Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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

I'll post the same thing I do in all of these threads. By way of background I worked at the NRA in the 90s, right when all the infamous "Jack-booted Thugs" flap was going on. I worked on the hunting and safety side as opposed to the ILA, which is the lobbying arm. I own 2 guns currently but don't keep any ammunition in the house since I have a young son and think it's safer that way. 

In short, I don't think people need semi-automatic guns (I won't read the thread but I assume it immediately devolved into an argument over what constitutes an assault weapon so I'll just keep my comments directed at all semi-auto) for legitimate sporting purposes and further that there is a vastly diminishing return on semi-automatics for defense purposes. 

I also don't think there is a definitive 2nd Amendment right to own/carry semi-automatics. The vast majority of people including gun owners currently recognize a distinction between fully-automatic weapons and 2A protection, so the line is somewhat arbitrary as the amendment was written before any of today's modern arms existed. So the question really should be about the marginal value of weapons for legitimate reasons vs. the risk of misuse. As stated above, I think the marginal value is small beyond personal preference. At a minimum I believe we can and should effectively ban semi-automatic rifles and I would personally like to see that extended to handguns as well.

Edited by Arsenal of Doom
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 4.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

to take out modern superanimals, like the flying squirrel or the electric eel.

Worth it even if it saves only one life imo.

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 shoo

1 minute ago, Arsenal of Doom said:

I'll post the same thing I do in all of these threads. By way of background I worked at the NRA in the 90s, right when all the infamous "Jack-booted Thugs" flap was going on. I worked on the hunting and safety side as opposed to the ILA, which is the lobbying arm. I own 2 guns currently but don't keep any ammunition in the house since I have a young son and think it's safer that way. 

In short, I don't think people need semi-automatic guns (I won't read the thread but I assume it immediately devolved into an argument over what constitutes an assault weapon so I'll just keep my comments directed at all semi-auto) for legitimate sporting purposes and further that there is a vastly diminishing return on semi-automatics for defense purposes. 

I also don't think there is a definitive 2nd Amendment right to own/carry semi-automatics. The vast majority of people including gun owners currently recognize a distinction between fully-automatic weapon and 2A protection, so the line is somewhat arbitrary as the amendment was written before any of today's modern arms existed. So the question really should be about the marginal value of weapons for legitimate reasons vs. the risk of misuse. As stated above, I think the marginal value is small beyond personal preference. At a minimum I believe we can and should effectively ban semi-automatic rifles at a minimum and I would personally like to see that extended that to handguns as well.

A single shot hand gun? Seriously?

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, ConnSKINS26 said:

Nobody cares, when some dip#### can go on the internet for 12 minutes and learn how to cheaply modify it into a killing machine. 

There are plenty of good arguments for owning many kinds of guns. There are zero good arguments (that have been presented so far) for not banning guns that can be modified into near approximations of fully automatic weaponry. That's the point of the thread.

Oh so we are changing the rules? When proven wrong you make up some scenario to try and prove you're right. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Captain Cranks said:

Exactly.  Gun-guy always tries to dominate the debate with the "I know more about guns and their nomenclature than you do and therefore I have a superior position."  All that noise does is kick up dust and deflect from the debate at hand.  

No, gun guy is trying to educate you because you guys don't even know what you're talking about.

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

Oh so we are changing the rules? When proven wrong you make up some scenario to try and prove you're right. 

What are you talking about? The intent behind this thread and the question it represented was clear. We've all heard the technical definitions thrown at us about the AR15, going back many shootings ago, and we still don't give a ####. Its not about labeling guns and putting them into proper categories, its about identifying the ones that have no place in a civilian's hands. Shotguns, cool. Rifles, cool. Handguns, fine. Those all have very real uses aside from "fun". A weapon that can be altered very easily to become something out of ####### Rambo? Not a single good argument has been made in this thread. Plenty of good arguments have been made for different guns, but not the ones this thread was created to talk about. Don't be intentionally thick.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ConnSKINS26 said:

Its not about labeling guns and putting them into proper categories, its about identifying the ones that have no place in a civilian's hands. 

How are you going decide who gets what when you won't label and put guns in proper categories? Do you see how stupid that sounds? You won't take the time to actually learn about the thing you're so quick to ban.

 

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

How are you going decide who gets what when you won't label and put guns in proper categories? Do you see how stupid that sounds? You won't take the time to actually learn about the thing you're so quick to ban.

 

Did you watch the Bill O'Reilly clip I posted a while back?  He covers this.

Edited by Amused to Death
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, fantasycurse42 said:

Apparently anything. I have no understanding about them or what they are used for, verbatim what you wrote. I'm sure there are others like me, we need enlightening from A-Z.

Its just a semi automatic rifle.  The Ruger 10/22 has been around since 1964.  It is also a semi automatic rifle with a magazine and basically the same size round (diameter .22 vs .223) and nobody is calling for the 10/22 to be banned for private sale.  All rifles can be used to hunt for food, get rid of varmints, can be used for self defense, can be used by military or law enforcement, could be used against a tyrannous government, and unfortunately could be used to harm people.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Arsenal of Doom said:

No, I think revolvers are fine. IMO better guns for most who want to own a handgun for defense anyway. 

I have to disagree with you there.

Semiautomatic shotguns have valid uses too.

I don't like bolt action rifles. Takes too long to line up a second shot if you don't get a clean kill.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Arsenal of Doom said:

No, I think revolvers are fine. IMO better guns for most who want to own a handgun for defense anyway. 

Empty that revolver and check it a few times to make sure its empty.  Now I want you to take that revolver and have someone grab ahold of the cylinder and try to fire it more than once and see what happens.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, JHuber77 said:

Its just a semi automatic rifle.  The Ruger 10/22 has been around since 1964.  It is also a semi automatic rifle with a magazine and basically the same size round (diameter .22 vs .223) and nobody is calling for the 10/22 to be banned for private sale.  All rifles can be used to hunt for food, get rid of varmints, can be used for self defense, can be used by military or law enforcement, could be used against a tyrannous government, and unfortunately could be used to harm people.  

Don't think people care about the 10 bullet mag version (1964 version) but you slap on a 30 bullet magazine, add a folding stock and a pistol handle and then you are getting into different territory and I think people would want those banned or at least I would. Saying AR15 is short hand for what people don't want.

 

ETA - something like this http://www.ruger.com/products/1022Tactical/specSheets/1287.html

Edited by Redwes25
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, JHuber77 said:

Empty that revolver and check it a few times to make sure its empty.  Now I want you to take that revolver and have someone grab ahold of the cylinder and try to fire it more than once and see what happens.  

This falls into the diminishing returns bucket to me. You can come up with scenarios where any gun would have an advantage over another type but IMO revolvers are going to cover 99 out of 100 situations that a semi-auto pistol will, while being less practical for someone who wants to injure a large number of people. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anti gunners need to chill. Once Hillary wins, the dems take the senate & the SCOTUS swings back to the left, all the problems will be squarely on the dems shoulders. I suggest not trying to confiscate guns. I'm not looking for a fight, but there are lot of people who are. Let's NOT force their hands.

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Arsenal of Doom said:

I'll post the same thing I do in all of these threads. By way of background I worked at the NRA in the 90s, right when all the infamous "Jack-booted Thugs" flap was going on. I worked on the hunting and safety side as opposed to the ILA, which is the lobbying arm. I own 2 guns currently but don't keep any ammunition in the house since I have a young son and think it's safer that way. 

In short, I don't think people need semi-automatic guns (I won't read the thread but I assume it immediately devolved into an argument over what constitutes an assault weapon so I'll just keep my comments directed at all semi-auto) for legitimate sporting purposes and further that there is a vastly diminishing return on semi-automatics for defense purposes. 

I also don't think there is a definitive 2nd Amendment right to own/carry semi-automatics. The vast majority of people including gun owners currently recognize a distinction between fully-automatic weapons and 2A protection, so the line is somewhat arbitrary as the amendment was written before any of today's modern arms existed. So the question really should be about the marginal value of weapons for legitimate reasons vs. the risk of misuse. As stated above, I think the marginal value is small beyond personal preference. At a minimum I believe we can and should effectively ban semi-automatic rifles and I would personally like to see that extended to handguns as well.

No fully automatic weapons?  Seriously? 

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

Did you watch the Bill O'Reilly clip I posted a while back?  He covers this.

No I didn't watch it. He covers how to classify guns without classifying them? connskinn already said he didn't care which tells me all I need to know. He just wants to ban scary sounding guns to hell with actually learning about them.

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

Anti gunners need to chill. Once Hillary wins, the dems take the senate & the SCOTUS swings back to the left, all the problems will be squarely on the dems shoulders. I suggest not trying to confiscate guns. I'm not looking for a fight, but there are lot of people who are. Let's NOT force their hands.

Well, if this is the case i am all for vetting them out rather then waiting for them to decide when they feel they should exercise their rights and shoot away. If "looking for a fight" would help us uncover 5% of the nuts with these guns, then let's go for it.

If you want something to be angry about or fight, maybe take up a cause that actually needs attention. there are plenty like the education system, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, JHuber77 said:

Empty that revolver and check it a few times to make sure its empty.  Now I want you to take that revolver and have someone grab ahold of the cylinder and try to fire it more than once and see what happens.  

Not getting into a lot of this debate...but, so what?

Do you think if someone grabs the cylinder of the gun, they will be holding it still after the first shot is fired?

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

No I didn't watch it. He covers how to classify guns without classifying them? connskinn already said he didn't care which tells me all I need to know. He just wants to ban scary sounding guns to hell with actually learning about them.

He was on Colbert last night (coincidentally - appearance was booked a month ago).  They had a frank discussion with both taking the expected sides.  But I found myself agreeing with a lot of what Bill was saying.  To paraphrase Bill:

  • Australia got a lot of things rights - we could learn some things
  • Contrary to popular belief (and the FFA) gun violence in the U.S. is going down, not up*
  • Agreed that "assault weapons" should be banned
  • Let congress decide what guns are appropriate for the public (I would hope this involves lots of input from experts on both sides of the issue)
  • Strong(er) mandatory federal minimum jail terms for crimes involving guns (10 year min)
  • Declare all out war against ISIS as that would free up resources to better detain suspected terrorists

*Bill's statement - I have not fact-checked.

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

Well, if this is the case i am all for vetting them out rather then waiting for them to decide when they feel they should exercise their rights and shoot away. If "looking for a fight" would help us uncover 5% of the nuts with these guns, then let's go for it.

If you want something to be angry about or fight, maybe take up a cause that actually needs attention. there are plenty like the education system, etc.

mmmmkay

You sure you are an anti gunner? You sound more like a 2A guy. ;)

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

Do gun advocates on here believe a one day (or even one hour?) wait purchase a AR15 would be acceptable?  

What's the point of the delay? Is there evidence of people committing violent crimes on their way home from the FFL?

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

No fully automatic weapons?  Seriously? 

Not sure I understand the question. Did you mean to say semi-auto? 

In either case, yes. Though I mainly see high capacity as the issue. If we could work with manufacturers to make hunting rifles/shotguns that can't be easily modified to carry more than a 6 shot load I think that would be fine. 

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

People can work on tactical reloading skills. I believe people really want to cap the cyclic rate. Unfortunately they focus on scary looking guns instead.

This is why we need productive discussions among people who actually know what they're talking about.  Two sides, come to the table and look for solutions.  The problem's not getting solved on a message board or Facebook.

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

People can work on tactical reloading skills. I believe people really want to cap the cyclic rate. Unfortunately they focus on scary looking guns instead.

Capacity is more important than rate of fire in these situations IMO. Mainly basic math, the more often you need to pause to reload the more chances people have to get away or subdue. 

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

This is why we need productive discussions among people who actually know what they're talking about.  Two sides, come to the table and look for solutions.  The problem's not getting solved on a message board or Facebook.

Thats hard when one side's solution is "ban all guns" and the other side wants absolute freedom concerning firearms

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Arsenal of Doom said:

Capacity is more important than rate of fire in these situations IMO. Mainly basic math, the more often you need to pause to reload the more chances people have to get away or subdue. 

Google "tactical reloading"

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

Thats hard when one side's solution is "ban all guns" and the other side wants absolute freedom concerning firearms

You've described two extremes that probably actually covers 10% or fewer of opinions on either side. 

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

Thats hard when one side's solution is "ban all guns" and the other side wants absolute freedom concerning firearms

Well, here't to hoping thoughts and prayers finally work.  Or maybe it'll be the moments of silence that finally do the trick.  I thought America could come up with something better.

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

Google "tactical reloading"

I know what it is so not necessary. Doesn't change my assessment even if I thought most people prone to this would invest the time to become proficient, which I don't. Basically at any skill or training level a shooter is better off the less they need to think about reloading. 

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

Well, here't to hoping thoughts and prayers finally work.  Or maybe it'll be the moments of silence that finally do the trick.  I thought America could come up with something better.

Way too much polarization going on right now. I don't see any solutions coming soon.

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

Thats hard when one side's solution is "ban all guns" and the other side wants absolute freedom concerning firearms

It's also hard when it's already illegal to go to a populated place indiscriminately kill people. The solution of making another law for him to break to do so seems wonky to me. Maybe he broke the speed limit on the way to the shooting. Maybe he jaywalked from wherever he parked. If he broke 20 laws before a horrific act of terrorism is it really going to make anyone feel better if we pass another law so he had to break 21 of them instead?

Nobody can be so naive that they think we can stop bad guys from getting guns in this country. If there are they probably think that pot was just "discovered" in the states of CO and WA.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Arsenal of Doom said:

I know what it is so not necessary. Doesn't change my assessment even if I thought most people prone to this would invest the time to become proficient, which I don't. Basically at any skill or training level a shooter is better off the less they need to think about reloading. 

We'll just agree to disagree. I see people practicing mag changes every time I'm at the range.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Cowboysfan8 said:

Yes. 

You realize the piece of crap in Orlando waited 72 hours, right?

For the AR?  

http://time.com/money/4366099/orlando-shooting-pulse-nightclub-ar-15-rifle-sales/

Quote

Florida gun laws, like those in many states, are more lax for larger weapons than they are for handguns. While there is a three-day waiting period for purchasing handguns, there’s no waiting period between purchase and delivery of firearms, like the AR-15, that require two hands to hold.

 

Edited by sho nuff
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Lester Burnham said:

Thats hard when one side's solution is "ban all guns" and the other side wants absolute freedom concerning firearms

We are not saying that.  Not sure why limiting certain guns or make specific changes is always turned into "ban all guns"  

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

It's also hard when it's already illegal to go to a populated place indiscriminately kill people. The solution of making another law for him to break to do so seems wonky to me. Maybe he broke the speed limit on the way to the shooting. Maybe he jaywalked from wherever he parked. If he broke 20 laws before a horrific act of terrorism is it really going to make anyone feel better if we pass another law so he had to break 21 of them instead?

Nobody can be so naive that they think we can stop bad guys from getting guns in this country. If there are they probably think that pot was just "discovered" in the states of CO and WA.

Do you think pot is easier or harder to get now in CO? Do you think more or fewer people use it now? The fact that a law can't stop every instance it is written for isn't a great reason to not have laws. 

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

Way too much polarization going on right now. I don't see any solutions coming soon.

Well Columbine was seventeen years ago so I am sure solutions are just around the corner

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

Well Columbine was seventeen years ago so I am sure solutions are just around the corner

Things have gotten way worse since then. I wish we had better candidates to choose from, but Merica has spoken.

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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...