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

14 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Why are you taking this single issue vote angle? Do you make the same claim in the abortion, tariff, health care, immigration, or any number of other threads? No. Why do it here? 

We've been down this road a thousand times. There are lots of things that we have the increases risks to everyone. But, we don't ban them. So, your argument is pointless. 

Because it seems like gun nuts and anti-abortion people are the two largest contingents of single issue voters.

Um, wat? You know smoking is banned pretty much everywhere that it can affect people second hand, right? Smoking is only allowed in designated areas. Maybe that's the way to handle this... Alaska could be the new gun nut paradise. J/k, I wouldn't do that to Alaska. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, FF Ninja said:

Because it seems like gun nuts and anti-abortion people are the two largest contingents of single issue voters.

Um, wat? You know smoking is banned pretty much everywhere that it can affect people second hand, right? Smoking is only allowed in designated areas. Maybe that's the way to handle this... Alaska could be the new gun nut paradise. J/k, I wouldn't do that to Alaska. 

You can still smoke in Vegas casinos. I'm sure there are other places as well. We banned the use of cigarettes in certain areas. Hasn't that been done with guns as well. I see signs that say "No Smoking" and signs that say "Firearms Prohibited". 

We didn't ban the sale or the manufacturing of cigarettes. We just told people to smoke in their own home. I wonder how many spouses and kids are still suffering from 2nd hand smoke? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, FF Ninja said:

Because it seems like gun nuts and anti-abortion people are the two largest contingents of single issue voters.

Per @timschochet there isn't really such a thing as a single issue voter.

Also, can you specifically define "gun nut" in this context?

Share this post


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

Per @timschochet there isn't really such a thing as a single issue voter.

Also, can you specifically define "gun nut" in this context?

Tim made an unsupported statement involving a false generality?  Shocking.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, -fish- said:

Tim made an unsupported statement involving a false generality?  Shocking.  

Speaking of false generalities, “Also, can you specifically define "gun nut" in this context?”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, unckeyherb said:

Per @timschochet there isn't really such a thing as a single issue voter.

Also, can you specifically define "gun nut" in this context?

 

17 hours ago, timschochet said:

Not really.

I studied Robert Dahl (founder of modern "pluralism" studies in college) and he explained how single issue voting was effective in local elections and decision making. (For example, if a small group of voters want a certain street paved, they can effectively trade their vote for a politician willing to pave the street. This gives that small group power far beyond their numbers, but that power is very temporary: only until the issue is resolved.) But you rarely see single issue voters for national elections. Almost all voters have priorities, but that's not the same thing.

There are also certain issues in which voters will not budge on: abortion is perhaps the best example. Millions of liberals will never vote for a pro-life candidate, while millions of conservatives will never vote for a pro-choice candidate. But again this is not the same as single issue voting, because the result of this particular conviction on both sides is a static situation in which we never get pro-choice Republicans or pro-life Democrats. So people rarely choose candidates based on abortion.

No, guns are the only single issue item I can think of, honestly, and it's only on one side: extremist gun owners who believe that ANY restriction on firearms is a violation of the Second Amendment, which appears to be the only amendment to the Constitution that they care about. I regard their fanaticism on this issue to be an aberration of our political system. We're poisoned by it.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, FF Ninja said:

 

 

No, I get that he said that. He makes a very compelling case as to why there’s no such thing as a single issue voter right above that line. He then ignores that line of reasoning when he wants to call out the pro-gun side.  It’s a very Tim kind of thing to do.  

 

ETA:   I’m also still waiting to find out if I meet the accepted definition of “gun nut”.

Edited by unckeyherb
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did any one come up with a convincing answer for the need for an assault rifle for civilians yet?

I mean, it's only been three years, so...

Share this post


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

Did any one come up with a convincing answer for the need for an assault rifle for civilians yet?

I mean, it's only been three years, so...

KCitons did, IMO.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

KCitons did, IMO.  

When he got "shot down" by DW? Or earlier?  

Share this post


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

When he got "shot down" by DW? Or earlier?  

I thought the simple argument that four armed invaders prompting a legitimate defense showed a legitimate potential need. 

From what I read, their back and forth was sort of painstaking, really. I guess I didn't read it carefully enough to note the objection. 

It doesn't come from a love of guns on my end so that doesn't color my opinion of the argument because as for regulation of assault rifles, that's actually my weakest Constitutional opinion that I have. Of almost any of them. Like tim points out, we're already effectively disarmed against our own gov't and I see no utile function other than the barest threat of defense when it comes to assault rifles. 

Edited by rockaction
edited for word choice and spelling, of all things
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

When he got "shot down" by DW? Or earlier?  

It was not my intent to shoot down his stance, just to trim some of the excess off of his stance.  That I would not choose that platform for my home defense weapon, and that I find no need of it for the activities I engage in does not mean it is not a capable and versatile weapon system.  I confess that I do have concern that it has proliferated to the extent that it has.  I wonder at the perceived need for it.  I suspect the appeal is not so much need based as desire based, like one might have for a powerful car or oversized truck or a stereo system that can explode my eardrums.  I hope owners of each are responsible and will not adversely effect me, though I know that statistically some will.  That is, I suppose, the price of having these freedoms.  That there is a debate about that price, an ongoing cost/benefit analysis, is to be expected.  The conversation goes on, hopefully respectfully, but sometimes acrimoniously.

Edited by Ditkaless Wonders
  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I thought the simple argument that four armed invaders prompting a legitimate defense showed a legitimate potential need. 

At what cost though?  If the probability of collateral damage (say the gun being used for other things than defending ones home against armed invaders) far outstrips the likelihood of using the weapon "legitimately", then the balance should be to not allow the gun to be sold to the public.

For every weapon used in a home defense situation like the one we've been discussing, there are probably 5-10 similar weapons that are burgled or sold on the black market to people that wish to commit crimes with them.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The Z Machine said:

At what cost though?  If the probability of collateral damage (say the gun being used for other things than defending ones home against armed invaders) far outstrips the likelihood of using the weapon "legitimately", then the balance should be to not allow the gun to be sold to the public.

For every weapon used in a home defense situation like the one we've been discussing, there are probably 5-10 similar weapons that are burgled or sold on the black market to people that wish to commit crimes with them.  

Yeah, I'd counter that by saying that an aggregate cost/benefit analysis takes a backseat to an Amendment whose primary concern is the individual.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, The Z Machine said:

At what cost though?  If the probability of collateral damage (say the gun being used for other things than defending ones home against armed invaders) far outstrips the likelihood of using the weapon "legitimately", then the balance should be to not allow the gun to be sold to the public.

For every weapon used in a home defense situation like the one we've been discussing, there are probably 5-10 similar weapons that are burgled or sold on the black market to people that wish to commit crimes with them.  

 You really think that for every one AR that is used to defend a home, 10 are stolen and used on the street in crimes?   On what are you basing that opinion? 

Share this post


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

 You really think that for every one AR that is used to defend a home, 10 are stolen and used on the street in crimes?   On what are you basing that opinion? 

Seems a reasonable estimate if ARs are similar to other firearms, though a little off on aggregate (not just AR and not just home invasion) statistics. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, approximately 67,000 crimes are foiled by the use of a firearm every year.  Roughly 230,000 firearms are stolen every year.  

  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

Seems a reasonable estimate if ARs are similar to other firearms, though a little off on aggregate (not just AR and not just home invasion) statistics. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, approximately 67,000 crimes are foiled by the use of a firearm every year.  Roughly 230,000 firearms are stolen every year.  

Home invasion burglars around my parts are seeking, in order, drugs, money and then guns.  Why?, they have direct use for them.  These are followed by electronics and jewelry, why?, because they are valuable, but are a pain to possess as they take extra steps to move, to pawn or fence to convert them to money, drugs and guns.  An argument can be made that if one is a known gun owner that this makes ones home a target when they are not around as it contains desirable merchandise.

Edited by Ditkaless Wonders
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Home invasion burglars around my parts are seeking, in order, drugs, money and then guns.  Why, they have direct use for them.  These are followed by electronics and jewelry, why, because they are valuable, but are a pain to possess as they take extra steps to move, to pawn or fence to convert them to money, drugs and guns.  An argument can be made that if one is a known gun owner that this makes ones home a target when they are not around as it contains desirable merchandise.

Exactly. The overwhelming majority of those guns that are stolen (something like 75%, I believe) are stolen during burglaries. 

Share this post


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

Exactly. The overwhelming majority of those guns that are stolen (something like 75%, I believe) are stolen during burglaries. 

So very few actually taken from cold, dead hands.  Also very few taken by government, but not an insignificant number since we do tend to forfeit weapons used in crimes.  My jurisdiction, for instance, has a yearly contract for shredding firearms.

 

Hey, remember the gun buy back programs of the 90"s.  Me too.  Damn we use to get a lot of Tech 9's and a lot of Rugers.

Share this post


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

So very few actually taken from cold, dead hands.  Also very few taken by government, but not an insignificant number since we do tend to forfeit weapons used in crimes.  My jurisdiction, for instance, has a yearly contract for shredding firearms.

 

Hey, remember the gun buy back programs of the 90"s.  Me too.  Damn we use to get a lot of Tech 9's and a lot of Rugers.

Rugers? What sort?

My current handgun is a Ruger, never struck me as a gun for the sort who buy TEC-9s. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, unckeyherb said:

No, I get that he said that. He makes a very compelling case as to why there’s no such thing as a single issue voter right above that line. He then ignores that line of reasoning when he wants to call out the pro-gun side.  It’s a very Tim kind of thing to do.  

 

ETA:   I’m also still waiting to find out if I meet the accepted definition of “gun nut”.

I think you read me wrong. I never wrote that there was no such thing as a single issue voter. I wrote that in terms of national elections it was rare, and that certain extreme pro NRA types were really the only example I could think of. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, unckeyherb said:

 You really think that for every one AR that is used to defend a home, 10 are stolen and used on the street in crimes?   On what are you basing that opinion? 

Total speculation on my part.  I would like to research stats, but I don't have time right now.

Share this post


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

Rugers? What sort?

My current handgun is a Ruger, never struck me as a gun for the sort who buy TEC-9s. 

Their semiautos.  They were fairly inexpensive back then and my area had a Gander Mountain Sports which constantly had them on sale for some reason. Their pistols were and are better built and more in line with other manufacturers prices so we rarely saw those.  Yep, in the 90's you could get a Glock chambered in .40 for $500 but a Ruger chambered in .40 for $230.

Edited by Ditkaless Wonders
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Z Machine said:

Total speculation on my part.  I would like to research stats, but I don't have time right now.

You also don’t have the money, because single issue voters have caused the government to stop all research on this subject matter. 

But I share your speculation. AR-15s being necessary for home defense  strikes me as about as likely as a solar eclipse. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

You also don’t have the money, because single issue voters have caused the government to stop all research on this subject matter. 

But I share your speculation. AR-15s being necessary for home defense  strikes me as about as likely as a solar eclipse

Several dozen in my lifetime.  Now Haley's comet, or the comet Hale-Bopp or the comet Kahotek, that is where I would have drawn the analogy, still, to each their own.  there are no verifiable right answers, only impressions and opinions.

Share this post


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

Several dozen in my lifetime.  Now Haley's comet, or the comet Hale-Bopp or the comet Kahotek, that is where I would have drawn the analogy, still, to each their own.  there are no verifiable right answers, only impressions and opinions.

Sure. It happens sometimes. I would never claim that it never happens. But it’s pretty rare. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Sure. It happens sometimes. I would never claim that it never happens. But it’s pretty rare. 

Rare enough that I make a point of noting it when it does happen, to be certain.

Share this post


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

My bad. I misremembered the spelling of Kahoutek.

For a second I thought you misspelled Cthulhu....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, msommer said:

For a second I thought you misspelled Cthulhu....

Nope, the disappointing over-hypoed comet, not the totally awesome God Destroyer, though there is every chance I would have misspelled that name too.

Edited by Ditkaless Wonders

Share this post


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

I think you read me wrong. I never wrote that there was no such thing as a single issue voter. I wrote that in terms of national elections it was rare, and that certain extreme pro NRA types were really the only example I could think of. 

Perhaps I did read you wrong.  I'm wondering why you believe the below is true for pro-lifers/pro-choicers, but not for "extreme pro NRA types."  The same logic should shake out regarding gun issues, but you seem to think the opposite.

Also, pro-life people that I know give far more weight to that specific belief when voting across the board than pro NRA folks.  Anecdotal as it may be.  

"But again this is not the same as single issue voting, because the result of this particular conviction on both sides is a static situation in which we never get pro-choice Republicans or pro-life Democrats. So people rarely choose candidates based on abortion."

Share this post


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

Seems a reasonable estimate if ARs are similar to other firearms, though a little off on aggregate (not just AR and not just home invasion) statistics. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, approximately 67,000 crimes are foiled by the use of a firearm every year.  Roughly 230,000 firearms are stolen every year.  

So 3:1.  Not 10:1. 

And how many AR 15's are actually used to kill people?  Because that is what this really boils down to.  In 2016 there were 7,100 handgun deaths and 374 rifle deaths.  That's all rifles, not just AR 15's.  The idea that AR 15's are being stolen and sold on the black market to be used in crimes, at any rate that should give pause, is not based in reality.  

 

Quote

At what cost though?  If the probability of collateral damage (say the gun being used for other things than defending ones home against armed invaders) far outstrips the likelihood of using the weapon "legitimately", then the balance should be to not allow the gun to be sold to the public.

 

Share this post


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

So 3:1.  Not 10:1. 

And how many AR 15's are actually used to kill people?  Because that is what this really boils down to.  In 2016 there were 7,100 handgun deaths and 374 rifle deaths.  That's all rifles, not just AR 15's.  The idea that AR 15's are being stolen and sold on the black market to be used in crimes, at any rate that should give pause, is not based in reality.  

You seem to equate number of crimes with number of deaths.  Is there a reason for that?

Share this post


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

You also don’t have the money, because single issue voters have caused the government to stop all research on this subject matter. 

But I share your speculation. AR-15s being necessary for home defense  strikes me as about as likely as a solar eclipse. 

He wasn't speculating on the efficacy of an AR for home defense.  He was speculating that for every one AR used to defend a home, ten are stolen and used for crimes.  

Share this post


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

You seem to equate number of crimes with number of deaths.  Is there a reason for that?

Because we are talking about guns.  And deaths would seem to be related to a tool designed to kill. 

But I'm willing to reconsider my point.  Are AR 15's typically used in any crimes more than handguns?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Henry Ford said:

Rugers? What sort?

My current handgun is a Ruger, never struck me as a gun for the sort who buy TEC-9s. 

I have a Mark III target pistol.  While I love to shoot it, I cannot see it fetching much on the black market.  I can't see it earning much street cred either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why does anyone need a car that goes faster than 20 mph ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Misfit said:

To kill people?

Can't think of any other possible reasons.

What about if its a convertible and you need to outrun hungry cheetahs hoping to snack on you?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Misfit said:

To kill people?

Can't think of any other possible reasons.

an object doesn't make anyone do anything

you know that right ?>

 

I'm trading for a Glock 19 tomorrow .... has 2 clips and a 31 round clip

 

I am no more dangerous having that gun than I was not having it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, unckeyherb said:

I have a Mark III target pistol.  While I love to shoot it, I cannot see it fetching much on the black market.  I can't see it earning much street cred either.

I have a GP100 .357.  It's pretty credible.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is it with the left's utter incapacity to view any right as anything but a cost/benefit analysis or a balancing test? 

Sometimes there is no test. #### might be dangerous, but depending on constitutional interpretation, it might not matter. It might be an unabridgeable right. .  

Edited by rockaction

Share this post


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

What is it with the left's utter incapacity to view any right as anything but a cost/benefit analysis or a balancing test? 

Sometimes there is no test. #### might be dangerous, but depending on constitutional interpretation, it might not matter. It might be an unbridgeable right. .  

Even then the Constitution can be amended.

It is the nature of the left to push to change.  It is the nature of the right to push against change.  Gotta have them both, or we're screwed.

Share this post


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

Even then the Constitution can be amended.

It is the nature of the left to push to change.  It is the nature of the right to push against change.  Gotta have them both, or we're screwed.

True. My lament was not well put. I should have said that rights aren't necessarily contingent upon stats, cost/benefit analyses, or even balancing tests. At times, they exist because they're granted by the Constitution as inalienable and unassailable unless further amended or repealed. 

To base the entire structure of rights on balancing and c/b analysis is certainly a valid jurisprudential exercise, but it is not necessarily determinant. 

Share this post


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

True. My lament was not well put. I should have said that rights aren't necessarily contingent upon stats, cost/benefit analyses, or even balancing tests. At times, they exist because they're granted by the Constitution as inalienable and unassailable unless further amended or repealed

To base the entire structure of rights on balancing and c/b analysis is certainly a valid jurisprudential exercise, but it is not necessarily determinant. 

Sure, but how do you know whether to amend or repeal unless you do a cost/benefit analysis?

Share this post


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

True. My lament was not well put. I should have said that rights aren't necessarily contingent upon stats, cost/benefit analyses, or even balancing tests. At times, they exist because they're granted by the Constitution as inalienable and unassailable unless further amended or repealed. 

To base the entire structure of rights on balancing and c/b analysis is certainly a valid jurisprudential exercise, but it is not necessarily determinant. 

I'd be more inclined to agree with you if the Supreme Court hadn't ruled that half of the words in the second amendment are just meaningless throat-clearing.

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.