dozer
Footballguy
Thank you for your service.
How do you feel when people with no experience or training (real life and death decisions, not shooting range stuff) predict how they will react when faced with a split second, worst case scenario?
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? (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter fantasycurse42
- Start date
How do you feel when people with no experience or training (real life and death decisions, not shooting range stuff) predict how they will react when faced with a split second, worst case scenario?
KCitons
Footballguy
Probably the same way I feel when non gun owners suggest gun regulations, when they've never picked up a gun in their life.
KCitons
Footballguy
???
This statement says a lot. He was over confident in protecting himself against attack by four criminals on his 20 acre property.
It's things like this that make me stand firm in my right to keep an bear arms. Dogs and security systems are only part of a solution. When they fail, what are you left with?
dozer
Footballguy
I’m thinking a conversation with a non-gun owner about gun control is not comparable to the act of shooting a person, in any way.
Maybe you misunderstand my point. Have you ever shot a person? Seen a person get shot? I hope you haven’t, but it certainly gives a perspective that conversation and theory can not.
Talking about pulling the trigger, or imagining pulling the trigger, and actually pulling the trigger are worlds apart.
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
dozer
Footballguy
KCitons
Footballguy
I fully understand your point. It's the reason why I don't have a conceal carry permit. My gun ownership in relation to taking another persons life is miles apart. It's a last resort stance. There are tons of variables to determine which gun is right for a given situation. And what is right would also change based on the person using it.
Depending on this veterans service, he may well feel more comfortable with a AR15 instead of a shotgun or a handgun. Combat marines don't use their Beretta or Glock's when clearing houses, they use the M4.
Based on the remote layout, the potential experience with an AR, the number of assailants, and effectiveness of the AR15, I think it's logical to say that he needed an assault rifle. Even with an assault rifle he was shot. Had he had a slower shooting gun, or a gun with less rounds, he probably would be dead.
The Z Machine
Footballguy
I don't own a gun and I've held and shot a loaded gun before. I think that a good percentage of people advocating for gun restrictions are similar.
KCitons
Footballguy
The Z Machine
Footballguy
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
Yeah, it might help your cause if they got the same bug/addiction/thrill out of it.
And if you ever been around a bunch of gun guys talking guns, you know exactly what I'm talking about. You can see the madness on youtube vids. Plain as day.
KCitons
Footballguy
No.
Why would it be a trick question? You quoted my post, then state that you are the exact opposite.
There are people, who have never held or used a gun, but want to ban guns?
It's similar to dozers point
Keep in mind. The question was "how do you feel".
What's next, are you going to tell me that I don't feel that way??
unckeyherb
Footballguy
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
In lots of those gun videos on youtube... yes. Lots of crazy going on there. Frothing.
KCitons
Footballguy
What are you talking about.
Dozer made a point about how DW feels when people that have no experience shooting at, or being shot at, predicting how they will react. It was a jab at those of us that haven't been in that situation.
I made the comparison to non gun owners. And how I feel. It has nothing to do with your perception of gun owners.
KCitons
Footballguy
I don't hang out with those guys. But, as long as they don't hurt anyone or break any laws, then I think they have a the right to do what they want.
I could find a lot of drunk people doing stupid things on youtube as well. That doesn't mean everyone that drinks acts the same way.
I could find a lot of drunk people doing stupid things on youtube as well. That doesn't mean everyone that drinks acts the same way.
A shepherd and a shotgun would've likely prevented this incident altogether, as I stated earlier. The dog would've scared away the intruder or alerted the veteran as the intruders approached. The veteran has a serious abdominal wound.
I'm not suggesting to take away glocks and shotguns. No one is.
dozer
Footballguy
That question wasn’t for you.
I did ask all posters if they had shot a person before. Have you? Or been shot at? Or witnessed a shooting up close?
DW answered in the affirmative, and with that credibility, I asked how he felt about those without the knowledge and insight you have when you have been part of the violence.
Think, talking about how awesome sex is when you’re still a virgin. Only, instead of something really nice, something life altering bad. I hope you never have to “feel” that way. Sincerely.
KCitons
Footballguy
And when it doesn't?
Does that answer the OP's question - "why would anyone need an assault rifle"
KCitons
Footballguy
I believe my response outlined my personal feelings in regards to carrying a concealed weapon. I don't do it because I believe the odds of needing to defend myself, or my family, while out in public aren't enough to worry about. Someone hell bent on attacking me in my own home, is a different story.
As to your question, it felt like a jab at anyone who hasn't shot someone, or been shot at. Somehow, that makes those that have an expert on whether or not an AR15 is needed. Ever.
dozer
Footballguy
It would be pretty weird to mock (jab?) someone because the have never shot a person, or been shot at.
However, bearing witness to such violence, in person and up close can change your belief system quickly.
Risks and benefits of assault weapons should be weighed. You are overstating their benefits by using this one outlier example. There were better ways for the veteran to protect himself without an AR15, from a probability POV, but of course no method guarantees 100% protection.
We already have ample evidence of the risks of AR-15s to society.
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
Ludicrous for gun owners to suggest legislation.
People who have been innocently shot by gun should be making the legislation.
But nobody is surprised at the myopic viewpoint of the wolves wanting to make the rules.
KCitons
Footballguy
KCitons
Footballguy
No they should not.
The OP's question is whether or not anyone would need an assault rifle. Full stop.
The answer is yes. But, that would mean the anti gun group would have to give a microscopic amount. And they won't. They will state that the AR15 is the deadliest firearm out there available to the public. But, won't admit the need if you need to kill multiple bad guys quickly. This incident is proof.
KCitons
Footballguy
Blah, blah, blah.
You're argument was that people were foaming at the mouth in Youtube videos shooting guns. That doesn't represent every gun owner.
Do victims of DUI's get to make the legislation for that? Nope.
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
I live around this stuff. Sucks. But you dont have to take my anecdote as its all over youtube in terrific and undeniable fashion. Though I'm sure pro-gunners will try and try ignore that it is all over the place amongst the owners.
KCitons
Footballguy
So youtube is the standard by which you determine normal?
I made a comment in the other thread about comments on Twitter and was told I was wrong.
Is youtube the standard by which everyone consumes alcohol?
Sheriff Bart
Footballguy
dozer
Footballguy
Sheriff Bart
Footballguy
KCitons
Footballguy
Cowboysfan8
Footballguy
Forgive me for saying so I guess, but I don’t think you have any idea what you’re talking about
To address the OP's question: the veteran needed something better than an AR-15. Your anecdote would be better if the veteran didn't get shot in the stomach.
KCitons
Footballguy
Right. But the facts are that the general public is only allowed to own an AR15. Perhaps he could have applied for a Federal Firearms License and purchased a fully automatic M4. Additionally, the gun thread has no shortage of people claiming that the AR15 is an elite piece of killing equipment. Why would you want anything else if you are up against 4 people trying to kill you.
Again. The guy with the shotgun is dead. Has been for a week. The guy with the AR15 is still alive. But, with a gunshot wound to the stomach. Even being outnumbered, two of the perps are dead. The others ran away and were caught. Who would you say won the battle?
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
New Zealand's laws and subsequent buyback program has removed more than 3,200 semi-auto weapons from their 4.5 million populace in the past month and a half.
While there was considered to be 1.2-1.5 million firearms, that figure includes all types of weapons. And semi-autos are considered to be rarer than shotguns, hunting/long rifles and especially pistols. *** By comparison the US has 270-400 million citizen firearms and 325 million people.
While there was considered to be 1.2-1.5 million firearms, that figure includes all types of weapons. And semi-autos are considered to be rarer than shotguns, hunting/long rifles and especially pistols. *** By comparison the US has 270-400 million citizen firearms and 325 million people.
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
Sheriff Bart
Footballguy
Does one need to pick up a gun in order to read and understand statistics?
Disclaimer: just being a devil's advocate here... this country has MUCH larger issues than gun control we need to focus on - the gun control topic only has two purposes:
1) Distraction from larger, more important issues
2) Get a few votes from people stupid enough to be single issue voters
KCitons
Footballguy
Does one need to be shot at, or shoot at another person, to read and understand the effectiveness of weapons, ammo, and tactics?
There are a lot of single issue voters here. Be it guns or anything else.
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
KCitons
Footballguy
Sure.
But, we train our military and our police to handle high stress situations without them ever having been shot at, or shooting at someone.
Does the data and statistics used to train them count for anything?
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
I have not argued otherwise so I am unsure why you need to make this point, but sure, I concede it has value. Now, I'll ask you a question, those folks training our police and military, folks like me BTW, though not any longer, do you think they had only theoretical knowledge, or do you think those institutions seek instructors with real life experience?
KCitons
Footballguy
I would assume both.
Mass shootings would be an example. Training has evolved over time. But, early training didn't have the real life experience to draw from. Each building had unique problems to deal with. Therefor, it was theoretical knowledge.
A question for you. Based on your posts, are you former military or LE?
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
In the course of my life and legal career I have worked for the DOD though I was not military. I have been assigned to two Police Departments as their Police Legal Advisor as I worked for various governments. I have been certified to do training for FLETC involving Firearms, Use of Force, Pursuit, and Search and Seizure. Primarily I was a Prosecutor but in a 35 year career one does many things, and I had some experiences before graduating law school. The last two years, well I have been addressing election issues and purchasing matters. It has been three years since I taught LEO and a quarter of a century since I set foot on any military base.
KCitons
Footballguy
During that time have you been shot at, or fired at someone, in a life or death situation?
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
