What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Why would anyone need an assault rifle? (1 Viewer)

Assault Rifles

  • Ban them

    Votes: 309 74.6%

  • They have many uses outside of killing a lot of people in a short amount of time

    Votes: 105 25.4%
  • Total voters
    414
fantasycurse42 said:
Still haven't received one reasonable answer to this, though it was kind of a rhetorical question.
Click to expand...
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.

 
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. 
Click to expand...
Oh, Hai.
 

 
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.
Click to expand...
Your opinion doesn't change facts :shrug:

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

 
Apple Jack said:
You understand the Second Amendment was an amendment to the Constitution, right?
Click to expand...
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?

 
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? 
Click to expand...
Thanks for the update.

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

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

 
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.
Click to expand...
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!

 
fantasycurse42 said:
Your opinion doesn't change facts :shrug:

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

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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?

 
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?
Click to expand...
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.

 
[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)
 
Click to expand...
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.

 
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?
Click to expand...
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.

 
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?
Click to expand...
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 said:
Ok, let's roll with that....

"assault" guns are gone.

We have another mass murder. Now what?
Click to expand...
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.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
Click to expand...
I'd love if the sportsbooks felt this way and I can bet odds on this. I am thinking zombies are more plausible

 
E-Z Glider said:
Has anyone else seen this on Facebook?

:rolleyes:

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

 
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?

 
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.
Click to expand...
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.

 
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.
Click to expand...
:goodposting:

 
[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)
 
Click to expand...


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?
Click to expand...


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.
Click to expand...


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

 
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.
Click to expand...
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?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

 
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?
Click to expand...
:lmao:

Rock on, Cliven.

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

 
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.
Click to expand...
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.

 
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.
Click to expand...
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?

 
Thunderlips said:
IF the Second Amendment were repealed...would it still be a right?
Click to expand...
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?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
Click to expand...
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?

 
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

 
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?
Click to expand...
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.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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
Click to expand...
there are no such thing as assault rifles, there are guns called ArmaLite Rifle's (AR-15) but those don't sound as cool.

 
 





 
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?
Click to expand...
It will be interesting to hear how exactly this went down because it's really not that easy to kill 50 people with a gun in a crowded area.  It would require numerous reloads, enough space at all times to prevent anybody from reaching over from behind or the side and grabbing the gun.

There were three trained guys in the Bataclan with real assault rifles (AK-47s), suicide vests, grenades, and extensive planning.  They killed 90.

 
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?
Click to expand...
Sorry but not all of the bill of rights are hard and fast rules with no exceptions and 2nd amendment shouldn't be that way either (and is currently not that way as full automatic weapons are already outlawed).  Even the Heller case found that these could exists and I think people here arguing a reasonable restriction is to forbid AR15 type weapons.  

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top