling would support you with a series of 3D CAD drawings for everything from AK-47s to M-16s. AK-47 is virtually open source. Mr. Kalashnikow got a few quid for his invention, and all over the world his guns are produced by rogue groups in small metal working shops.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by GrOuNd_ZeRo
 


High prices? OK. What is the street price for crystal meth in NY? In a few days virtually any criminal could produce large amounts of meth and sell it out in no time. And doing this over and over you'd be a millionaire before the year is over. Price doesn't matter for criminals. Most of their guns are stolen anyway.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 01:15 PM
link   
I think you are missing the point of what a weapon of mass destruction is. A single round does not acctually do that much damage to a human, You have to be lucky or good to hit the correct spots to kill some one with a single round. This is why in a fire fight it requires 500+ rounds to down a single target. This is why you have to manufacture ammo in such amounts. The training of a professional fighting force such as the US army consumes millions of rounds in training alone. Combat expendatures are quite small by comparison.

As for the WMDs. A weapon of mass destruction is a chemical, biological, or nuclear weapon that by the act of functioning is designed to kill hundreds of not thousands of people, as well as doing crippleing damage to infrastructor(sp). For example, a standard nuclear warhead should be able to kill every uncoverd human with in 1000m of the initial air burst, and thru radiation damage, kill every human with in 3-4km. Now, other factors come into play but that is a rough idea. Not to mention the irriadation of the land and most likely the water supply. I feel that people don't really get what a nuke does, it is the ultimate scorched earth weapon. If you use it on a city, which are almost always built in stratigic locations, you deny yourself access to the area. This is not like the last time nukes were used in anger, we really had little idea of how it would effect the landscape, and the heroshima weapon had about 10% of the power we have today.

Chemical weapons are really a denial weapon. They cause contamination to areas that denies them to living things, but does not physically destory them. As for the effect on humans, it varys. A common chemical weapon is pepper spray and tear gas. They are not as a rule designed to kill. If you cause a tempory injury to a soldire it take him out of the fight, as well as forceing the opponent to care for him. This removes a man, and medical material from the fight, where as killing him only removes the man.

Biological weapons work in much the same way as chemical weapons, but with the added bonus of being able to self replicate. Traditionally armies had to sleep in very close quarters and thus infection would rip thru a unit in no time. This is not as common today, but if you work in an office you can tell then an illness is going around and you can watch how it spreads from some guys wife who works at a day care, to him, to his section in the office, to the floor and then the whole building. Same thing in the military. There are some draw backs to this kind of WMD, ie if you take prisoners you are likely to be infected yourself, and that once you use this on an opponent you can no longer control it.

All of the above and more is why we call WMDs what we do. Bullets and bombs on the other hand are disigned to cause as little damage as they can, and be as safe as they can when not actively being used. This is why a 2000 pound bomb can be armed and dropped from 3 miles up and still not go off when it hits the ground, and this is also why a man can be shot and have a 65-90% chance of survival, depending on area hit, physical condition and other factors such as weather and prior medical conditions.

I hope that my wall of text helps to shed some light on the topic, and I will fix my silly spelling when I get home.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
I know there are stories of people opening a bank account and are given a gun as a bonus to signing up, this may have been true in the 50's or 60's but this is also not the case anymore.


It's still done and there are plenty of firearm "sweepstakes" out there.

But it's not like "gee you won so we can just ship it to you." You still have to have the firearm transferred to an FFL and you still have to do all the paperwork and pass the background check. Winning a prize doesnt negate the law. You can't win a kilo of coc aine and just have somebody hand you a kilo of coc aine. "But your honor I wont it in a raffle" wont fly.

How people assume a situation is, especially one involving firearms, is very different from the reality of the situation.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Obinhi
 


OMG. It amazes me that I even comment on your post here. I am not saying that one single sidearm is a WoMD, but all the small guns together is the REAL weapon of mass destruction. All in all, small guns kill more lives than any WoMD. The REAL womd? Get it?


edit on 10-9-2010 by Neo Christian Mystic because: typo



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic
 


No, I dont get it. And if you want to really get into it I think you will find that other impliments put together kill more people, not to mention intentional fires and such. YOu have to understand, the D in WMD is 'destruction' a bullet destroys very little, even all of the ammo fired in anger all over the world all year, kills very little. Not to mention that you seem to think that all deaths in war and combat ops are due to enemy fire, this is not true, by and large, most deaths happen off the battle field.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by BingeBob
 


Are you saying that South American drug barons can stack up piles and storehouses full of fully automatic M-16s Stingers and such without stealing them from one of the terribly protected story houses all over USA and wherever your army is present used to store weapons? You'd need a bolt cutter and some nitrates or even simpler a pile of dollars, and you're virually in and may walk away with guns enough to build a small army. If criminals can get uranium and plutonium from let's say an old Ukranian powerplant, they could easily get guns out of a military storehouse. Crime is an international business. Weapons, porn and drugs are the three greatest economies in the planet.

Scenario: American counter intelligence agents, so called economic hitmen, paid and cared for by the CIA could come to some drug lords house and offer him guns and money if he rids the world of a couple of gangsters that bug the CIA. Etc Etc. The point is our govs don't care whether we destroy eachother, it's basically what they intend to do anyway it seems.

Below is part 1/3 of a TV special about John Perkins who has written the book "Confessions of an Economic Hitman"



edit on 10-9-2010 by Neo Christian Mystic because: Added a money as a means to get illegal military grade weapons




edit on 10-9-2010 by Neo Christian Mystic because: Added video and description



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Obinhi
 


One gun is like a bacteria. In itself it can perhaps infect one person, but the disease spreads, and the person infected might infect the whole world with Paranoid American Compact-gun Disorder, or PACD. You go ahead carrying arms. You are much more likely to be killed if anyone confronts you, since you pose a serious threat to the person attacking you. How about some comon sense?



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic
reply to post by BingeBob
 


Are you saying that South American drug barons can stack up piles and storehouses full of fully automatic M-16s Stingers and such without stealing them from one of the terribly protected story houses all over USA and wherever your army is present used to store weapons? You'd need a bolt cutter and some nitrates or even simpler a pile of dollars, and you're virually in and may walk away with guns enough to build a small army. If criminals can get uranium and plutonium from let's say an old Ukranian powerplant, they could easily get guns out of a military storehouse. Crime is an international business. Weapons, porn and drugs are the three greatest economies in the planet.

Scenario: American counter intelligence agents, so called economic hitmen, paid and cared for by the CIA could come to some drug lords house and offer him guns and money if he rids the world of a couple of gangsters that bug the CIA. Etc Etc. The point is our govs don't care whether we destroy eachother, it's basically what they intend to do anyway it seems.


edit on 10-9-2010 by Neo Christian Mystic because: Added a money as a means to get illegal military grade weapons



Yeah...why risk stealing from the most powerful nation in the world when you can simply make them in a machine shop as you so eloquently put it?



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by BingeBob
 


Not everyone likes to use chopsticks, others use forks and knives and others again would use their fingers or eat out of vacuume bags in space. There are many ways to gain the power weapons may give to some freaked out criminal. Violence breeds violence. John Adams said: "There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. One is by the sword. The other is by debt." USA seems to live by this as a primary thumb rule.

The question for the criminal is what would fit his agenda best, what would be cheapest and safest.


edit on 10-9-2010 by Neo Christian Mystic because: Addel last line



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by BingeBob

Yeah...why risk stealing from the most powerful nation in the world when you can simply make them in a machine shop as you so eloquently put it?


Or just buy them from any one of the thousands of militant groups or shady governments spread across the globe.

I'm sure it isnt all that difficult to get a crate of arms from North Korea. Probably trade Kim some porno and get a tank.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


More like a fifth of wisky and some DVDs! But any way, it is so easy to make a functional AK-47, they did come up with them in 1947, they have stopping power, and are scary, and all you have to do is get the materials and retool a basic factory and you can make a few thousand a month, thats if you carve the wooden parts and dont press them. As for ammo, its a simple thing to make as well. You must look at why you would want an assult rifle over anything else. Look at what a weapon and the munition is for.An assult rifle loaded with 4-1 ball tracer is used for suppression when you dont care about if the enemy knows your location, frangeable is used if your in a building and you dont want to punch thru a wall. Shotguns are for building clearance as well. Stingers are to take down slow moving low to the ground AC as well as some mid armored ground vehicles. Look into what a gun is used for and you can work out why some one would want to have it. That is why people own pistols and shot guns to protect homes, a pistol is easy to weild and very accurate at close quarters, where as a shotgun with birdload will scare the crap out of someone and most likely not kill them while also not doing that much damage to your home. Sure alot of people own guns, but then alot more people own knives, so would you not say that Knives are the real WMD?



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Obinhi
 


Knives are tools which may be used as a weapon, guns are weapons which are useless as tools. Your point was?



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 05:18 PM
link   
The REAL weapons of mass destruction is the automobile. Let's take the statistics from just the US in 2008, shall we? Killed in car accidents - 42,116; Killed by the common flu - 20,000; Killed by murders - 15,517 (not all are firearm related) Perhaps this may be different in other countries, but I fail to see your point. I also fail to comprehend why more people aren't upset about the large volume of people who lose their lives in automotive accidents. Why is no one trying to ban them? Clearly, they kill nearly four times the amount of people, but firearms are demonized. Why is this? Are we being conditioned? We even must obtain training and a license before getting behind the wheel, but has this lowered the rate? I don't know the answers but I do find it very curious indeed.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeNice81
 


As this is only another gun-rights bashing thread, I was compelled to star your post.
Guns will equal out a victim vis-a vis an attacker, providing the wielder of the gun is somewhat proficient in it's use and knows what to do and when.
A 200 lb man is made more equal to a 160 lb man and is less likely to attack not knowing if the intended target of his or her maliciousness is armed.
A Government is less likely to, in wholesale rescind the rights of it's citizens if it has an armed citizenry.
No they'll do what our Governmants are doing to us now, which is dumb us down and strip our rights slowly.
Those of you that think that posting on these forums is a God given right and you will be able to do this forever better think again; we do this only at the cost of those innocent lives, not at the mercy of politicians, and this comes at the cost of those innocents.
You wanna be a PollyAnna and think you can talk about the WTC being blown up by Bush; NASA is hiding the good stuff about Ufos; the Jews run HollyWood; President Obama is a (fill in the blank); the kind of stuff we discuss on his site will disappear overnight, if it were not for guns keeping us somewhat equal to our Government.
Keep on dreaming about life without guns, I'll keep on keeping on.
The Cat



edit on 9/10/2010 by LAUGHING-CAT because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 06:29 PM
link   
Gun Control does NOT decrease violence. Period. End of story. Nada. Nyet.

This guy says it better than me.




posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 06:39 PM
link   
So the moral of the story is that people in power manipulate poor people into fighting for them. That's an old story.

The story is people in power give guns to the poor people, and create a reason for those poor people to kill using those guns.

That story has NOTHING to do with owning a gun to defend yourself. But the story of power manipulating people to kill is a sad one. But I sure as $%*# am not going to be a victim of that manipulation.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by xxcalbier
 


www.wikihow.com...
Make gunpowder at home, what a joke!
All self respecting founders knew this recipe by heart.
And their little dogs too!!



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 07:15 PM
link   
I came into this thread to say: cry me a deep and treacherous river OP. Those who beat their guns into plowshares will plow for those who didn't. Wanna work on my farm? What about your family? Oh wait, sounds like you don't want to make that choice. I'll gladly make you work from morning until next morning sir or ma'am. Hope you know how to polyphasic sleep! You'll need it under me.


I'd also like to say that weapons are what allowed us to rise from the mud, so to speak.


edit on 10-9-2010 by Masinger because: I'd also like to say that weapons are what allowed us to rise from the mud, so to speak.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join