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? (5 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
RedmondLonghorn said:
This discussion has gone on for 20 pages about a type of weapon that accounts for ~2% of gun homicides in a year.

Even if you could magically take away all "assault weapons" from all US citizens without incurring any cost at all, you wouldn't be able to detect the difference in the national level violent crime statistics.
Click to expand...
Far fewer than 2% of the population dies from ALS, doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to figure out ways to cure it. 

 
Apple Jack said:
I'm kind of getting the hankerin' to fire one of these AR15s before we ban 'em. Can you just go to a range and rent to shoot for a few minutes? And do ranges serve booze or should I bring my own?
Click to expand...
Heck yeah!

...and who knows?  Your #### might even drop while you're there.  :hifive:

 
Arsenal of Doom said:
I think this is a pretty reasonable point. The Supreme Court basically used the rationale of what is generally available to determine what can or can't be limited. Since the AR-15 and similar arms are ubiquitous they certainly would be covered under Heller but automatic "Machine Guns" as the court used are not. Their reasoning, which I don't really agree with is that commonly held arms are what citizens would bring to a militia vs. what an organized military would provide. 

I think the much better conversation is around marginal utility vs. public safety. By the current Supreme Court defintion a new class of weapon could come on the market and become pervasive before legislation is even passed to regulate it and in theory be covered based on, well people have them now. 
Click to expand...
Logic of the court in Heller is dubious in many places and that is one of them.  The reason they are not generally available is there have been laws making them illegal (in most circumstances) since the 1930s.  The fact laws have been in places making ownership difficult or impossible isn't support for the fact that the 2nd amendment permits those laws.  

 
RedmondLonghorn said:
Not high. At the extreme 30 million x $1,500 = $45 bln, plus ammunition, plus administrative costs.

A more relevant point is that if the number is really 30 million, that is closing in on 10% of the total guns in the country, based on the common understanding that there are +/- 350 million guns in the US. If they are as large a threat to public safety as is being assumed here, why is it they account for ~2% of homicides while being almost 10% of the stock of firearms in circulation?
Click to expand...
We all know mass shootings account for a small percent of all gun deaths and injuries, but the common denominator for high casualty mass shootings is a particular type of firearm that has questionable value as a sporting or self-defense tool beyond being fun to shoot.

If we can do something to make these events less-frequent and less deadly I personally think we have a societal obligation to do so. 

 
Groups of Democrats are joining the filibuster and signing up for time slots.  Some have reportedly signed up for time slots past 10pm today.  

 
One more thought on the number of deaths from mass-shootings being a small % of total gun fatalities, my assumption is the societal cost/externality associated with these is orders of magnitude higher than suicides, accidental shootings or even general homicides. 

Emergency responses, ongoing trauma support, lost productivity (including people sitting around at work posting on message boards :). It's quantifiably more than just the basic percentage alone implies. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
just curious - how about armed drones?  Those are cool right?  Lots of fun and great for home protection.

 
Arsenal of Doom said:
the common denominator for high casualty mass shootings is a particular type of firearm that has questionable value as a sporting or self-defense tool beyond being fun to shoot.
Click to expand...
That is an inaccurate premise.

The second deadliest mass shooting was the one at Virginia tech. The shooter used two handguns.

The fourth deadliest mass shooting was at a Luby's cafeteria in Killeen, Tx. The shooter used a handgun.

The fifth deadliest mass shooting was at McDonalds in San Ysidro, CA. The shooter used a handgun and a shotgun.

The sixth deadliest mass shooting was when Charles Whitman opened fire from the Tower at the University of Texas. He used a bolt-action hunting rifle.

I looked at a larger analysis of all mass shootings (4+ homicide victims) from 2009 through 2015, a short time window that is entirely after the previous Assault Weapons Ban lapsed, and weapons of that type were used in 11% of identified mass shootings.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
RedmondLonghorn said:
That is an inaccurate premise.

The second deadliest mass shooting was the one at Virginia tech. The shooter used two handguns.

The fourth deadliest mass shooting was at a Luby's cafeteria in Killeen, Tx. The shooter used a handgun.

The fifth deadliest mass shooting was at McDonalds in San Ysidro, CA. The shooter used a handgun and a shotgun.

The sixth deadlist mass shooting was when Charles Whitman opened fire from the Tower at the University of Texas. He used a bolt-action hunting rifle.

I looked at a larger analysis of all mass shootings (4+ homicide victims) from 2009 through 2015, a short time window that is entirely after the previous Assault Weapons Ban lapsed, and weapons of that type were used in 11% of identified mass shootings.
Click to expand...
Yes perhaps I should phrased that differently, but the study I believe you referenced also found that the instances where assault style weapons were used had on average 150%+ more casualties and 47% more deaths than where other types of arms were used. Not arguing the premise that mass shootings will never happen but they can be made potentially less frequent and less deadly.

 
FUBAR said:
just curious - how about armed drones?  Those are cool right?  Lots of fun and great for home protection.
Click to expand...
If the 'bad guys' have armed drones, this 'good guy' wants armed drones.  We'll need armed drones in churches and schools, of course.  Otherwise the bad guys would target these No-drone areas.   

 
Last edited by a moderator:
RedmondLonghorn said:
That is an inaccurate premise.

The second deadliest mass shooting was the one at Virginia tech. The shooter used two handguns.

The fourth deadliest mass shooting was at a Luby's cafeteria in Killeen, Tx. The shooter used a handgun.

The fifth deadliest mass shooting was at McDonalds in San Ysidro, CA. The shooter used a handgun and a shotgun.

The sixth deadliest mass shooting was when Charles Whitman opened fire from the Tower at the University of Texas. He used a bolt-action hunting rifle.

I looked at a larger analysis of all mass shootings (4+ homicide victims) from 2009 through 2015, a short time window that is entirely after the previous Assault Weapons Ban lapsed, and weapons of that type were used in 11% of identified mass shootings.
Click to expand...
If I thought banning certain types of weapons would prevent deaths I would be 100% behind it.  However, there are too many alternatives, like handguns, to make us any safer. 

 
Arsenal of Doom said:
Yes perhaps I should phrased that differently, but the study I believe you referenced also found that the instances where assault style weapons were used had on average 150%+ more casualties and 47% more deaths than where other types of arms were used. Not arguing the premise that mass shootings will never happen but they can be made potentially less frequent and less deadly.
Click to expand...
Those were also findings from that study, yes. I would say to reach broad brush conclusions like that, the study should have had a much larger sample size. That is why I highlighted a bunch of the other deadliest mass shootings (most of which fell outside that study's window) that did not actually include that sort of weapon.

Public mass shootings are especially horrible and disturbing. And I'd like to see them never happen again. But they are aberrations, even if they seem to be happening with greater frequency.

Although I am a gun owner (including an AR-15 pattern rifle) and an ardent supporter of 2nd Amendment right, I am not an NRA hard-liner; but I am a realist and a rationalist. I am in favor of commonsense remedies, if they exist. However I am wary of the slippery slope.

Background checks don't bother me particuarly. I have submitted to them to purchase handguns and submitting to them to purchase long guns doesn't seem unreasonable. It also doesn't seem particularly effective.

Probiting persons under suspicion of extremist activities from purchasing weapons seems logical on the surface, but there are substantial due process concerns. If those can be addressed adequately, I wouldn't object to that.

Moving "assault weapons" to a much stricter regulatory scheme like NFA Class 3 weapons is something that I hadn't considered previously, but I wouldn't necessarily totally rule it out.

But retroactively banning outright items that were purchased legally by millions of Americans is a non-starter. And the idea of spending tens of billions to repurchase weapons and ammunition in the hopes of a 2% reduction in firearm homicides strikes me as pure foolishness.

 
I think it is a useless political-only argument anyway. If you ban semi-automatic, people just buy kits to convert. You going to ban parts?

It's like saying you're going to ban USB chargers built into cars because talking and texting is dangerous. People can argue left and right over their freedoms and whether it will do any good because people can charge their phone elsewhere and still use it in the car. It doesn't matter though.  I'll just pick up a LIGHTER-to-USB adapter online for $5.

Then again, I love jarts and I'll be damned if they haven't been successful in making those really darn hard to find!

 
mcintyre1 said:
I can see why you'd go that route, but I actually disagree with that. I think those types of weapons are too dangerous for random people to own and literally serve no purpose other than to fight a revolution or something similar. Guns still have sporting or pleasure uses that are reasonable. My rationale is that, if 'revolution' comes, guns are enough. All of those fancy things need supplies to function and are largely dispersed throughout the entire country. A despot would struggle immensely to secure all of those stockpiles and armories across an entire country during a revolution. I'd also expect that at least some of the army wouldn't want to shoot their friends and family. 
Click to expand...
I dunno, a Reaper drone would be kinda fun to fly.

 
MikeMan said:
Then again, I love jarts and I'll be damned if they haven't been successful in making those really darn hard to find!
Click to expand...
David Snow, an aerospace engineer from Riverside, California, wasn’t even looking for lawn darts when he went shopping for party games in April 1987. He wanted a volleyball set, but all the department store had was volleyball in a combo pack with two other games. Whatever, he decided. He’d buy it, set up the volleyball net and leave the rest in the box in the garage.

His plan didn’t bear out. One Sunday afternoon soon after, his nine-year-old son and some of his neighborhood friends found the Jarts and began tossing them around in Snow’s backyard. One kid tossed his Jart too far and too high, sailing it over the backyard fence and into the front yard, where Snow’s daughter, seven-year-old Michelle, was playing with her dolls. The Jart came down right on her and, with what researchers estimate as 23,000 pounds of pressure per square inch, penetrated her skull. She collapsed, was rushed to the hospital, and was pronounced clinically dead three days later.

For weeks after, the Snows were overcome with grief. When David returned to work at Hughes Aircraft, he had a hard time adjusting. He sat in meetings listening to his co-workers talk about work things. Parts shortages. Budgets. Personnel issues. None of it seemed the least bit important anymore. His sadness gave way to anger, and he began a crusade. "I want to get these damned darts," he told The Los Angeles Times at the time. "These things killed my child. If I don't do anything, it's just a matter of time before someone else gets killed. I'm going to get them off the market. Whatever it takes."

He began to research Jarts and discovered that, for years, they had been banned from sale in the U.S. because of several injuries they’d caused to children. Jart manufacturers and distributors had challenged the ban in court, though, and won a compromise: a regulation stating that lawn darts could made and sold provided they were marketed only as a game for adults. A warning label had to be placed on each package alerting consumers to the danger they posed, and the darts couldn’t be merchandised in toy departments or sold in toy stores.

To Snow, Michelle’s death proved that the regulation didn’t protect kids. It didn't matter that they were sold as an adult game; if Jarts were in a home and children were allowed to play with them or could still get access to them, he thought, accidents would happen. He wanted the ban back in place and began lobbying public officials with phone calls and letters telling his story.
Click to expand...

 
MikeMan said:
I think it is a useless political-only argument anyway. If you ban semi-automatic, people just buy kits to convert. You going to ban parts?

It's like saying you're going to ban USB chargers built into cars because talking and texting is dangerous. People can argue left and right over their freedoms and whether it will do any good because people can charge their phone elsewhere and still use it in the car. It doesn't matter though.  I'll just pick up a LIGHTER-to-USB adapter online for $5.

Then again, I love jarts and I'll be damned if they haven't been successful in making those really darn hard to find!
Click to expand...
I'm not familiar with this being possible.  I'm not even sure how you would convert a gun from revolver or bolt action to semi-automatic.

 
Henry Ford said:
I'm not familiar with this being possible.  I'm not even sure how you would convert a gun from revolver or bolt action to semi-automatic.
Click to expand...
It isn't. It is just another example of people talking about regulating functions of things that they don't understand. 

He shouldn't feel bad about that though, because it applies to like 75% of our elected officials too. We all should feel bad about that, though.

 
RedmondLonghorn said:
Those were also findings from that study, yes. I would say to reach broad brush conclusions like that, the study should have had a much larger sample size. That is why I highlighted a bunch of the other deadliest mass shootings (most of which fell outside that study's window) that did not actually include that sort of weapon.

Public mass shootings are especially horrible and disturbing. And I'd like to see them never happen again. But they are aberrations, even if they seem to be happening with greater frequency.

Although I am a gun owner (including an AR-15 pattern rifle) and an ardent supporter of 2nd Amendment right, I am not an NRA hard-liner; but I am a realist and a rationalist. I am in favor of commonsense remedies, if they exist. However I am wary of the slippery slope.

Background checks don't bother me particuarly. I have submitted to them to purchase handguns and submitting to them to purchase long guns doesn't seem unreasonable. It also doesn't seem particularly effective.

Probiting persons under suspicion of extremist activities from purchasing weapons seems logical on the surface, but there are substantial due process concerns. If those can be addressed adequately, I wouldn't object to that.

Moving "assault weapons" to a much stricter regulatory scheme like NFA Class 3 weapons is something that I hadn't considered previously, but I wouldn't necessarily totally rule it out.

But retroactively banning outright items that were purchased legally by millions of Americans is a non-starter. And the idea of spending tens of billions to repurchase weapons and ammunition in the hopes of a 2% reduction in firearm homicides strikes me as pure foolishness.
Click to expand...
Good post, don't agree with everything but I think the most important point is to not start from the position of it being a choice between banning all guns or doing nothing. Plenty of middle ground to explore to make gun ownership safer and reduce the negative consequences of gun violence. 

 
[icon] said:
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? 
Click to expand...
Are you under the impression that the First Amendment is not already limited?

 
Arsenal of Doom said:
Good post, don't agree with everything but I think the most important point is to not start from the position of it being a choice between banning all guns or doing nothing. Plenty of middle ground to explore to make gun ownership safer and reduce the negative consequences of gun violence. 
Click to expand...
I think you'll find that most real gun owners are horrified by violent crime with guns. And most of us want that to change.

But we are also utterly suspicious of calls for incremental regulation by the usual parties. Because many of those parties would love to see all guns banned and are dying to just get the camel's nose under the tent in any way that they can.

So when a politician says she doesn't want to disarm law abiding citizens, but just wants to implement commonsense regulations, but also talks about wanting to see Heller overturned, our bullsh*t detectors start to flash warning signals.

 
RedmondLonghorn said:
I think you'll find that most real gun owners are horrified by violent crime with guns. And most of us want that to change.

But we are also utterly suspicious of calls for incremental regulation by the usual parties. Because many of those parties would love to see all guns banned and are dying to just get the camel's nose under the tent in any way that they can.

So when a politician says she doesn't want to disarm law abiding citizens, but just wants to implement commonsense regulations, but also talks about wanting to see Heller overturned, our bullsh*t detectors start to flash warning signals.
Click to expand...
This is a refreshing perspective.

 
RedmondLonghorn said:
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?
Click to expand...
Cheaper than a border wall!

 
RedmondLonghorn said:
It isn't. It is just another example of people talking about regulating functions of things that they don't understand. 

He shouldn't feel bad about that though, because it applies to like 75% of our elected officials too. We all should feel bad about that, though.
Click to expand...
It is. It's been done since the early 1900s. Youtube it and you'll see plenty of videos. And this is before the industry boom that would happen.

I do think fingerprint technology for new gun sales would be a giant step in the right direction. If you sell your gun, you transfer the fingerprint. When you get your gun, you set up authorized users, etc.... (eta - I realize it wouldn't help with Orlando situation but so many child shooting deaths or illegally owned, bought and sold deaths that this could move to reduce as the path of ownership would be documented)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
RedmondLonghorn said:
I think you'll find that most real gun owners are horrified by violent crime with guns. And most of us want that to change.

But we are also utterly suspicious of calls for incremental regulation by the usual parties. Because many of those parties would love to see all guns banned and are dying to just get the camel's nose under the tent in any way that they can.

So when a politician says she doesn't want to disarm law abiding citizens, but just wants to implement commonsense regulations, but also talks about wanting to see Heller overturned, our bullsh*t detectors start to flash warning signals.
Click to expand...
This. This. This. 

 
MAC_32 said:
This is a refreshing perspective.
Click to expand...
No idea if that is sarcasm.

I for one would sign up tomorrow for a number of regulations on sale of firearms if they also came with an unambiguous acknowledgment/enshrinement of the individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and other legal purposes. 

The slippery slope fear is the real sticking point.

 
RedmondLonghorn said:
I think you'll find that most real gun owners are horrified by violent crime with guns. And most of us want that to change.

But we are also utterly suspicious of calls for incremental regulation by the usual parties. Because many of those parties would love to see all guns banned and are dying to just get the camel's nose under the tent in any way that they can.

So when a politician says she doesn't want to disarm law abiding citizens, but just wants to implement commonsense regulations, but also talks about wanting to see Heller overturned, our bullsh*t detectors start to flash warning signals.
Click to expand...
Agreed with the above and I'm a gun owner too. But the explicit position of the NRA and by extension the vast majority of Republican lawmakers (and some Democrats as well) is that ANY attempt to pass restrictions on sale/ownership is effectively equivalent to a complete ban. There is no middle ground. This isn't going to change until more responsible gun owners  take a stand and pressure the groups representing their interests to do something other than say what we really need are more guns and fewer restrictions. 

 
RedmondLonghorn said:
No idea if that is sarcasm.

I for one would sign up tomorrow for a number of regulations on sale of firearms if they also came with an unambiguous acknowledgment/enshrinement of the individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and other legal purposes. 

The slippery slope fear is the real sticking point.
Click to expand...
No sarcasm.  I'm not a gun owner, can't imagine I ever will be, and am frustrated that there has been seemingly no progress regarding any regulations being implemented.  I'll admit I really don't pay much attention on a regular basis, but it's simply because when I do I get pissed off.  I've been trying to avoid actively seeking out subjects that are just going to make me mad lately and this subject has qualified since sometime after Sandy Hook.  That said, it's nice to read comments from the pro gun crowd that actually have some rational thought and basis rather than what I usually read, which again - just infuriates me.  For someone that doesn't pay much attention on a regular basis, it'd be cool if more pro-gun took your approach than what they usually do.  

 
Arsenal of Doom said:
Agreed with the above and I'm a gun owner too. But the explicit position of the NRA and by extension the vast majority of Republican lawmakers (and some Democrats as well) is that ANY attempt to pass restrictions on sale/ownership is effectively equivalent to a complete ban. There is no middle ground. This isn't going to change until more responsible gun owners  take a stand and pressure the groups representing their interests to do something other than say what we really need are more guns and fewer restrictions. 
Click to expand...
I understand why the NRA takes that position though. I don't agree with it and I don't share it, but I understand it.

Because the gun control advocacy groups that lobby and support the other side are either just as absolutist or are disingenuous.

The reality is that gun ownership is a right that exist and lots and lots of guns are in private hands. And in most places, they can currently be purchased with relatively few restrictions.

If a compromise is to be reached to introduce new sunstantial regulation, something substantial needs to be offered in return for gun owners accepting limitations and encumberances on their rights as they now stand. 

 
RedmondLonghorn said:
No idea if that is sarcasm.

I for one would sign up tomorrow for a number of regulations on sale of firearms if they also came with an unambiguous acknowledgment/enshrinement of the individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and other legal purposes. 

The slippery slope fear is the real sticking point.
Click to expand...
Sheesh, what do you want, a Constitutional amendment or something?

;)

 
dparker713 said:
It also didn't say anything about cannons.  Yet, I don't hear anyone crusading for their rights to a Howitzer.
Click to expand...
Whatever.

Guys like you are why there won't be common sense regulations enacted any time soon. You are exactly the type that makes people like me, who want to be reasonable, side with the NRA.

So congrats on that.

 
timschochet said:
It's the only one of those that has a caveat at the beginning. If it wasn't for the purpose of a militia, then why mention a militia? 

As you know, the Supreme Court has NEVER treated this as an individual right until Heller, which is a very recent decision (and 5-4 as well.) 
Click to expand...
I would note that at the time militias were voluntary associations of citizens unassociated with the state in any form, and actually opposed to it in some iterations.  The concept of a standing militia organized and run by the state was anathema to their contemplation. 

 
RedmondLonghorn said:
If the Founding Fathers didn't intend it to be an individual right, why is it in what is known as the Bill of Rights and completely surrounded by other amendments that confer, enumerate or clarify individual rights? Seems incredibly straightforward to me.
Click to expand...
Freedom of Assembly, by definition, is not an individual right.

 
timschochet said:
And this is the final unanswerable question that destroys the 2nd Amendment argument. Because if the 2nd Amendment can be interpreted to include AR-15s, it can be interpreted to include ALL weapons, including nuclear weapons.

ETA- it's unanswerable unless someone wants to contradict himself, as Christo just did. 
Click to expand...
They were comfortable with ship of war with the most advanced weapons of the time in the hands of private persons.

 
Henry Ford said:
Posted this in the Orlando thread:

Senate Democrats just began a filibuster on the Senate floor to demand gun legislation.

You can watch live.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2016/06/senate-democrats-just-began-filibuster-demand-new-gun-laws
Click to expand...
I always get distracted in such by the misinformation that flows.  To regulate a thing I believe it helps to understand the thing, and so many do not. I try to take th egeneral sentiment and the ideas, and separate them from the misinformation, but at times it is difficult.

 
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
795
FairWarning
FairWarning

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 6 (members: 0, guests: 6)
Top