What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Why would anyone need an assault rifle? (2 Viewers)

Assault Rifles


  • Total voters
    414
If guys like Icon and Ditkaless Wonders want to own assault rifles because they are fun to own and shoot and because these two gentlemen, and thousands like them, enjoy collecting and owning firearms, why should we stop them? 

What I want is for guys like them not to be bothered. But I also want terrorists, bad guys, and sociopaths to be prevented from having these weapons. There should be a reasonable way to try to achieve both goals. 
I propose a special license required to own such a weapon - a license that any citizen can apply for, but is much more stringent...i.e. no felonies, no drug history, pass a psych screening, demonstrated history of gun ownership, pass a class similar to concealed carry, etc.  No rights would be encumbered, and responsible folk can still have their toys.

Hunting and self-defense category weapon ownership would not be effected.

 
I propose a special license required to own such a weapon - a license that any citizen can apply for, but is much more stringent...i.e. no felonies, no drug history, pass a psych screening, demonstrated history of gun ownership, pass a class similar to concealed carry, etc.  No rights would be encumbered, and responsible folk can still have their toys.

Hunting and self-defense category weapon ownership would not be effected.
If you are going to go that route I would suggest considering storage requirements and insurance requirements.  That said, I believe rights would be encumbered as I understand the term encumbered, perhaps not greatly to your way or thinking or to the way of thinking of many, but encumbered.  Whether that encumbrance would amount to a quanta that it is legally significant I would leave to constitutional experts, but as a plain language thing, I think there would be an encumbrance.

 
Personally, because of my moral standings.  There are other things I do simply because of the law - not speed, pay taxes, not distill moonshine, not assault certain people, etc.
See, I speed. I have punched people, I have worked under the table in the past, and I may or may not have made fermented apple cider and possibly transported it across borders. 

 
I am not convinced that people do not commit murder because of a law. I think if someone wants to commit murder they will regardless of a law.  
You may not be but people are deterred by laws.  A person may want to kill someone but decides the consequences of spending the rest of their life in jail is not worth it so they don't do it.  

 
See, I speed. I have punched people, I have worked under the table in the past, and I may or may not have made fermented apple cider and possibly transported it across borders. 
Fermented apple cider is 100% legal, by the way.

I have dpne all these things too in my younger days.  Now that I've got some years behind me, I don't want to risk dealing with legal penalties of getting caught, so I don't.

 
You may not be but people are deterred by laws.  A person may want to kill someone but decides the consequences of spending the rest of their life in jail is not worth it so they don't do it.  
True but there are many people that don't care about laws and break them with no regards to the consequences.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You may not be but people are deterred by laws.  A person may want to kill someone but decides the consequences of spending the rest of their life in jail is not worth it so they don't do it.  
Or they spend lots of time trying to figure out how to get away with it.

 
I am unclear on the logic of making business owners responsible for the security of their patrons, absent them doing something to affirmatively degrade that security or to impair their faculties.
We will never get rid of people that want to kill other people. So the answer is to actually protect ourselves from the criminals. Protect your patrons, protect your employees and protect your business. The cost is minimal considering how many lives would be saved. 
just to be clear here, you're advocating for adding the cost of armed security to every establishment.  The establishment would have to pass the cost on to the patron.  Obviously I don't have the numbers, but speculating that the cost ends up being another $1 per drink or a cover charge, are you willing to pay the extra cost?  I probably wouldn't.

 
just to be clear here, you're advocating for adding the cost of armed security to every establishment.  The establishment would have to pass the cost on to the patron.  Obviously I don't have the numbers, but speculating that the cost ends up being another $1 per drink or a cover charge, are you willing to pay the extra cost?  I probably wouldn't.
I think we would all agree gun owners or not, that nobody wants to see these sort of killings take place. Now from what we see in this thread is that there is a line of acceptable cost of saving a life. As with everything it comes back to $$. 

 
If you are going to go that route I would suggest considering storage requirements and insurance requirements.  That said, I believe rights would be encumbered as I understand the term encumbered, perhaps not greatly to your way or thinking or to the way of thinking of many, but encumbered.  Whether that encumbrance would amount to a quanta that it is legally significant I would leave to constitutional experts, but as a plain language thing, I think there would be an encumbrance.
I suppose you are right that it is an encumbrance, which I guess, is sort of the point, all things considered.  "Infringed" is probably a better term.  

 
True but there are many people that don't care about laws and break them with no regards to the consequences.
yes and they are punished for them.  Also, to bring this back to the point at issue why is it problem to have reasonable restrictions to make certain acts harder to accomplish.  Maybe the person is arrested in an attempt to obtain an illegal semi-automatic assault gun then he won't be able to use that gun to conduct that crime.  Isn't that a positive as I am not sure a good reason has been put forward in this thread other than they are damn fun.   

 
Speeding, which was brought up, is a good example. If the speed limit is 55 miles an hour many people ignore it and drive 70. But if there was NO speed limit a lot of these same people might choose to drive 90 or as fast as their engine would allow. Even for those who ignore the law, the existence of the law (in this case the speed limit of 55) creates a deterrent that has an effect on their behavior. 

 
I think we would all agree gun owners or not, that nobody wants to see these sort of killings take place. Now from what we see in this thread is that there is a line of acceptable cost of saving a life. As with everything it comes back to $$. 
Agree on that but putting guards in place everywhere is reasonable but any type of gun control is not.  Seems very backward.  

 
I don't find that to be a significant reason to not have a law.
Exactly a point I was making yesterday. The fact that no law will ever be able to achieve 100% compliance isn't a reason to not have laws. If laws make something harder to obtain it will increase the cost and reduce demand. Sure if we banned AR-15 type rifles, people who wanted to use them commit mass shootings could still get them. But to do so illegally they would face barriers they don't have today, including arrest for buying the weapons in the first place. 

 
At least any foreign army thinking of invading our land had better think again.

We are greatest armed population in the world, and we will cut you to ribbons.
If a foreign army is strong enough to get past our military defenses they aren't going to be stopped by a couple million people with assault weapons.  I could see they would be useful if we were in some sort of civil war.  But I think the odds of that in the near future are pretty low.

 
Speeding, which was brought up, is a good example. If the speed limit is 55 miles an hour many people ignore it and drive 70. But if there was NO speed limit a lot of these same people might choose to drive 90 or as fast as their engine would allow. Even for those who ignore the law, the existence of the law (in this case the speed limit of 55) creates a deterrent that has an effect on their behavior. 
they're not ignoring the law.  They're knowingly violating it based on an assessment of risk of being punished.

 
Agree on that but putting guards in place everywhere is reasonable but any type of gun control is not.  Seems very backward.  
Which is more effective, more stringent gun laws or having actual security guards and better security measures at moderate to high pop establishments? Sure there will be a significant cost and once again it comes back to a dollar cost/per life saved ratio that you are comfortable with. 

 
yes and they are punished for them.  Also, to bring this back to the point at issue why is it problem to have reasonable restrictions to make certain acts harder to accomplish.  Maybe the person is arrested in an attempt to obtain an illegal semi-automatic assault gun then he won't be able to use that gun to conduct that crime.  Isn't that a positive as I am not sure a good reason has been put forward in this thread other than they are damn fun.   
My comment was directed to your quote...

"You may not be but people are deterred by laws.  A person may want to kill someone but decides the consequences of spending the rest of their life in jail is not worth it so they don't do it."

Not all people are deterred by laws. That is all I was saying.  

 
Which is more effective, more stringent gun laws or having actual security guards and better security measures at moderate to high pop establishments? Sure there will be a significant cost and once again it comes back to a dollar cost/per life saved ratio that you are comfortable with. 
And where do you think you'll find enough people that 1) Want to do that and 2) Are qualified enough to do that?

 
I propose a special license required to own such a weapon - a license that any citizen can apply for, but is much more stringent...i.e. no felonies, no drug history, pass a psych screening, demonstrated history of gun ownership, pass a class similar to concealed carry, etc.  No rights would be encumbered, and responsible folk can still have their toys.

Hunting and self-defense category weapon ownership would not be effected.
This already exists as a regulatory structure, though the weapons that are being discussed do not fall under its purview.

The National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA for short) established something called Class 3 weapons. They include silencers/suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barrelled shotguns, fully automatic weapons (machine guns) and "destructive devices".

In order to purchase or own a NFA Class 3 weapon, a citizen must jump through a bunch of bureaucratic hoops (fingerprinting, registration, background check) and purchase a "tax stamp" from the BATF for $200. As a result, legally owned Class 3 weapons are almost never utilized in crimes. As in, basically never.

I suppose I wouldn't be opposed with a similar structure for "assault weapons" except for the fact that bringing them into this regulatory structure would grind the entire process to a halt. The Class 3 market is tiny and the bureaucracy is incredibly slow-moving already. Expanding the sphere of weapons under this regulatory scheme fifty-fold (or more) would cause it to completely freeze up. If (and I mean IF) that problem could be cured, it is a move that I wouldn't necessarily oppose, though I would have to think about it some more. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Exactly a point I was making yesterday. The fact that no law will ever be able to achieve 100% compliance isn't a reason to not have laws. If laws make something harder to obtain it will increase the cost and reduce demand. Sure if we banned AR-15 type rifles, people who wanted to use them commit mass shootings could still get them. But to do so illegally they would face barriers they don't have today, including arrest for buying the weapons in the first place. 
The cost of buying them all back would be prohibitive, relative to the lives saved.

That sounds horrible and callous, but cost-benefit analysis is part of making public policy decisions in a world of finite resources.

 
My comment was directed to your quote...

"You may not be but people are deterred by laws.  A person may want to kill someone but decides the consequences of spending the rest of their life in jail is not worth it so they don't do it."

Not all people are deterred by laws. That is all I was saying.  
Even people who aren't "deterred" by laws are subject to and effected by them. 

 
The cost of buying them all back would be prohibitive, relative to the lives saved.

That sounds horrible and callous, but cost-benefit analysis is part of making public policy decisions in a world of finite resources.
Think it is actually cheaper to have big buyback programs then having armed guards everywhere, which is unrealistic.    

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maybe I'm way off base, but I think it's clear by this point that the only real reason to own an AR-15 or similar weapon is in case "they" come for you. Whether "they" means zombies, a foreign invading army, other people coming to take your stuff when society collapses, or the government is dependent on the person, but it's for killing people (assuming we can still call zombies people).  Right?  I mean, is there some other legitimate concern that's addressed by these that I'm missing?

*I like guns.  I own guns.  I'm not in favor of banning guns.  

 
Exactly a point I was making yesterday. The fact that no law will ever be able to achieve 100% compliance isn't a reason to not have laws. If laws make something harder to obtain it will increase the cost and reduce demand. Sure if we banned AR-15 type rifles, people who wanted to use them commit mass shootings could still get them. But to do so illegally they would face barriers they don't have today, including arrest for buying the weapons in the first place. 
The second amendment was written so Americans could own guns that we could defend ourselves with and kill people if we needed to.  Morality and religion is why we don't kill people.    AR15 type guns are exactly what the second amendment protects.  Banning AR15s strikes at the heart of the second amendment and I would be completely against that.  You have to find another way.

 
Yes they are and many people still choose to break those laws they are subject to.
But it doesn't stop us from having those laws and punishing them when caught for breaking them.  No law will be 100% compliance but that doesn't mean we don't have laws.  If someone wants to argue that I don't want these laws because I don't want any restrictions on buying these guns go ahead and make that argument.  Don't make some non-nonsensical statement about well it won't be followed so we shouldn't have the law.  

 
Maybe I'm way off base, but I think it's clear by this point that the only real reason to own an AR-15 or similar weapon is in case "they" come for you. Whether "they" means zombies, a foreign invading army, other people coming to take your stuff when society collapses, or the government is dependent on the person, but it's for killing people (assuming we can still call zombies people).  Right?  I mean, is there some other legitimate concern that's addressed by these that I'm missing?

*I like guns.  I own guns.  I'm not in favor of banning guns.  
Coyotes, wolves and assorted other mid-sized predators.

Not a big issue for most of us, but apparently for some people they are.

 
But it doesn't stop us from having those laws and punishing them when caught for breaking them.  No law will be 100% compliance but that doesn't mean we don't have laws.  If someone wants to argue that I don't want these laws because I don't want any restrictions on buying these guns go ahead and make that argument.  Don't make some non-nonsensical statement about well it won't be followed so we shouldn't have the law.  
Did I ever say anything that we shouldn't have laws because they won't be followed? No. I am just replying to your comments that people are deterred by laws.

 
The second amendment was written so Americans could own guns that we could defend ourselves with and kill people if we needed to.  Morality and religion is why we don't kill people.    AR15 type guns are exactly what the second amendment protects.  Banning AR15s strikes at the heart of the second amendment and I would be completely against that.  You have to find another way.
AR15 type guns did not exist when the Second Amendment was written.

 
And many of them get caught. I would prefer to have someone caught trying to buy a gun that using it to kill scores of innocent people. 
This discussion has gone on for 20 pages about a type of weapon that accounts for ~2% of gun homicides in a year.

Even if you could magically take away all "assault weapons" from all US citizens without incurring any cost at all, you wouldn't be able to detect the difference in the national level violent crime statistics.

 
Did I ever say anything that we shouldn't have laws because they won't be followed? No. I am just replying to your comments that people are deterred by laws.
Ok sorry if it it wasn't you but many people in this thread have said we shouldn't have gun laws since they won't be followed since criminals don't follow laws.  I am going against that point which doesn't make sense.

 
This already exists as a regulatory structure, though the weapons that are being discussed do not fall under its purview.

The National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA for short) established something called Class 3 weapons. They include silencers/suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barrelled shotguns, fully automatic weapons (machine guns) and "destructive devices".

In order to purchase or own a NFA Class 3 weapon, a citizen must jump through a bunch of bureaucratic hoops (fingerprinting, registration, background check) and purchase a "tax stamp" from the BATF for $200. As a result, legally owned Class 3 weapons are almost never utilized in crimes. As in, basically never.

I suppose I wouldn't be opposed with a similar structure for "assault weapons" except for the fact that bringing them into this regulatory structure would grind the entire process to a halt. The Class 3 market is tiny and the bureaucracy is incredibly slow-moving already. Expanding the sphere of weapons under this regulatory scheme fifty-fold (or more) would cause it to completely freeze up. If (and I mean IF) that problem could be cured, it is a move that I wouldn't necessarily oppose, though I would have to think about it some more. 
Seems to me like improving the bureaucracy to facilitate this would be exponentially cheaper than some sort of buy-back plan, or armed guards everywhere.

 
This discussion has gone on for 20 pages about a type of weapon that accounts for ~2% of gun homicides in a year.

Even if you could magically take away all "assault weapons" from all US citizens without incurring any cost at all, you wouldn't be able to detect the difference in the national level violent crime statistics.
I think it's probably more appropriate to approach it from number of dead per shooting event than total number of dead.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top