Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
fantasycurse42

Why would anyone need an assault rifle?

Assault Rifles  

441 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Just now, FreeBaGeL said:

Well there literally can't.  There's a law against even studying it.

:yes: See my post above yours.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Lester Burnham said:

Heres an anecdote for you...

The figures don't lie, but liars figure.

 

A study can be DESIGNED to produce the desired result/conclusion.

That's why studies go before peer review, meaning experts in the field flesh out designs and methods that could expose a bias, intended or unintended.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Christo said:

You may not like it, but building a wall and banning Muslim immigration are ideas.

He makes a valid point. They are ideas. And no I dont like either of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Amused to Death said:

Well you know why we don't have any well-designed studies?  Because the NRA pressured Congress to remove gun violence research funding from the CDC back in '96.

Fortunately, the CDC is not the only source of grant funding, and there have been exceptional studies--all showing the same relationship--over the past 30 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Christo said:

As someone pointed out earlier, the insurgents in Iraq got pretty good at it. Without access to easier mechanisms, the committed will still find a way. So I disagree that the "they would just build a bomb" argument is ridiculous.

So you think Dylan Roof and this latest guy are going to conspire together to get their hands on military artillery and figure out how to use it?

There's a pretty big difference between some random angry guy in his basement in the USA and a semi-organized insurgency with a network of scientists and people training each other on this stuff in a country where artillery shells are just lying on the side of the road for anyone to grab and use.

Edited by FreeBaGeL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, cobalt_27 said:

That's why studies go before peer review, meaning experts in the field flesh out designs and methods that could expose a bias, intended or unintended.  

These are the geniuses who came up with banning guns with pistol grips & flash hiders. If they  REALLY knew anything, they'd focus on cyclic rate and not magazine capacity or whether or not a gun looks scary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys crack me up.  Nothing is going to happen to anyone's guns, people.  A guy walked into a school and  killed twenty children and nothing changed about who can own a gun.  Why would someone shooting up a gay bar spur any action?  We'll just change our Facebook status to a rainbow flag sad face until the next big shooting.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Lester Burnham said:

These are the geniuses who came up with banning guns with pistol grips & flash hiders. If they  REALLY knew anything, they'd focus on cyclic rate and not magazine capacity or whether or not a gun looks scary.

Who are the geniuses behind this?  Which research groups?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ignoramus said:

You guys crack me up.  Nothing is going to happen to anyone's guns, people.  A guy walked into a school and  killed twenty children and nothing changed about who can own a gun.  Why would someone shooting up a gay bar spur any action?  We'll just change our Facebook status to a rainbow flag sad face until the next big shooting.

Sad but true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ignoramus said:

You guys crack me up.  Nothing is going to happen to anyone's guns, people.  A guy walked into a school and  killed twenty children and nothing changed about who can own a gun.  Why would someone shooting up a gay bar spur any action?  We'll just change our Facebook status to a rainbow flag sad face until the next big shooting.

I agree with this 100% for now, but I just don't understand why. Why won't anyone tell the NRA to #### off, #### them!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, fantasycurse42 said:

I agree with this 100% for now, but I just don't understand why. Why won't anyone tell the NRA to #### off, #### them!

$$$

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, FreeBaGeL said:

So you think Dylan Roof and this latest guy are going to conspire together to get their hands on military artillery and figure out how to use it?

There's a pretty big difference between some random zealot in his basement in the USA and a semi-organized insurgency with a network of scientists and people training each other on this stuff in a country where artillery shells are just lying on the side of the road for anyone to grab and use.

Anyone can get a Lowe's card

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Amused to Death said:

:yes: See my post above yours.

See my post four above his. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ignoramus said:

You guys crack me up.  Nothing is going to happen to anyone's guns, people.  A guy walked into a school and  killed twenty children and nothing changed about who can own a gun.  Why would someone shooting up a gay bar spur any action?  We'll just change our Facebook status to a rainbow flag sad face until the next big shooting.

Exactly.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, cobalt_27 said:

I see you're not familiar with the overwhelming data/research on gun prevalence and homicide rates.

 

I completely believe that if we could somehow not have guns, our society would be much safer. 

But how to get there from here? I don't know. I'm not convinced that a ban on any particular gun would have a significant effect. That's the gist of my problem with the idea. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, FreeBaGeL said:

$$$

There is enough money against too, I don't get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's say we implement a gun ban tomorrow. How long will it take before 3d printed guns are common enough so that we've solved absolutely nothing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Riversco said:

Let's say we implement a gun ban tomorrow. How long will it take before 3d printed guns are common enough so that we've solved absolutely nothing?

A gun ban does nothing to remove existing weapons. The govt cant go door to door confiscating guns. A gun ban is a band aid. Solving the problem of changing attitudes and breaking down generations of prejudice is a tall order. Nobody has the patience for that. Elected officials have to do SOMETHING. Lets pass laws!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Riversco said:

Let's say we implement a gun ban tomorrow. How long will it take before 3d printed guns are common enough so that we've solved absolutely nothing?

Yeah, I guess we're screwed.  Keep the brown people out and thoughts/prayers for all.  We got nothing else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this worth sifting thru or am I going to lose my dinner?

I think anyone the FBI looks into who is an active Muslim going to a mosque where hateful rhetoric seems to have taken the place of peace and love which is the main message at most mosques and houses of worship in the United States, yeah those folks need to be on a special list and not issued weapons. If it means that 1:10 on the list or even slightly higher are miscast then so be it if it saves lives. And if the Muslim community doesn't approve, then produce the nutjobs you know are perverting the religion and turn them over to the FBI, that would go a long way if the Muslim community actually uncovered and worked with the FBI to intervene and stop this nonsense, maybe it already is. 

But overall we do not need to restrict a lot of law abiding citizens from purchasing guns. This man was a criminal when you factor in domestic violence that went unpunished by his 1st wife except she divorced him but he likely should have been arrested for domestic violence which likely would have given him a criminal background and stopped his legal purchase of the guns. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, leftcoastguy7 said:

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.

But while we're waiting we can cut each other to ribbons! Yeah, 'merica!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Riversco said:

Let's say we implement a gun ban tomorrow. How long will it take before 3d printed guns are common enough so that we've solved absolutely nothing?

Printed guns wouldn't be banned?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Christo said:

And what percentage of them would actually be able to do anything with it?  Given that the Columbine kids were smarter than all the rest of them over the last 15 years and they couldn't get it to work, and given that there have been several other attempts to detonate IEDs here since the Oklahoma City bombing that have mostly failed, with the biggest success being a 3-person kill.

If there were no guns (not what I'm arguing for) there wouldn't be 0 of these attacks, but there would be a LOT less of them.  Timothy McVeigh had extensive military training, a high IQ score, and plenty of disposable income and still needed a lot of things to go his way for everything to work..  How many of the recent gun attackers meet that criteria?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Lester Burnham said:

A gun ban does nothing to remove existing weapons. The govt cant go door to door confiscating guns. A gun ban is a band aid. Solving the problem of changing attitudes and breaking down generations of prejudice is a tall order. Nobody has the patience for that. Elected officials have to do SOMETHING. Lets pass laws!

 

After a man killed 35 people with a semi-automatic weapon, Australia did a mandatory buy back and provided amnesty on illegal guns of the weapons they banned and created a registry. They did not ban all guns but they bought back 650, 000, equal to roughly 20% of their countries' private ownership, or one good arsenal in some farm in the States somewhere. Homicide dropped 50% and Suicide 74%.

It's not a band aid, there are lots of examples of countries that have instituted registries/banned certain guns and seen positive results.

 

Edited by Northern Voice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you could legally buy massive remote trigger bombs down at the corner store, how many more bomb attacks would there be here?

Bombs are illegal.  There are still bomb attacks.  But there are a lot less of them than if any Joe Schmoe could walk into a store and buy them.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, FreeBaGeL said:

If you could legally buy massive remote trigger bombs down at the corner store, how many more bomb attacks would there be here?

Bombs are illegal.  There are still bomb attacks.  But there are a lot less of them than if any Joe Schmoe could walk into a store and buy them.

There are some here that would argue the 2nd amendment should apply to bombs, nukes.  This is the level of crazy we're dealing with in this thread.  Absolutley bat #### crazy people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, FreeBaGeL said:

And what percentage of them would actually be able to do anything with it?  Given that the Columbine kids were smarter than all the rest of them over the last 15 years and they couldn't get it to work, and given that there have been several other attempts to detonate IEDs here since the Oklahoma City bombing that have mostly failed, with the biggest success being a 3-person kill.

If there were no guns (not what I'm arguing for) there wouldn't be 0 of these attacks, but there would be a LOT less of them.  Timothy McVeigh had extensive military training, a high IQ score, and plenty of disposable income and still needed a lot of things to go his way for everything to work..  How many of the recent gun attackers meet that criteria?

The fertilizer bomb "excuse" always humors me. Go buy 5000lbs of fertilizer, research on how to make a bomb from it, and see if you get a visit.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is guns are legal. Pretty sure that we couldn't pass an amendment to legalize water under the current political climate.

So lets focus our energy on something that might help until such time as the climate favors change.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Lester Burnham said:

The problem is guns are legal. Pretty sure that we couldn't pass an amendment to legalize water under the current political climate.

So lets focus our energy on something that might help until such time as the climate favors change.

So we shouldn't discuss or debate the issue until the left and right can hold hands and sing Kumbaya?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, FreeBaGeL said:

And what percentage of them would actually be able to do anything with it?  Given that the Columbine kids were smarter than all the rest of them over the last 15 years and they couldn't get it to work, and given that there have been several other attempts to detonate IEDs here since the Oklahoma City bombing that have mostly failed, with the biggest success being a 3-person kill.

If there were no guns (not what I'm arguing for) there wouldn't be 0 of these attacks, but there would be a LOT less of them.  Timothy McVeigh had extensive military training, a high IQ score, and plenty of disposable income and still needed a lot of things to go his way for everything to work..  How many of the recent gun attackers meet that criteria?

How many do there need to be? According to this, the 10 deadliest mass shootings since 1984 have totaled 218 deaths. Until Orlando, the highest total was the Virginia Tech incident with 32. None of the weapons used there were assault rifles. McVeigh took out 168 at one time. There don't need to be as many bombs to kill as many people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, FreeBaGeL said:

If you could legally buy massive remote trigger bombs down at the corner store, how many more bomb attacks would there be here?

Bombs are illegal.  There are still bomb attacks.  But there are a lot less of them than if any Joe Schmoe could walk into a store and buy them.

I'm sure someone will have the A-Ha post back at you but on the surface this is pretty good. 

I just would like to start with those the FBI has needed to speak with because of concerned citizens, let's ban those folks first and then discuss what needs to be done with the millions of mentally unstable folks...like those under prescription meds for mental wellness, maybe we need to put a stop to those folks owning guns as painful as that might be for some of those folks. 

I don't want to remove the AR-15 from Icon for example. I'm fine with him being the guy on the block with assault weapons as long as he is on board with the same oath a tall person flying on the emergency exit takes to get a little more leg room. You better come running when we sound the alarm for help.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Northern Voice said:

After a man killed 35 people with a semi-automatic weapon, Australia did a mandatory buy back and provided amnesty on illegal guns of the weapons they banned and created a registry. They did not ban all guns but they bought back 650, 000, equal to roughly 20% of their countries' private ownership, or one good arsenal in some farm in the States somewhere. Homicide dropped 50% and Suicide 74%.

It's not a band aid, there are lots of examples of countries that have instituted registries/banned certain guns and seen positive results.

 

Really? See this is the sort of stuff that could change my mind again.

So many people seem to have their mind made up on this issue, one way or the other and there's no changing them no matter what the argument. But on this one I go back and forth. There are compelling arguments on both sides...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Christo said:

How many do there need to be? According to this, the 10 deadliest mass shootings since 1984 have totaled 218 deaths. Until Orlando, the highest total was the Virginia Tech incident with 32. None of the weapons used there were assault rifles. McVeigh took out 168 at one time. There don't need to be as many bombs to kill as many people.

How many fertilizer bombs have there been since McVeigh? How many mass shootings have there been since that time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Really? See this is the sort of stuff that could change my mind again.

So many people seem to have their mind made up on this issue, one way or the other and there's no changing them no matter what the argument. But on this one I go back and forth. There are compelling arguments on both sides...

Yes, assault rifles being "fun" is a highly compelling argument. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 3C's said:

How many fertilizer bombs have there been since McVeigh? How many mass shootings have there been since that time?

:lmao: At least try to keep up with the conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Christo said:

:lmao: At least try to keep up with the conversation.

:lmao: I am .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, FreeBaGeL said:

If you could legally buy massive remote trigger bombs down at the corner store, how many more bomb attacks would there be here?

Bombs are illegal.  There are still bomb attacks.  But there are a lot less of them than if any Joe Schmoe could walk into a store and buy them.

Yeah people aren't spending time to build a bomb from scratch, not with the ABC primetime line-up and Pizza rolls calling. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, fantasycurse42 said:

Yes, assault rifles being "fun" is a highly compelling argument. 

That's not what I wrote and you know it. 

I tend to be libertarian unless you can demonstrate why a law would make sense. What was compelling to me about the "fun" argument is that people shouldn't need a reason to own stuff- as a general rule they should be able to own what they want without having to explain themselves. If you want to make assault weapons illegal, the burden is on YOU to show why it would be wise to do so, not on the gun owner to explain why he "needs" to own one. That was the flaw with your opening question IMO. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I probably watch too many shows on tv that deal with government collapse and #### hitting the fan. That said I have food and water reserves for 2 years and own over 70 firearms. I have a bushmaster like this http://www.sportsmansoutdoorsuperstore.com/products2.cfm/ID/11401/90289/bushmaster-xm15-e2s-5.56mm-patrolmans-carbine and if things did fall apart I pity anyone trying to loot my residence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, timschochet said:

That's not what I wrote and you know it. 

I tend to be libertarian unless you can demonstrate why a law would make sense. What was compelling to me about the "fun" argument is that people shouldn't need a reason to own stuff- as a general rule they should be able to own what they want without having to explain themselves. If you want to make assault weapons illegal, the burden is on YOU to show why it would be wise to do so, not on the gun owner to explain why he "needs" to own one. That was the flaw with your opening question IMO. 

Here you go. http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/13/us/anderson-cooper-reads-orlando-shooting-victims-names/index.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

has anyone answered the question yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, urbanhack said:

has anyone answered the question yet?

I did above. I am a doomsday prepper. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Warsteinner said:

I did above. I am a doomsday prepper. 

You want to be a doomsday prepper and you want an assault rifle.

got it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.