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? (4 Viewers)

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
rockaction said:
Oh, I don't know how much we disagree on the gun issue. I'm talking broadly. My take on the gun issue is a lot like you just mentioned and that the "well-regulated militia" featured so prominently and textually in the predicate of the sentence ought mean something. That's a huge reason I'm so tepid on guns and gun control and you often won't find me arguing it, though I can sure give it a good defense if called upon.  
Click to expand...
Overall, though, constitutional rights haven't proven to be inalienable or unassailable.   Look at the current attack on abortion, which is really an attack on the implied right of privacy.   Cost/benefit analysis is always going to be a significant driving force, since the breadth of our rights changes with the makeup of each court and their agenda at that point in time.   Unfortunately, the question of who benefits isn't always answered on the side of the people.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
-fish- said:
Overall, though, constitutional rights haven't proven to be inalienable or unassailable.   Look at the current attack on abortion, which is really an attack on implied right of privacy.   Cost/benefit analysis is always going to be a significant driving force, since the breadth of our rights changes with the makeup of each court and their agenda at that point in time.   Unfortunately, the question of who benefits isn't always answered on the side of the people.
Click to expand...
Well, they're not inalienable or unassailable in practice, but they might be in theory. I do agree with you, though, that c/b is going to be a driving force in the policy considerations given to each aspect of the right granted. That's modern jurisprudence. Practically speaking, the weight given to policy considerations changes with, as you point out, the makeup and agenda of the court at that particular point in time. 

Bear with me, though: I think what I'm trying to do is sort of delineate where natural or plain rights end and the more modern considerations of policy, law and economics, balancing tests, and pluralism -- all those competing concerns come into play. That doesn't really happen until the legal realists of the late twenties and early thirties rise to prominence. So, best I understand, there's a pretty clear demarcation between that which is unassailable and inalienable in theory and that which came to be practiced. 

I'm trying to cram a lot into a few sentences. I hope it's clear.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
rockaction said:
Well, they're inalienable or unassailable in practice, but maybe not theory. I do agree with you, though, that c/b is going to be a driving force in the policy considerations given to each aspect of the right granted. That's modern jurisprudence. Practically speaking, the weight given to policy considerations changes with, as you point out, the makeup and agenda of the court at that particular point in time. 

Bear with me, though: I think what I'm trying to do is sort of delineate where natural or plain rights end and the more modern considerations of policy, law and economics, balancing tests, and pluralism -- all those competing concerns come into play. That doesn't really happen until the legal realists of the late twenties and early thirties rise to prominence. So, best I understand, there's a pretty clear demarcation between that which is unassailable and inalienable in theory and that which came to be practiced. 

I'm trying to cram a lot into a few sentences. I hope it's clear.  
Click to expand...
I do enjoy your discourse with Fish.  I also like it when Henry Ford, Yankee Fan and Cowboy 8 chime in.  Also Lester Burnham, though I have not seen my GB around in some time. :obc:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ditkaless Wonders said:
I do enjoy your discourse with Fish.  I also like it when henry Ford, Yankee Fan and Cowboy 8 chime in.  Also Lester Burnham, though I have not seen my GB around in some time. :obc:
Click to expand...
Thanks, DW. I try and keep up or at least try to explain what I'm trying to say in a clear fashion, which doesn't always work because of the limited foundation and expression bestowed upon me. But I give it a go.  

 
BigSteelThrill said:
Its funny to hear the cigarette or car or whatever deflection pop up from you again when I click this thread link. 

The sun kills people and until you do something about the damn sun leave my guns alone!
Click to expand...
I've had more discussion on this subject than perhaps anyone else on this board. I don't think it's deflection. (which is what people here want to call it when you don't agree with them)

What is the benefit of cigarettes? If we want to weigh risk/rewards to determine if we should ban something.  You can't answer the question, because it would prove that we have things in our society (most of which are not protected by the Constitution) that have a greater risk than reward. To admit it, would take the air out of that argument. Which is why you deflect with an emoji. 

 
KCitons said:
I've had more discussion on this subject than perhaps anyone else on this board. I don't think it's deflection. (which is what people here want to call it when you don't agree with them)

What is the benefit of cigarettes? If we want to weigh risk/rewards to determine if we should ban something.  You can't answer the question, because it would prove that we have things in our society (most of which are not protected by the Constitution) that have a greater risk than reward. To admit it, would take the air out of that argument. Which is why you deflect with an emoji. 
Click to expand...
We dont have to answer the sun, cigarettes, cars, seat-belts or pit-bulls to discuss and find answers for our gun stupidity.

 
BigSteelThrill said:
We dont have to answer the sun, cigarettes, cars, seat-belts or pit-bulls to discuss and find answers for our gun stupidity.
Click to expand...
That's because you can't. It defies your own logic when speaking about guns. 

That makes you stupid about everything except guns? Good job. 

 
Misfit said:
Statistically you are more dangerous, but you've been shown this about 5000 times.  You deny reality.
Click to expand...
nope

give me a fully auto rifle and I'd not be any more dangerous than I am right now - which is zero danger to anyone

you give that Glock to someone who's wanting to hurt someone else? that would be adding danger .... but so too if you give them a knife, an AR15, a shotgun, a Uhaul filled with fertilizer or an pilots license ........... its not the object

so that answer to the OP's question why would anyone need an "assault" rifle? why not is the answer. I'll have another - fun to shoot, great for killing varmints and you'll see police using them for defense all the time, they make great in home defense weapons for some people. 

they are just a semi-auto rifle - no more, no less .... 79 pages and most here don't understand that to be honest :(

 
Misfit said:
Yes.

Again, statistically you are adding danger to the situation.  Didn't you tell a story a while ago about an accident you or a family member had with a gun?
Click to expand...
How is he adding danger to the situation? 

Does storing the gun in a locked safe play any role? 

 
Since SC owns other guns already. Is adding a 6th or 7th, or 10th gun make him more or less dangerous?

(Statistically of course)

 
KCitons said:
How is he adding danger to the situation? 

Does storing the gun in a locked safe play any role? 
Click to expand...
We've seen the the multitudes of research showing that having a gun in the house and the likelihood of dying by a gunshot wound.   A gunowner puts everyone at risk -- but gunowners like your "feelings" over the truth.  Its very "religious" in that way.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BigSteelThrill said:
We've seen the the multitudes of research showing that having a gun in the house and the likelihood of dying by a gunshot wound.   You put everyone at risk -- but you like your "feelings" over the truth.  Its very "religious" in that way.
Click to expand...
You don't know me. Why would you presume to know what I feel or my religion? 

 
BigSteelThrill said:
Everyone adds another chance of a mistake, like leaving it loaded. Or it accidentally going off or being found.
Click to expand...


Misfit said:
Of course storing a gun in a locked safe is going to play a role.
Click to expand...
If the gun is properly stored, then the chances of accidental shooting goes way down. 

Therefor it's not the ownership if the gun that makes the situation more dangerous. It's that lack of proper storage that makes the situation more dangerous? 

 
BigSteelThrill said:
Everyone adds another chance of a mistake, like leaving it loaded. Or it accidentally going off or being found.
Click to expand...
I've never met SC. But I'm going to assume that he only has two hands. You can't use all of them in at the same time. So, there becomes a diminishing effectiveness as the number of guns goes up. 

 
KCitons said:
Deflecting? 

You can't have an honest conversation. So you attack the person. 
Click to expand...
Wat?  You asked how I knew about feelings and its religious-esque denial of the truth.   I {s}{/s} your part to not have it directed at you. But in general.  Than you say something about attacking the person, when your brought you/KC to the forefront and I attempted to remove you personally.

jesus christ on a cracker

 
BigSteelThrill said:
Wat?  You asked how I knew about feelings and its religious-esque denial of the truth.   I {s}{/s} your part to not have it directed at you. But in general.  Than you say something about attacking the person, when your brought you/KC to the forefront and I attempted to remove you personally.

jesus christ on a cracker
Click to expand...
Your words. 

BigSteelThrill said:
We've seen the the multitudes of research showing that having a gun in the house and the likelihood of dying by a gunshot wound.   You put everyone at risk -- but you like your "feelings" over the truth.  Its very "religious" in that way.
Click to expand...
You have an issue with generalizing all gun owners as being the same. I hadn't fired any of my guns in a year. (and hadn't taken any of them out of the safe since last deer season) I did go to the range a couple of weeks ago with my Marine son when he was back on leave. I guess that's that same as some Catholics that go to church only on Christmas. 

We've discussed the truth in the other thread. The truth is that we do have risk/reward with a lot of things. You failed to explain the truth behind things like cigarettes. Nowhere in the Constitution is there any mention of cigarettes. We know the net negative they have on society. But, I can still buy them on every street corner. 

You also fail to accept the truth that alcohol plays a huge role in violence. (not just gun violence) I've posted those numbers in the other thread as well. And that's before we take into account any deaths caused by dui's. Yet, we still see the risk/reward as being a net positive with alcohol. Is that "feelings" over truth? 

I know you think this is deflecting. It's not. It's comparing the risk/reward of one thing to another. If those deaths are acceptable risk, then I don't see gun deaths being any different. 

 
You guys are making some pretty bad assumptions about gun owners and attributing those bad assumptions to all or many gun owners.  No gun owner I know leaves loaded guns lying around the house.  None.  Gun owners are inherently the most responsible people when it comes to guns.  Are there outliers at the margins?  Of course.  But they aren’t representations of the gun owners I know at all, myself included.

 
KCitons said:
Your words. 

You have an issue with generalizing all gun owners as being the same. I hadn't fired any of my guns in a year. (and hadn't taken any of them out of the safe since last deer season) I did go to the range a couple of weeks ago with my Marine son when he was back on leave. I guess that's that same as some Catholics that go to church only on Christmas. 

We've discussed the truth in the other thread. The truth is that we do have risk/reward with a lot of things. You failed to explain the truth behind things like cigarettes. Nowhere in the Constitution is there any mention of cigarettes. We know the net negative they have on society. But, I can still buy them on every street corner. 

You also fail to accept the truth that alcohol plays a huge role in violence. (not just gun violence) I've posted those numbers in the other thread as well. And that's before we take into account any deaths caused by dui's. Yet, we still see the risk/reward as being a net positive with alcohol. Is that "feelings" over truth? 

I know you think this is deflecting. It's not. It's comparing the risk/reward of one thing to another. If those deaths are acceptable risk, then I don't see gun deaths being any different. 
Click to expand...
You was generalized in that case, its meant for anyone with a gun in their house.  I shouldnt have left it so ambiguous - thus I just edited. Even later that I {strike} the direct to KCitons parts out. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Misfit said:
I guess if the gun is permanently kept in a locked safe there would be no added danger, but why own a gun if you never take it out of the safe?  Once it's removed from the safe and loaded, the situation instantly becomes more dangerous.
Click to expand...
Okay. I'll concede that it becomes more dangerous than if it was in the safe. 

How much more dangerous does it become? I've sited the number of deer hunters each year. And the very small number of deaths. That would lead me to believe that intent is more of a factor and not just the inherent danger of a firearm. 

 
unckeyherb said:
You guys are making some pretty bad assumptions about gun owners and attributing those bad assumptions to all or many gun owners.  No gun owner I know leaves loaded guns lying around the house.  None.  Gun owners are inherently the most responsible people when it comes to guns.  Are there outliers at the margins?  Of course.  But they aren’t representations of the gun owners I know at all, myself included.
Click to expand...
I agree with that about nearly every gun owner I know.  They also put everyone at far greater risk, especially in their own house.

 
Misfit said:
Intent definitely plays a role, but there are also accidents that occur.  There were two families in my town growing up that lost kids because they accidentally shot themselves handling their families' guns that were left out.  
Click to expand...
That's a terrible thing to have happen. But, we have high security boxes with locks on them to keep this from happening. I had guns in my house the entire time my kids were growing up. I have a lot of friends that did as well. We all keep our guns locked up. No accidental shootings. The link I just posted shows that most of the deaths related to hunting were accidental shootings. Which, while guns are dangerous, there are going to be accidents. It's the same with cars or airplanes. I made the same argument about driving while drunk and was told that intent on the part of the driver was a key factor. Not sure why we don't apply that to guns as well.

 
unckeyherb said:
You guys are making some pretty bad assumptions about gun owners and attributing those bad assumptions to all or many gun owners.  No gun owner I know leaves loaded guns lying around the house.  None.  Gun owners are inherently the most responsible people when it comes to guns.  Are there outliers at the margins?  Of course.  But they aren’t representations of the gun owners I know at all, myself included.
Click to expand...
SC leaves a loaded gun in his glove compartment, or so he claims.  He also says he does not securely store his guns.

 
unckeyherb said:
So like I said.  Outliers.
Click to expand...
Hard to tell.   There really aren't many studies on how responsible gun owners are compared to other gun owners, but there is 11x more risk that you or a member of your family will be shot if you own a gun.   If most gun owners are responsible, that's a tremendous increase in risk.

 
-fish- said:
Hard to tell.   There really aren't many studies on how responsible gun owners are compared to other gun owners, but there is 11x more risk that you or a member of your family will be shot if you own a gun.   If most gun owners are responsible, that's a tremendous increase in risk.
Click to expand...


Misfit said:
With the amount of shootings we have in this country, we're not dealing with a few outliers.
Click to expand...
This goes against @BigSteelThrill's concern that things are more dangerous because of the guns. If he doesn't have a gun in his home, he should be good. 

 
KCitons said:
We are flattered that you are using your last moments to post here. 

You must not ride in cars, or fly in planes, or cross streets, or go out in the rain. 
Click to expand...
Love your style of argumentation. You definitely deserve to be out the same limb as uber-troll stealthycat.

 
BigSteelThrill said:
Love your style of argumentation. You definitely deserve to be out the same limb as uber-troll stealthycat.
Click to expand...
I'm just expanding on your concerns. Not sure what more you would want. 

But, you and @Misfit keep making grand generalizations and absolutes about gun owners. That seems to be working for you. 

 
Misfit said:
I am not making grand generalizations about gun owners beyond what the statistics show.  Are there responsible gun owners?  Absolutely.  The problem is that there are far too many irresponsible gun owners. and their carelessness has the ability to permanently affect me and my family.
Click to expand...
And you're solution?

 
KCitons said:
I'm just expanding on your concerns. Not sure what more you would want. 

But, you and @Misfit keep making grand generalizations and absolutes about gun owners. That seems to be working for you. 
Click to expand...
Concentrate on the GUN concern.  Particularly in this thread.

I'm not in this thread a ton, bit every time there seems to be any back and forth you drops... what about the sun!  What about obesity?  A disgusting style on communication.

 
BigSteelThrill said:
Concentrate on the GUN concern.  Particularly in this thread.

I'm not in this thread a ton, bit every time there seems to be any back and forth you drops... what about the sun!  What about obesity?  A disgusting style on communication.
Click to expand...
Disgusting? 

Sorry you can't handle a conversation that encompasses more than one very specific thing. 

I'll try to dumb it down moving forward. 

 
KCitons said:
Disgusting? 

Sorry you can't handle a conversation that encompasses more than one very specific thing. 

I'll try to dumb it down moving forward. 
Click to expand...
You already dumbed it down as far as it can get.  You keep banging the same gong over and over for months.

Whats about X? What about Y? What about Z?  A: This is not the XYZ thread.

 
BigSteelThrill said:
Concentrate on the GUN concern.  Particularly in this thread.

I'm not in this thread a ton, bit every time there seems to be any back and forth you drops... what about the sun!  What about obesity?  A disgusting style on communication.
Click to expand...
Concentrate on whether or not "anyone" would "need" and assault rifle. 

That's the topic of this thread. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
New York Enacts Ridiculous New Gun Laws: "I’m A NYC Liberal, And I Want A Gun" (7/3/22 20:29 PST)
Replies
28
Views
787
FairWarning
FairWarning

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
Top