Why would anyone need an assault rifle?

[fantasycurse42 7,139]

7 minutes ago, Chadstroma said:

I saw a video where they took about 5 very liberal individuals who are were of the opinion that firearms should be banned to a firing range. They had a blast. Afterwards, the views ranged from they loved it and softened on the ban all guns to they can understand better why people like them but still want to ban them (only one held the line on still wanting to ban but he felt bad about it- :lol:)

I've shot a wide range of handguns, shotguns, and an AR-15 in my life. Sure they're fun, but that doesn't change my opinion. I'm specifically discussing assault rifles and those weapons that can do much damage in a short amount of time. Outside of FUN, they serve one purpose, killing. As a civilian I see no reason for me or anyone else to own one. 

I lean extremely right on almost every financial issue. I'd like to abolish welfare, in lieu of that, I'd like to drug test those who receive it. You want to go to college, you ####### pay for it or take on debts doing so. You want more money, work more hours or get a better job - Does that sound like a liberal? 

Edited June 14, 2016 by fantasycurse42

[FUBAR 3,037]

2 minutes ago, Ignoramus said:

So you think they'd turn in their weapons before entering their respective sides?  Not bloody likely, amigo.

do you mean the Confederates didn't turn in their US issued arms?

[bueno 849]

4 hours ago, Short Corner said:

Public opinion doesn't drive policy, cash does.

Where do you think the NRA gets its cash?

[Apple Jack 3,837]

1 minute ago, bueno said:

Where do you think the NRA gets its cash?

Gun manufacturers and paranoid lunatics mostly?

[Gally 2,367]

15 hours ago, fantasycurse42 said:

Still haven't received one reasonable answer to this, though it was kind of a rhetorical question.

The problem in these situations isn't the legal sale of the weapons.  The vast majority of perpetrators of terrible acts are people that obtain guns illegally.  By banning weapons to people that acquire them in a legal manner will not solve the problem.  Bad guys will still get guns illegally regardless of the laws that are in place. 

 

So although there might not be a "reasonable" answer to your question the idea of banning weapons will not solve the issue.

[[icon] 7,648]

6 minutes ago, fantasycurse42 said:

I've shot a wide range of handguns, shotguns, and an AR-15 in my life. Sure they're fun, but that doesn't change my opinion. I'm specifically discussing assault rifles and those weapons that can do much damage in a short amount of time. Outside of FUN, they serve one purpose, killing. As a civilian I see no reason for me or anyone else to own one. 

Oh, Hai.
 

[fantasycurse42 7,139]

1 minute ago, Gally said:

The problem in these situations isn't the legal sale of the weapons.  The vast majority of perpetrators of terrible acts are people that obtain guns illegally.  By banning weapons to people that acquire them in a legal manner will not solve the problem.  Bad guys will still get guns illegally regardless of the laws that are in place. 

 

So although there might not be a "reasonable" answer to your question the idea of banning weapons will not solve the issue.

Your opinion doesn't change facts

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-shooters-got-their-guns.html?_r=0

[spider321 1,108]

4 minutes ago, Apple Jack said:

You understand the Second Amendment was an amendment to the Constitution, right?

Yes.  I believe it's often referred to as part of The Bill of Rights.

Are you also ok with giving up your right to freedom of speech and religion?

How about the government forcing you to let soldiers stay in your home?  You're cool with that one, right?

Unreasonable search and seizure?  Phishhh!  Who care about that, right?

Judge and jury?  Who needs 'em?  The local sheriff's deputy should be allowed to execute you if he's pretty sure you were jaywalking, huh?

 

[Chadstroma 1,665]

11 minutes ago, fantasycurse42 said:

I've shot a wide range of handguns, shotguns, and an AR-15 in my life. Sure they're fun, but that doesn't change my opinion. I'm specifically discussing assault rifles and those weapons that can do much damage in a short amount of time. Outside of FUN, they serve one purpose, killing. As a civilian I see no reason for me or anyone else to own one. 

I lean extremely right on almost every financial issue. I'd like to abolish welfare, in lieu of that, I'd like to drug test those who receive it. You want to go to college, you ####### pay for it or take on debts doing so. You want more money, work more hours or get a better job - Does that sound like a liberal? 

Thanks for the update.

[[icon] 7,648]

2 minutes ago, fantasycurse42 said:

Your opinion doesn't change facts

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-shooters-got-their-guns.html?_r=0

16 Recent Mass Shootings (Weapon Utilization Rate)

Pistol: 81% (13 of 16 cases)
"AR" style Rifle: 31% (5 of 16 cases)
Other (Rifle/Shotgun): 19% (3 of 16 cases)
 

[Amused to Death 5,632]

10 minutes ago, bueno said:

Where do you think the NRA gets its cash?

Conversely, where do you think the people who drive policy get their cash?

[FUBAR 3,037]

4 minutes ago, spider321 said:

Yes.  I believe it's often referred to as part of The Bill of Rights.

Are you also ok with giving up your right to freedom of speech and religion?

How about the government forcing you to let soldiers stay in your home?  You're cool with that one, right?

Unreasonable search and seizure?  Phishhh!  Who care about that, right?

Judge and jury?  Who needs 'em?  The local sheriff's deputy should be allowed to execute you if he's pretty sure you were jaywalking, huh?

 

and yet, there are reasonable exceptions to many amendments.  Even those in the bill of rights.

[fantasycurse42 7,139]

Just now, [icon] said:

16 Recent Mass Shootings (Weapon Utilization Rate)

Pistol: 81% (13 of 16 cases)
"AR" style Rifle: 31% (5 of 16 cases)
Other (Rifle/Shotgun): 19% (3 of 16 cases)
 

And how many died as a total from each shooting? Lets look at those 5 cases first, report back. 

[modogg 4,218]

2 hours ago, RUSF18 said:

A reporter in Philly bought an AR-15 from a local gun shop on Monday. Took seven minutes. 

That seems a little quick.

http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/helen_ubinas/20160614_Ubinas__I_bought_an_AR-15_semi-automatic_rifle_in_Philly_in_7_minutes.html

edit: Hadn't seen it linked a few minutes ago, sorry.

I know of 2 gun shops in philly you can buy anything you want. that report sounds pretty accurate. The best part is that 2/3 of the guns in the city are bought somewhere down south where this is more of a common practice, or they are stolen from the suburbs. There have been stories about people hanging out at gun ranges to collect info on guns and they find where they live and rob the guns later.

 

good times!

[Gally 2,367]

11 minutes ago, fantasycurse42 said:

Your opinion doesn't change facts

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-shooters-got-their-guns.html?_r=0

Of the items shown in that article, the assault weapons were many times purchased by others and provided to the perpetrators.  The guns the perpetrators purchased were mostly hand guns which would not be banned by your initial question of automatic guns.  The majority of guns may have been purchased legally by someone but many of the guns used in these atrocities weren't used by the person that purchased them legally. 

 

My opinion is that people that commit these acts are going to commit them regardless.  So if the guns are banned legally they will go through illegal means to get them.  Bad/damaged people commit the acts....not the guns themselves. 

 

 

Edited June 14, 2016 by Gally

[Chadstroma 1,665]

Let's roll with it. "Assault" weapons are banned.

Ok, fine. Now what we do we after the next shooting? One that uses an existing "Assault" weapon that is no longer sold? Or what about a gun that is not an "assault" weapon. Clearly, the ban on selling would not be enough. So, what would be the next steps?

 

[Apple Jack 3,837]

5 minutes ago, spider321 said:

Yes.  I believe it's often referred to as part of The Bill of Rights.

Are you also ok with giving up your right to freedom of speech and religion?

How about the government forcing you to let soldiers stay in your home?  You're cool with that one, right?

Unreasonable search and seizure?  Phishhh!  Who care about that, right?

Judge and jury?  Who needs 'em?  The local sheriff's deputy should be allowed to execute you if he's pretty sure you were jaywalking, huh?

 

I'll listen to a reasonable argument on anything, including the Constitution and amendments of the Constitution. The world changes and the rules should be reconsidered to reflect those changes. I don't think they were quite capable of considering assault rifles in 1791 and even if they were societal conditions were not like they are today. This is about one thing and one thing only; NRA bribery.

[fantasycurse42 7,139]

5 minutes ago, [icon] said:

16 Recent Mass Shootings (Weapon Utilization Rate)

Pistol: 81% (13 of 16 cases)
"AR" style Rifle: 31% (5 of 16 cases)
Other (Rifle/Shotgun): 19% (3 of 16 cases)
 

Actually I tallied them for you...

5 cases = 110 deaths (22 deaths per incident)

11 cases = 72 deaths (6.5 deaths per incident)

This doesn't even factor wounded.

[Apple Jack 3,837]

1 minute ago, Chadstroma said:

Let's roll with it. "Assault" weapons are banned.

Ok, fine. Now what we do we after the next shooting? One that uses an existing "Assault" weapon that is no longer sold? Or what about a gun that is not an "assault" weapon. Clearly, the ban on selling would not be enough. So, what would be the next steps?

 

Understand that they are not going to disappear overnight, and that the benefits are not going to be immediately apparent nor quantifiable for a long time.

[Amused to Death 5,632]

10 minutes ago, spider321 said:

Yes.  I believe it's often referred to as part of The Bill of Rights.

Are you also ok with giving up your right to freedom of speech and religion?

How about the government forcing you to let soldiers stay in your home?  You're cool with that one, right?

Unreasonable search and seizure?  Phishhh!  Who care about that, right?

Judge and jury?  Who needs 'em?  The local sheriff's deputy should be allowed to execute you if he's pretty sure you were jaywalking, huh?

 

Do you believe your freedom of speech is not infringed in any way right now?  You're free to say whatever you want, wherever you are, without legal consequence?  You're freedom of speech IS infringed, in the interest of public safety.

[Chadstroma 1,665]

Just now, Apple Jack said:

Understand that they are not going to disappear overnight, and that the benefits are not going to be immediately apparent nor quantifiable for a long time.

Ok, let's roll with that....

"assault" guns are gone.

We have another mass murder. Now what?

[Apple Jack 3,837]

3 minutes ago, Chadstroma said:

Ok, let's roll with that....

"assault" guns are gone.

We have another mass murder. Now what?

That is what I was answering. Banning them is not going to make them immediately disappear. I'm pretty sure everybody is aware of that.

ETA: Sorry, I misread that as banned, not gone. I'd need to know more about the mass murder to answer what.

Edited June 14, 2016 by Apple Jack

[fantasycurse42 7,139]

1 minute ago, Chadstroma said:

Ok, let's roll with that....

"assault" guns are gone.

We have another mass murder. Now what?

Less people died

 

[Amused to Death 5,632]

Here's the O'Reilly clip from his Colbert appearance last night.

For the record, I think Bill makes a lot of sense.  He's at least open to dialog and finding solutions.

[modogg 4,218]

1 hour ago, bueno said:

I think we are more likely to succumb to internal strife than external invasion. A scenario where the U.S.splits into 3 to 5 separate countries someday is not out of the question.Maybe it will be peaceful, maybe violent, but it could happen. Unlikely in our lifetimes, but still plausible. And a gun ban could be a trigger, simply because those of us who live in rural areas view gun ownership differently from those who live in cities.

I can also see, in the west where water could become an issue worth fighting over, where illegal immigration could cause a spark, etc. All it takes is to get enough people pissed off enough or some governor calling out his National Guard and militia.

I'd love if the sportsbooks felt this way and I can bet odds on this. I am thinking zombies are more plausible

[James Daulton 8,808]

2 minutes ago, Chadstroma said:

Ok, let's roll with that....

"assault" guns are gone.

We have another mass murder. Now what?

Here's a novel idea, let's continue to do nothing just like we've been doing.  We'll just count the bodies as the year go on.  Maybe even make a game of it.

[bud29 1,417]

32 minutes ago, E-Z Glider said:

Has anyone else seen this on Facebook?

These people are exactly the reason we need more gun control.

Yeah, I threw up in my mouth a little bit when that was making the rounds. Facebook is the worst.

Twitter, at least people's idiocy is contained to 140 characters.

[fantasycurse42 7,139]

Just now, modogg said:

I'd love if the sportsbooks felt this way and I can bet odds on this. I am thinking zombies are more plausible

 

[Ditkaless Wonders 15,502]

2 minutes ago, fantasycurse42 said:

 

Once done laughing will you be adding zombies to your list?

[Chadstroma 1,665]

Just now, fantasycurse42 said:

Less people died

 

How do you quantify that?

This guy had 3 hours in the club before police stormed it. What makes you believe not having an AR-15 would have made a difference in this case?

 

[spider321 1,108]

Thousands upon thousands(if not millions) of Americans will die if you send police/swat and/or the military to people's doors with the intent of taking their guns away from them.

You guys do realize that, right?

[Jayrod 3,807]

Just now, spider321 said:

Thousands upon thousands(if not millions) of Americans will die if you send police/swat and/or the military to people's doors with the intent of taking their guns away from them.

You guys do realize that, right?

What?

[Chadstroma 1,665]

5 minutes ago, James Daulton said:

Here's a novel idea, let's continue to do nothing just like we've been doing.  We'll just count the bodies as the year go on.  Maybe even make a game of it.

Here is another idea. Let's do what actually makes sense and start encouraging responsible people to enroll in concealed carry classes and actually be able to defend themselves from the .00000000001% of the 319 million people in this country that pose a risk because they are mentally ill or have a terrorist agenda.

Seems more effective than feel good measures that won't have a material impact on anything.

[[icon] 7,648]

Just now, Chadstroma said:

Here is another idea. Let's do what actually makes sense and start encouraging responsible people to enroll in concealed carry classes and actually be able to defend themselves from the .00000000001% of the 319 million people in this country that pose a risk because they are mentally ill or have a terrorist agenda.

Seems more effective than feel good measures that won't have a material impact on anything.

[fantasycurse42 7,139]

21 minutes ago, [icon] said:

16 Recent Mass Shootings (Weapon Utilization Rate)

Pistol: 81% (13 of 16 cases)
"AR" style Rifle: 31% (5 of 16 cases)
Other (Rifle/Shotgun): 19% (3 of 16 cases)
 

 

4 minutes ago, Chadstroma said:

How do you quantify that?

This guy had 3 hours in the club before police stormed it. What makes you believe not having an AR-15 would have made a difference in this case?

 

 

14 minutes ago, fantasycurse42 said:

Actually I tallied them for you...

5 cases = 110 deaths (22 deaths per incident)

11 cases = 72 deaths (6.5 deaths per incident)

This doesn't even factor wounded.

 

Do I really need to explain why an AR-15 is more dangerous in one of these situations than a handgun? I hope not.

[[icon] 7,648]

16 minutes ago, fantasycurse42 said:

Actually I tallied them for you...

5 cases = 110 deaths (22 deaths per incident)

11 cases = 72 deaths (6.5 deaths per incident)

This doesn't even factor wounded.

While you don't come across as terribly bright, you don't seem outright dim either... so I'm assuming you see where your numbers are horribly flawed here, right?

Edited June 14, 2016 by [icon]

[spider321 1,108]

1 minute ago, Jayrod said:

What?

What?  You wouldn't expect Americans to defend their rights?

Are you that naive?

[fantasycurse42 7,139]

1 minute ago, Chadstroma said:

Here is another idea. Let's do what actually makes sense and start encouraging responsible people to enroll in concealed carry classes and actually be able to defend themselves from the .00000000001% of the 319 million people in this country that pose a risk because they are mentally ill or have a terrorist agenda.

Seems more effective than feel good measures that won't have a material impact on anything.

Surprised it took 13 pages for the more guns is the answer response. 

I'm actually very proud of you guys for letting it get this far before we crossed that bridge, excellent work FFA.

[Apple Jack 3,837]

1 minute ago, spider321 said:

Thousands upon thousands(if not millions) of Americans will die if you send police/swat and/or the military to people's doors with the intent of taking their guns away from them.

You guys do realize that, right?

Rock on, Cliven.

They were banned in 1996. Don't recall a civil war breaking out.

[Thunderlips 3,918]

1 minute ago, spider321 said:

What?  You wouldn't expect Americans to defend their rights?

Are you that naive?

IF the Second Amendment were repealed...would it still be a right?

[fantasycurse42 7,139]

5 minutes ago, spider321 said:

Thousands upon thousands (if not millions) of Americans will die if you send police/swat and/or the military to people's doors with the intent of taking their guns away from them.

You guys do realize that, right?

 

1 minute ago, spider321 said:

What?  You wouldn't expect Americans to defend their rights?

Are you that naive?

Millions will die

You seem very grounded. 

I'll die for my gun!! 

[CGRdrJoe 2,592]

1 minute ago, fantasycurse42 said:

 

 

 

Do I really need to explain why an AR-15 is more dangerous in one of these situations than a handgun? I hope not.

How would you define your knowledge of guns? Serious question here because all of my friends who are passionate about guns would tell you that they would have done a lot more damage with handguns than an AR-15 just due to the sheer number of rounds their mags hold.

[Chadstroma 1,665]

1 minute ago, fantasycurse42 said:

 

 

 

Do I really need to explain why an AR-15 is more dangerous in one of these situations than a handgun? I hope not.

3 hours. He had ample time to make sure all of those 49 were dead- with an AR-15 or handgun or shotgun etc. In this case, I don't think it mattered much.

And again, my point goes back to..... We ban all these "assault" guns and we magically get all 3 million (I think that is just AR-15's) out of private hands. And then we have another mass murder from another gun. What then?

[spider321 1,108]

5 minutes ago, Thunderlips said:

IF the Second Amendment were repealed...would it still be a right?

To many Americans, including myself, yes.

if the 1st Ammendment were repealed, would you start/stop worshipping God depending on the whims of the government?

Edited June 14, 2016 by spider321

[fantasycurse42 7,139]

Just now, CGRdrJoe said:

How would you define your knowledge of guns? Serious question here because all of my friends who are passionate about guns would tell you that they would have done a lot more damage with handguns than an AR-15 just due to the sheer number of rounds their mags hold.

Go through the last 16 incidents in the article from the NY Times I linked. Is it a coincidence that every time an AR-15 is involved the bodycount is over 3x than when it is just handguns?

[JHuber77 68]

What exactly is an assault rifle?  This is the problem that most of the public and media misconstrue.    

*Hint*

its not something you can buy at any gun shop in america

[Apple Jack 3,837]

3 minutes ago, spider321 said:

To many Americans, including myself, yes.

if the 1st Ammandment were repealed, would you start/stop worshipping God depending on the whims of the government?

Goodness gracious. The charters were whims of the government.

And doing something or not doing something has nothing to do with whether it is a "right" in this contest.

Edited June 14, 2016 by Apple Jack

[Thunderlips 3,918]

Just now, spider321 said:

To many Americans, including myself, yes.

if the 1st Ammandment were repealed, would you start/stop worshipping God depending on the whims of the government?

I don't really feel too strongly about religion one way or another.  

[CGRdrJoe 2,592]

 

1 minute ago, JHuber77 said:

What exactly is an assault rifle?  This is the problem that most of the public and media misconstrue.    

*Hint*

its not something you can buy at any gun shop in America

there are no such thing as assault rifles, there are guns called ArmaLite Rifle's (AR-15) but those don't sound as cool.

[spider321 1,108]

1 minute ago, Thunderlips said:

I don't really feel too strongly about religion one way or another.  

Good, because rights that don't affect you personally should not matter.