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)
- Thread starter fantasycurse42
- Start date
fantasycurse42
Footballguy Jr.
I agree with the first line and think the second is a mix of all 3. While the latter part of the the second line certainly holds weight, the former cannot be dismissed.
The estimates are mind numbing, more guns than adults in the USA. The craziest part is that 3-5% of the population is estimated to own roughly half of those. Looking at those two previous sentences, that is a gun problem IMO and it spills over into the other parts of your statement.
BowieMercs
Footballguy
We will defend your right to say that. With our mind numbing numbers of guns, if necessary.
MarvinTScamper
Footballguy
the fact that 3-5% own roughly half of those is the antithesis of a "gun problem"
I would suggest that 90% (or higher) of the crimes committed in this country are by one-gun owners, many of whom stole it, or bought it illegally. Focus on stopping that, and leave the law abiding gun owners out of your horribly established and poorly thought out thesis.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Sure, but anytime people bring up rules to try to do just that, it's the law abiding gun owners that yell the loudest and think that Big Brother is going to come take all their guns away the very next day.
MarvinTScamper
Footballguy
I don't think any law abiding gun owner is trying to stop the police from people illegally obtaining guns or using them in criminal acts. These are the people we "bad gun owners" own the guns for which to shoot at these #######s.
You know that, I think, but want to say "ban assualt rifles" or "eliminate high capacity magazines" as though 90% of crime isn't with some cheap automatic handgun.
RedmondLonghorn
Footballguy
Because I apparently can't help myself, I did some quick research on the differences in non-gun homicide rates in the United States vs. some developed peer countries. 
As I stated earlier, I think the US is culturally different in terms of violence than many of developed nations. That is a bad thing, but gun crime isn't the cause of that, it is a symptom.
So, to test my hypothesis, I looked at homicide rates that didn't involve guns.
It was pretty simple. I used the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime Database to do the research. I compared the year 2011, since that was the latest year with relatively full data coverage. Unfortunately, there are data availability issues that made including the UK, Germany and France in the comparison impossible. They either don't collect homicide data by weapon or there was some other problem.
According to UN data, the homicide rate per 100,000 people in the United States in 2011 was 4.7 and firearms were used in 59% of homicides. So that means the "non-gun" rate was 1.9 per 100,000.
I compared the US rate to Austria, Switzerland, Denmark, Spain, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. Canada had the nearest overall homicide rate to the US, but it was less than half of the rate, at 1.8 (i.e. the United States has 2.6x the number of homicides per capita that Canada does). The simple (not population weighted) average across my sample set of comparison countries was 1.0 per 100,000.
Adjusting to look at only non-gun homicides, the US rate fell to 1.9 per 100,000, while the simple average of the other countries fell to a rate of 0.8.
Here is a simple tabulation of the data.
So, yes, the US is significantly different from other peer countries in terms of homicide rates that don't involve guns, which supports my hypothesis that the US is culturally different in terms of violence.
As I stated earlier, I think the US is culturally different in terms of violence than many of developed nations. That is a bad thing, but gun crime isn't the cause of that, it is a symptom.
So, to test my hypothesis, I looked at homicide rates that didn't involve guns.
It was pretty simple. I used the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime Database to do the research. I compared the year 2011, since that was the latest year with relatively full data coverage. Unfortunately, there are data availability issues that made including the UK, Germany and France in the comparison impossible. They either don't collect homicide data by weapon or there was some other problem.
According to UN data, the homicide rate per 100,000 people in the United States in 2011 was 4.7 and firearms were used in 59% of homicides. So that means the "non-gun" rate was 1.9 per 100,000.
I compared the US rate to Austria, Switzerland, Denmark, Spain, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. Canada had the nearest overall homicide rate to the US, but it was less than half of the rate, at 1.8 (i.e. the United States has 2.6x the number of homicides per capita that Canada does). The simple (not population weighted) average across my sample set of comparison countries was 1.0 per 100,000.
Adjusting to look at only non-gun homicides, the US rate fell to 1.9 per 100,000, while the simple average of the other countries fell to a rate of 0.8.
Here is a simple tabulation of the data.
So, yes, the US is significantly different from other peer countries in terms of homicide rates that don't involve guns, which supports my hypothesis that the US is culturally different in terms of violence.
Last edited by a moderator:
MarvinTScamper
Footballguy
just start shooting common criminals in armed robberies in the head. That's a start.
fantasycurse42
Footballguy Jr.
If everyone on this board stopped responding to users with minimal amounts of posts, it would be such a better place. Arguing with 84 post Marvin is like arguing with some lunatic in the Yahoo comments section.
I'll engage with RedmondLonghorn bc he has provided a history of thought out posts on this topic. While I definitely will disagree with him on most of his stances on guns, his perspective is worth reading to see the thoughts from someone on the other side.
fantasycurse42
Footballguy Jr.
I've done okay defending my rights as well as my families without them.We will defend your right to say that. With our mind numbing numbers of guns, if necessary.
MarvinTScamper
Footballguy
"84 post Marvin" - :rofl: I was over 10,000 posts when you were just an itch in your daddy's pants.
I'll leave it alone. You don't know jack #### about guns. I know that now.
RedmondLonghorn
Footballguy
RedmondLonghorn
Footballguy
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Oh I agree. It was just an observation that people that don't seem to be effected by a suggested law still are very against it.
Overall, we really don't want to attack the problem on any front and I and others find it insanely frustrating. Like you said, there are a multitude of factors at play here and guns are a piece of the puzzle. We still treat mental health as taboo, income and poverty are in the mix, being overworked, the media sensationalizing these very rare instances, deterioration of the family unit, on and on. I think that many people find that attacking the gun issue might be the quickest and easiest way to stop some of these happenings (right or wrong).
I have softened so much on the gun issue b/c I feel like a hypocrite. I can't get pissed at other people telling me what I can or can't put in my body, what I can or can't say, or other things I value without stopping to see people's view on their guns and why they own them.
RedmondLonghorn
Footballguy
Criminal justice reform and finding some sensible alternative to the War on Drugs would make a massive difference, IMO. But not overnight. And those things are hard to do.
We incarcerate far too many people in this country, especially for minor and non-violent offenses, in the interest of "being tough on crime". I am no criminologist, but I have a strong suspicion that doing so actually causes crime because it creates a class of people who find it difficult to impossible to find legitimate gainful employment, not to mention what it does to their families' circumstances while they are locked up.
And the War on Drugs not only perpetuates the above, it also stimulates violence. Since it is a supply-side "remedy" (using the term very loosely), it has the effect of increasing the street value of illicit substances. Higher dollars in play means more profit potential for criminal entrepreneurs, which makes it both attractive as an illegal vocation and worth killing over.
MarvinTScamper
Footballguy
Yep, this is it. I own quite a few guns, but would be completely UNOFFENDED by an "assault weapons" ban. But that's because I don't want one. I've used an M-16 and M60 in the Army. I don't target practice anymore like that, nor do I varmint hunt. But to say it's ok to ban them because I don't like them or want them is the same as saying "they should outlaw cigarettes" or "they should outlaw abortion" because I don't see any good reason for either. Many will stand on the freedom side. Both of those things kill MILLIONS more than guns.
Otis
Footballguy
MarvinTScamper
Footballguy
Otis
Footballguy
There's a massive difference. Cigarettes are a thing you want to put in your body, go for it. You're not innately dangerous to someone else. Stock your home with AK47s, for your moron/depressed high schooler to tote around town? Now you're not just making stupid decisions that affect yourself. Your stupid decisions start to affect others.
I just don't see the linkage between gun control and cigarette control. Even alcohol control, someone will come in and tell me "yeah but oats people drink and drive and main and kill other people," but at least in that instance it's a thing that isn't specifically designed to maim and kill people. There's a huge divide between the two.
BowieMercs
Footballguy
Jayrod
Footballguy
Get a load of this freaking guy.How many families [sic] do you have to defend? You may want to arm yourself
Sabertooth
Footballguy
Which part? The part about Trump winning largely because of guns? Or the part where people have been basically emasculated by forces beyond their control and guns help them feel safe? Or do you figure you can legislate away mass shootings?
RedmondLonghorn
Footballguy
Again, fewer people agree that a ban on "assault weapons" is necessary than think Trump is doing a bang up job so far.Otis said:
That doesn't necessarily make your viewpoint wrong (though I think it is), but it does mean that relatively few people share it. Which makes doing what you would like to do politically impossible.
MarvinTScamper
Footballguy
Killing is killing. If you didn't care about that, you'd subtract every suicide, and then there would be even more things more deadly than guns. I notice you didn't mention abortion here.Otis said:
BoltBacker
Footballguy
Wrong gambit. It was the "If you are going to child-proof the world because stupid people might hurt themselves and others then you should start with cars because they kill a lot more people than guns" gambit. Cars are not like guns. I worry a great deal more that a car will kill me than a gun, but I will admit I part of the reason I feel that way is based on where I live.Otis said:
For that matter, high fructose corn syrup may be killing more than both of them combined. Maybe we should have a 30-day waiting period to buy or sell a soda.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
These types of arguments drive me nuts it really kills debates. Lets not pretend like they are the same thing. I think we are all well aware of the inherent dangers of driving or other things that have been thrown out here. Sure, I am more likely to die that way vs. a gunshot, but I also accept the dangers when I get on the road. I don't think any of us think that it should be an accepted possibility that we or our loved ones get our head's blown off when we to school or to a movie. When that happens it is a lot bigger shock, there is more of a knee jerk reaction, and you can't blame people for wanting answers and wanting to stop that from happening.
TwinTurbo
Footballguy
BowieMercs
Footballguy
Man of Constant Sorrow
Footballguy
Don't know if this has been mentioned earlier, as I have not read the entire thread (don't plan to eitherBowieMercs said:
)...but other than Bowie here, where he uses the term "assault weapon", has there been any other distinctions made between true assault rifles and the "so-called" assault weapon.From my short perusal, I have seen a bit of miscommunication on this issue. I believe this distinction makes a big difference.
flapgreen
Footballguy
So you think the number of murders would decrease if ARs were banned? They're not assault rifles. Those are only used in the military.
You're asking others to give a reason to have them when you want them banned and aren't giving a reason yourself.
Last edited by a moderator:
RedmondLonghorn
Footballguy
Assault weapon is a term that was made up and promulgated by opponents of civilian ownership of magazine-fed semi-automatic rifles. It is a term that was meant to establish the notion that civilians can buy assault rifles, when they generally can't, except in rare (and heavily regulated) cases.Don't know if this has been mentioned earlier, as I have not read the entire thread (don't plan to either
From my short perusal, I have seen a bit of miscommunication on this issue. I believe this distinction makes a big difference.
The actual definition of "assault weapon" that was utilized in the 1994 legislation was utterly nonsensical. Which was one of several reasons that law made no measurable difference in crime.
RedmondLonghorn
Footballguy
Rifles account for 3-5% of total gun homicides, but that includes all rifles (magazine fed semi-automatics, other semi-automatics, bolt action rifles, lever action rifles, muzzle loaders, etc),
RedmondLonghorn
Footballguy
Cars = Guns is a bad argument. Which I guess is one of the reasons so many advocates for gun control like to argue against it, rather than attempting to address the bigger holes in their logic.
Man of Constant Sorrow
Footballguy
Exactly RL. Well explained. Thank you.
In the small portion of this thread that I have read, this distinction seems to be fuzzy at times.
Chaka
Footballguy
msommer
Footballguy
BoltBacker
Footballguy
BoltBacker
Footballguy
Nobody has even mentioned the "cars = guns" argument except you and Otis. I have argued against framing an argument, "If a stupid person can harm people with it, then we should ban it" argument. Where exactly does this stop? Cars are one item but certainly not the only item stupid people might hurt people with. Steak knives? Waffle maker? Chainsaw? Don't most injuries happen within the home? I guess a dryer is a deadly weapon if you are sitting in the bathtub. Do we really HAVE to have hair dryers?
To me this anti-gun hysteria is a result of people that have no interest in owning a gun that want to make the great sacrifice of not allowing law abiding citizens that want one to have it. If it saved more actual lives by making roads safer to ban SUV's I doubt many people would support it because a bunch of people would actually had to give up something they want. If someone really wanted to save lives in the US and cared about public safety they would spend a lot more time trying to ban all foods that had refined sugar in them. But most people would actually have to give something up that they like so that's certainly a no-go. Why are lives lost in gun fatalities worth more than lives lost to traffic accidents or to heart disease. Fat lives matter. When some nut walks into a Krispy Kreme and shoots a dozen people it will be on CNN for the next three days. The ironic thing is the Krispy Kreme probably contributed to killing an order of magnitude more people than the insane gunman was. It's like people can't see the forrest for the trees. If you want to get up over public safety why not aim for the stuff that kills folks a whole lot more than guns?
And yes, if you are a myopic simpleton you have my permission to distill all this down into, "Oh, so now you are saying guns=sugar!?". Fine.
BowieMercs
Footballguy
Agreed. The term "Assault weapon" AKA "scary black gun" is a fabrication. Pistol grips, flash hiders/muzzle brakes & adjustable stocks look intimidating to some people. "Legal Rifle" is not so scary & won't advance the anti agenda.
BowieMercs
Footballguy
I hope the Hearing Protection Act goes through. BATFE has been swamped processing the forms to register suppressors for years This would save time, money and hearing. It would be nice to not have to use redundant hearing protection (ear plugs AND earmuff ) while shooting at indoor ranges.
Last edited by a moderator:
Man of Constant Sorrow
Footballguy
Do you have any vids that show the actual level of sound suppression...
...b4 someone lniks to a Bond film and claims it is scientifically accurate?
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
When one's training and knowledge of firearms is based upon them having watched the Matrix 27 times, and Lethal Weapon 40 times you ae going to get some bad attempts at legislation. When you then allow women to join your legislative coalition and to re-write your Bill based upon their even more extensive experience of being touched once by a news story they do not completely recall, well it is going to get worse.
That said maybe it is prudent to take away my Constitutional rights and the rights of others as well. Maybe the 2nd amendment no longer serves its purpose. The thing is, if you are going to do so first off don't be an ignoramus on the subject matter, and second don't be hiding your motives. Don't come at it incrementally through legislation. That is not how the Constitution is changed. All you do then is undermine the rule of law and miss-educate idiots. If you have a case step forward and make it.
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
