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 VoidHawk
In the uk we're NOT ALLOWED to have them, and look where its gotten us!!! The criminals have guns, the police have guns, and even though the man in the street cant have one, it IS the man in the street thats killed by them.
Originally posted by humphreysjim
The gun issue is a far bigger problem in the US than it is here, so guns for civilians is not the answer, otherwise everything would be fine and dandy in the US, mass shootings would not happen, and we wouldn't be having this conversation.edit on 17-1-2013 by humphreysjim because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Using your own logic given the number of guns in civilian hands these "mass shootings" should be far more common, no?
Originally posted by POPtheKlEEN89
To those telling me Assault weapons is an aesthetic term, i counter anything even merely semi-automatic was meant for military purposes, Why do the citizens of this country need Military grade firepower?
(asking honest questions here not trying to be a D word)edit on 16-1-2013 by POPtheKlEEN89 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by VoidHawk
The only reason they want to take away the assault rifle is because a nation armed with such weapons is a nation thats hard to contol, because if they need to they can defend themselves.
Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
If and when RPG's or other such nonsense are $10 a pop we can revisit the issue. As of this moment it's a nonstarter.
There are an average of 80 people per square mile in the USA. Your most populated state, California, has 200+. England has 1,050. How many homicides or violent crimes would there be in California if it had 5 times the population it has now?
Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Originally posted by humphreysjim
The gun issue is a far bigger problem in the US than it is here, so guns for civilians is not the answer, otherwise everything would be fine and dandy in the US, mass shootings would not happen, and we wouldn't be having this conversation.edit on 17-1-2013 by humphreysjim because: (no reason given)
Using your own logic given the number of guns in civilian hands these "mass shootings" should be far more common, no?
Originally posted by humphreysjim
Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
If and when RPG's or other such nonsense are $10 a pop we can revisit the issue. As of this moment it's a nonstarter.
If a very rich man seeks out nukes, we should let him have at it?
With enough money and complete freedom, a single man could become extremely dangerous to a lot of people.
Originally posted by humphreysjim
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
So you are absolutely against the US preventing other countries from getting WMDs?
What if a terrorist groups openly creates hundreds of bombs ready for use, and even discusses where and how they plan to use them to kill hundreds of people. Should we wait around until the bombs have killed before we take action?
Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Making specific threats is worth investigating but I am of the belief that there is no crime unless persons or property has been damaged.
Originally posted by humphreysjim
Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Making specific threats is worth investigating but I am of the belief that there is no crime unless persons or property has been damaged.
Well we have a fundamental difference of opinion here then that says it all, really.
If you were police chief, you'd be yelling "The bomb hasn't gone off yet, he is currently innocent! We can arrest him once the kids are dead!".edit on 17-1-2013 by humphreysjim because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by nixie_nox
Since gun nuts are all about the preservation of their second amendment rights, I think we should preserve historical context and integrity and they can only have muskets and cannons.