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
sorry chum
cstu
Footballguy
How about the napalm flamethrower?The tribunist, always solid stuff... I've got them bookmarked as my source for info.
I did skim the article, glad to know the AR-15 isn't good for hunting, thanks for adding another reason to ban it
While not the ideal hunting weapon, it's GREAT for mass murder!
msommer
Footballguy
SameSongNDance
Footballguy
Several times actually. These are the types of people who follow Alex Jones religiously and believe in Jade Helm 15 conspiracy theories. Ya know, like Chuck Norris.
RedmondLonghorn
Footballguy
Rifles account for 3-4% of gun homicides in any given year, according to FBI statistics. So scary black rifles (aka "assault weapons") account for some fraction of that number. Exactly what fraction is hard to pin down, but the US Dept of Justice estimated that guns of that type accounted for ~2% of homicides before the now lapsed Assault Weapons Ban was enacted. The same DOJ report also concluded that the ban itself had a negligible impact on crime statistics.
If people were really serious about reducing gun homicides, they wouldn't be focused on banning assault weapons. They'd have an honest conversation about what causes the real bulk of gun killings in the US. Who kills who with guns and why. And how to stop that. But the answers to those questions don't involve high profile gun control goals--and a frank discussion of the real issues may be very uncomfortable--so we get to talk about this. Again.
If people were really serious about reducing gun homicides, they wouldn't be focused on banning assault weapons. They'd have an honest conversation about what causes the real bulk of gun killings in the US. Who kills who with guns and why. And how to stop that. But the answers to those questions don't involve high profile gun control goals--and a frank discussion of the real issues may be very uncomfortable--so we get to talk about this. Again.
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
Any % at the expense of something that has no real use seems like a win to me. Is a handful of kids getting to grow up with their parents that otherwise wouldn't have not worth that?
As to the last paragraph, pretty prose around a circular talking point. Mental illness, societal issues, etc are all already studied pretty heavily. This "change the culture" stuff sounds nice and pretty but the reality is that people have wanted to kill other people throughout the entirety of our history and there's probably not a ton we can do about that, though at least people are trying. Giving those people that want to kill other people super easy access to things that can kill a lot of people is somewhat new, and we appear to be doing nothing about that.
dparker713
Footballguy
I'm all for an originalist reading of the second amendment. So anytime you want to buy a musket or a mussel loaded rifle, have at itspider321 said:
dparker713
Footballguy
Are these classes going to include training under live fire? Cause otherwise all of these "protectors" will be worthlessChadstroma said:
dparker713
Footballguy
Wtf do you need a rifle for that a bolt action won't suffice?
Afterall, a substandard marine was able to fire 3 bullets in under 7 seconds at a motorcade from a bolt action rifle.
Last edited by a moderator:
spider321
Footballguy
Ok. Then I'm all for an originalist reading of the first Ammendment. So anytime you want to question the President or members of congress in face-to-face conversation, or in print, have at it.
Just make sure you don't do it over the telephone or on the Internet.
FUBAR
Footballguy
dparker713
Footballguy
dparker713
Footballguy
dparker713
Footballguy
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
That's not me. I grew up in the country in a family that hunted and fished. As such I picked up those habits. Pretty common in those areas for youngsters to start out with .22 caliber rifles. The one I have was actually my father's when he was young. If one hunts birds it is also common to have both a 12 gauge and a 20 gauge shotgun depending on the species of birds hunted. The 12 gauge is also applicable to deer hunting and in fact many states have a separate shotgun season for doing so. The larger calibers I have for hunting antelope, elk, and moose. The only caliber not applicable to the hunting I do is the .223 which for me is simply a target shooting round. As for the handgun calibers, well past jobs authorized me to carry. That is no longer true, and I have started to divest myself of those weapons and ammunition, but the process is not complete. Though I can still carry I am no longer required to do so, so I do not. I have judged for myself that the utility of so doing is outweighed, for me, by other factors. Then too, I have some weapons that were bequeathed to me from a family that had them as part of their culture or heritage.I have a sudden urge to watch that Tremors movie with the dad from family ties and Reba in it.
Ditkaless Wonders: "You picked the wrong basement to bust into!"
Having no sons I have not passed on the practices I grew up with. My children have no interest in such and I have never tried to encourage that they should. My weapons are very securely stored as is the ammunition. Given my age I am moving away from hunting, and as I do so I am divesting myself of things. I am rather far from what some would describe as a gun nut. I do not have military styled weapons, or weapons with first applications which are designed for such. The platform I use to shoot .223, which is the most ubiquitous round shot through AR-15's btw, is a Ruger mini 14, not a weapon that most would judge an assault weapon by its innocuous appearance, but one more or less capable of many of the 'scary' functions of such, for instance it will accept a banana clip which is not a clip at all of course, but the parlance is what it is. I do not spend time contemplating shooting my fellow man. My sincere hope is that I will never have to do so again.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sabertooth
Footballguy
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
Times have changed. When I was in Junior High School we all had to take shop classes. One of the standard final projects was making a gun rack. It could be made for your wall, or for your pick up. The school had a rifle team and a hunter's safety course. Passing the course meant one could legally hunt at an earlier age without direct adult supervision. Given these activities and courses it was not unusual to see kids walking to school with guns. (We were required to check them at the Principal's office, they could not fit in our half sized lockers.)
In High School it was not at all unusual to see kids driving pick ups with gun racks, many they made themselves in Junior High. During the fall it was extremely common to see guns in those racks. Nobody thought anything of it. At the time the legislative and societal push was to do away with "Saturday night specials" in the cities. Seems that was O.K. because only P's.O.C. used such or such was the narrative by the media where I grew up.
In High School it was not at all unusual to see kids driving pick ups with gun racks, many they made themselves in Junior High. During the fall it was extremely common to see guns in those racks. Nobody thought anything of it. At the time the legislative and societal push was to do away with "Saturday night specials" in the cities. Seems that was O.K. because only P's.O.C. used such or such was the narrative by the media where I grew up.
Last edited by a moderator:
sho nuff
Footballguy
Well, the shooter, armed with an AR 15 (of course) and a pistol was not stopped by this man, he was shot and killed by SWAT.
http://www.wfaa.com/news/crime/motive-in-deadly-w-houston-shooting-remains-a-mystery/222857006
And the concealed carrying guy was initially thought of as a suspect until they figured out he was trying to help.
This story should also focus on the shooter, a veteran and if there were issues with him where we failed yet again taking care of a veteran in this country.
![[icon]](/data/avatars/m/5/5167.jpg?1660313464){kind=avatar}
[icon]
Insoxicated
The First Amendment was written to protect speech, including potentially hateful or inciting speech.... but it was written before the internet, when one could possible offend/incite only those nearby. Now the internet allows for speakers to incite/offend tens or hundreds of millions in an instant.
Given the advent of the internet... has the time come to limit the first amendment as well?
Given the advent of the internet... has the time come to limit the first amendment as well?
timschochet
Footballguy
If guys like Icon and Ditkaless Wonders want to own assault rifles because they are fun to own and shoot and because these two gentlemen, and thousands like them, enjoy collecting and owning firearms, why should we stop them?
What I want is for guys like them not to be bothered. But I also want terrorists, bad guys, and sociopaths to be prevented from having these weapons. There should be a reasonable way to try to achieve both goals.
What I want is for guys like them not to be bothered. But I also want terrorists, bad guys, and sociopaths to be prevented from having these weapons. There should be a reasonable way to try to achieve both goals.
Buddy Ball 2K3
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
Nope- find better ways to enforce our laws- such as universal background checks. And make a new law that anybody on an FBI terrorism list be prohibited from purchasing a firearm. Obama has been pushing for that for years, but the Republicans keep blocking him (at the behest of the NRA).
Buddy Ball 2K3
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
I don't know. But I think we need to try to make it harder. If it stops at least some of them, we'll have saved some lives.
Buddy Ball 2K3
Footballguy
So a person who wants to kill a mass number of people is just going to give up because they couldnt purchase a gun at their local shop? This makes sense to you?
timschochet
Footballguy
RedmondLonghorn
Footballguy
Oh, the old "we're not sure this will work, but we've got to try something" argument.
Sadly, in matters of public policy everything eventually comes down to a macro cost-benefit analysis. It sounds cold-hearted to put it in those terms, but when a public policy is being contemplated that has signficant costs, it needs to be evaluated in that way. So let's explore that.
There are likely at least 10 million rifles in the US that fit the broad definition of "assault style weapons". These are not cheap weapons. So a buy back would be incredibly expensive. At an average market value of $1,500 each, a buy back of them would cost $15 billion (assuming full compliance), before accounting for administration costs, enforcement costs, etc..
Then there is ammunition. If you are going to take the rifles out of circulation, the government would also want to take the ammunition out of circulation. And gun owners would certainly expect to be compensated for the ammunition they own for any rifle they would be selling back to the government. I have no idea how to even estimate the current stock of ammunition in circulation. But it has to be a lot. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that every rifle is accompanied by 200 rounds of ammunition (which I think is a bit low, but it's a start). The going price for 5.56mm rounds is $0.40-$0.50 per round. I would guess that 2/3 of the "assault weapons" in circulation are of that caliber. The AK-style rifles, which would likely be the next biggest category after AR-pattern rifles, fire less expensive ammo (either 7.62x39, or 5.45) that runs about $0.25 per round. Then there are a bunch of other calibers out there (6.8 SPC, .300 BLK, 7.62x51mm, etc.) that are more like $1/round. So just for round numbers, let's call it $0.50 per round, on average. That is another billion dollars.
So we have $16 billion plus admin and other costs, assuming full compliance.
There have been +/- 12,000 gun homicides in the US per year for the past several years. If "assault weapons" account for 2% of those, that is 240 per year. So, over the 20 years, one could expect a total of 4,800 homicides with that style of weapon, assuming no buy-back. A full compliance buy back would cost $16 bln in compensation alone, then figure +15% in admin costs and enforecement costs (which is likely low, we are talking about the government here) and you get to almost $18.5 bln.
That is a cost of nearly $3.9 million per life potentially saved over the next 20 years, assuming full compliance.
And that probably understates the cost/life saved, because there will be a substitution effect. Meaning at least some of those people being killed currently with "assault style weapons" would be shot with some other type of gun if the "assuault weapons" aren't available.
All of which begs the obvious question: what other types of public policy changes could save lives at a cost of almost $4 million per person?
Last edited by a moderator:
RedmondLonghorn
Footballguy
It isn't a circular talking point.
The majority of gun homicides are committed by young black males against other young black males. Seriously addressing that problem would yield far greater benefit to society than banning a category of rifle that accounts for ~2% of gun homicides.
And the first, best, step to addressing it would be ending the War on Drugs. The War on Drugs is the single most destructive policy position that the United States has pursued for the past 30-40 years. It has cost the nation trillions of dollars and has failed at its ostensible goal. I say ostensible, because it has succeeded at its true, original intent, which was to oppress, intimidate and destabilize black America.
Apple Jack
Footballguy
Anything that puts the proverbial pin back in the grenade for even one day? Yes. It's makes perfect sense. That guy could find a peaceful God in that time. He could change his mind. He could blow himself up trying to build a bomb. He could try to build a bomb and fail. He could try to build a bomb, detonate it at his location, and kill far fewer people than a semi-automatic weapon could. He could get in a car accident and lose his arms. He could get hooked by Game of Thrones, as reference a few posts back, and after a binge session decide he's more Arya Stark than Ramsey Bolton. He could get caught trying to buy something illegally. He could get pulled over after acquiring something illegally and be arrested. He could simply give up, because you know what? These are not the best and brightest people and you never know a change in the direction of the wind could change their willingness or even want to engage in mass murder. Even one more day that his potential victims get to live makes it worth it.
Short Corner
Footballguy
Much better to die 'protecting your family' by putting them in the crossfire than to hand over your wallet.
sho nuff
Footballguy
No, he may not give up. He may try with smaller capacity weapons and kill less.
He may try to obtain the weapon another way and get caught by law enforcement in doing so preventing the whole thing.
Buddy Ball 2K3
Footballguy
Maybe in the same time any establishment that can hold 20 people or more should be forced to hire armed security guards and use metal detectors at their entrance.
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
I am unclear on the logic of making business owners responsible for the security of their patrons, absent them doing something to affirmatively degrade that security or to impair their faculties.
Buddy Ball 2K3
Footballguy
We will never get rid of people that want to kill other people. So the answer is to actually protect ourselves from the criminals. Protect your patrons, protect your employees and protect your business. The cost is minimal considering how many lives would be saved.
Last edited by a moderator:
sho nuff
Footballguy
There was an armed guard there.
Metal detectors everywhere...going to require that? Government going to pay for that?
sho nuff
Footballguy
And part of protecting our citizens is limiting the amount of damage someone like this guy can do and make it difficult for such people to get their hands on weapons like he used.
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
If the obligation is that we protect ourselves, how does that get transferred to business owners that they protect others.
I also suspect the cost would be astronomical and would kill most businesses, but that is pure speculation on my part.
Buddy Ball 2K3
Footballguy
Does it matter? How many people have to be killed before we stop worrying about the cost of saving lives?
Redwes25
Footballguy
Buddy Ball 2K3
Footballguy
Because as far as I can tell, criminals do not follow our laws. Our only real choice is to actually protect ourselves instead of hoping the laws are not broken.
moleculo
Footballguy
If criminals are just going to break laws anyways, what's the point of any law? Why not anarchy for everyone?
Apple Jack
Footballguy
Redwes25
Footballguy
This argument is entirely nonsensical. You go down this line of thinking then why do we need any laws as clearly only laws that will receive 100% compliance make any sense. I have an idea lets remove the laws against murder since well criminals don't follow those laws so we don't need them. Not sure why reasonable limitations put in place that make it more difficult for criminals to violate the laws you have in place is something wrong.
Buddy Ball 2K3
Footballguy
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
I live in a world of limited resources and opportunities, not one of magical desires. One also wonders about bang for the buck. lets say we magically had 100 billion dollars to deal with reducing death in the world. Wouldn't this be about the worst way to spend it. I mean wouldn't we want to build wells and water treatment plants, conduct innoculations, things like that.
Apple Jack
Footballguy
Wait, is Buddy advocating for the abolishment of all laws here?
