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

  • 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

I'm all for some laws, I'm all for adding teeth to existing ones. But let's not mistake activity for productivity.

I'm all for legislation that exerts maximum impact on criminals while minimally impacting the rights of law abiding citizens. 

If the only layer of discussion is "ban everything that's not a shotgun or pistol", I don't think this going to be any more of a  productive discussion than "screw you, no changes in laws" stance would be from the other side.

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm curious, for those advocating banning assault rifles: 

1) What is your perceived percentage of gun injuries or deaths that are a result of "assault weapons" vs handguns? 

2) What is your projected decline in gun related deaths assuming, hypothetically, the ban is 100% effective in removing all assault rifles from the regular and black market? 

 

Edited by [icon]
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, [icon] said:

I'm curious, for those advocating banning assault rifles: 

1) What is your perceived percentage of gun injuries or deaths that are a result of "assault weapons" vs handguns? 

2) What is your projected decline in gun related deaths assuming, hypothetically, the ban is 100% effective in removing all assault rifles from the regular and black market? 

 

Worth it even if it saves only one life imo.

  • Like 10
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bonzai said:

Worth it even if it saves only one life imo.

That wasn't the the question. I'd appreciate it if someone would be willing to answer the simple questions. Thanks! 

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

1.  .1%

2.  1

Okay...your numbers aren't far off. 

So in 2014, 250 people were killed by all rifles ("assault rifles" were only a portion of that)

That same year 5560 people were murdered with handguns. 

If you're sincerely trying to make a difference, why are you focusing on a weapon that is responsible for a tiny fraction of the deaths in this country? Are the lives of those killed by rifle somehow more valuable than those killed by handgun? 

Edited by [icon]
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, [icon] said:

Okay...your numbers aren't far off. 

So in 2014, 250 people were killed by all rifles ("assault rifles" were only a portion of that. 

That same year 5560 people were murdered with handguns. 

If you're sincerely trying to make a difference, why are you focusing on a weapon that is responsible for a tiny fraction of the deaths in this country? Are the lives of those killed by rifle somehow more valuable than those killed by handgun? 

Because they add no value to society whatsoever.  They only exist to murder large groups of people.  It's a slam dunk.

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, [icon] said:

I'm curious, for those advocating banning assault rifles: 

1) What is your perceived percentage of gun injuries or deaths that are a result of "assault weapons" vs handguns? 

2) What is your projected decline in gun related deaths assuming, hypothetically, the ban is 100% effective in removing all assault rifles from the regular and black market? 

 

I mean, as to #2 why have any laws at all then? Obviously people could get them illegally; the point is making it more challenging. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, [icon] said:

Okay...your numbers aren't far off. 

So in 2014, 250 people were killed by all rifles ("assault rifles" were only a portion of that)

That same year 5560 people were murdered with handguns. 

If you're sincerely trying to make a difference, why are you focusing on a weapon that is responsible for a tiny fraction of the deaths in this country? Are the lives of those killed by rifle somehow more valuable than those killed by handgun? 

There's no difference to you in one person (maybe 2) being murdered by a handgun in thousands of different cases and 550 people being slaughtered and shot in one terrifying circumstance? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, [icon] said:

I'm curious, for those advocating banning assault rifles: 

1) What is your perceived percentage of gun injuries or deaths that are a result of "assault weapons" vs handguns? 

2) What is your projected decline in gun related deaths assuming, hypothetically, the ban is 100% effective in removing all assault rifles from the regular and black market? 

 

If I had my way, all guns would be banned from civilian ownership.

So 100%

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Buddy Ball 2K3 said:

I am a believer that if someone wants to kill someone/something/people they will. 

 So clearly, there's no reason to try to make it harder to do so.

Why do Americans want to kill so many people?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, [icon] said:

You think that this guy was concerned with the penalty of getting caught with this gun? A guy who's plan was to kill himself at the end of his spree?

Sincerely Just making sure I understand you correctly. 

So you're against a huge fine for owning an illegal gun simply because someone could be suicidal and not care about the fine?

Seriously?

Should we make murder in general be legal because "hey, someone could be suicidal and not care about the consequences anyway".

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, eoMMan said:

Guys, I don't think you are going to change icon's stance on this no matter what you say.

Save your "breath" and your time. Do something more productive today.

"I need one because I can have one, so I'm against changing the rules in any way so I can't have one"

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, eoMMan said:

So you're against a huge fine for owning an illegal gun simply because someone could be suicidal and not care about the fine?

Seriously?

Should we make murder in general be legal because "hey, someone could be suicidal and not care about the consequences anyway".

Where did I say I was against such a fine? Im merely attempting to get at the root of what you're hoping to accomplish with it, and whether it would accomplish it…

 I may be in the wrong here… But I think laws should be structured in a manner that they accomplish the goals they were created to 

i've asked four times now and nobody seems to be able to answer it… What is the current penalty for owning such a firearm… It seems we should actually know what the current law is before arbitrarily deciding what a new one should be. How do we know there's not already $1 million fine?

Edited by [icon]
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Capella said:

I mean, as to #2 why have any laws at all then? Obviously people could get them illegally; the point is making it more challenging. 

I am all for laws… And I agree it would make it harder…

 As a lawyer I figured you'd understand how a line of questioning works… I'm establishing something en route to a greater point. 

 The problem is everybody says they want a discussion about this, but when somebody actually tries to discuss it, everyone dismisses questions and starts throwing around hyperbole. 

Edited by [icon]
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Capella said:

There's no difference to you in one person (maybe 2) being murdered by a handgun in thousands of different cases and 550 people being slaughtered and shot in one terrifying circumstance? 

To me 500 people dead is 500 people dead…  it's 500 lives lost in the tragedy.

Is there some sort of multiplier effect that I'm not aware of?  It currently appears that the multiplier is about 22 to 1 with regards to rifle deaths versus handgun deaths… We seem to be OK with 22 times more people dying by one method,  because the other is more "terrifying "?

And I think the people who are shot one or two at a time might take issue with your assertion that it's not a terrifying circumstance. 

 

Edited by [icon]
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, [icon] said:

I am all for laws… And I agree it would make it harder…

 As a lawyer I figured you'd understand how a line of questioning works… I'm establishing something en route to a greater point.

 The problem is everybody says they want a discussion about this, but when somebody actually tries to discuss it, everyone dismisses questions and starts throwing around hyperbole. 

:lmao: I didn't realize somebody was on the stand, counselor.

You know, it's a message board. You are free to just make your point. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, WhatDoIKnow said:

Maybe I've asked this in this thread already.  If they were required to be colored pink, would as many be sold?

I mean, the color doesn't affect the function of the weapon.

As crazy as this sounds it seems pretty ingenious.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if it was discussed or not but I heard the Las Vegas shooter was using ammo capable of piercing the body armor worn by police.   Can anyone make a legitimate case for why citizens need this kind of ammunition?  

Edited by Godsbrother
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Godsbrother said:

I don't know if it was discussed or not but I heard the Las Vegas shooter was using ammo capable of piercing the body armor worn by police.   Can anyone make a legitimate case for why citizens need this kind of ammunition?  

I don't know about need, but I shoot it through a couple of my AR's because it is an economic way of buying 62grain .556 ammo.  Its often referred too as green tip and it is fairly inexpensive when bought in bulk (500-1000 rounds) as there is a bunch of military surplus available.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, [icon] said:

Where did I say I was against such a fine? Im merely attempting to get at the root of what you're hoping to accomplish with it, and whether it would accomplish it…

 I may be in the wrong here… But I think laws should be structured in a manner that they accomplish the goals they were created to 

i've asked four times now and nobody seems to be able to answer it… What is the current penalty for owning such a firearm… It seems we should actually know what the current law is before arbitrarily deciding what a new one should be. How do we know there's not already $1 million fine?

You make it seem that you are against a large fine by the way you are defending the guy being suicidal and how you don't think it would do any good.

Yes, a fine would help deter the ownership of these guns and it should also include guns that are modified, which in turn would make them illegal if originally sold that way (such as this bump stock stuff to make them essentially full automatic). 

Looks like the maximum is $250k plus prison time for owning an illegal automatic gun. Should be higher.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/19990728/federal-penalties-for-firearms-misuse

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Godsbrother said:

I don't know if it was discussed or not but I heard the Las Vegas shooter was using ammo capable of piercing the body armor worn by police.   Can anyone make a legitimate case for why citizens need this kind of ammunition?  

People can legally purchase body armor thus law abiding citizens should have the right to purchase ammo to protect their home. 

Edited by Buddy Ball 2K3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Buddy Ball 2K3 said:

People can legally purchase body armor thus law abiding citizens should the right to purchase ammo to protect their home. 

Grenades, nukes, tanks....all cool with you to own in order to protect your home?

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, abbottjamesr said:

I don't know about need, but I shoot it through a couple of my AR's because it is an economic way of buying 62grain .556 ammo.  Its often referred too as green tip and it is fairly inexpensive when bought in bulk (500-1000 rounds) as there is a bunch of military surplus available.  

This.. there is a misconception that M855 green-tip 556 rounds are armor piercing but they are not. Agreed re: economical via mil surplus. I have more than one can of surplus at home... great shooting ammo. 

That said... nearly any rifle round will challenge most light body armor. Police body armor is generally designed to stop handgun rounds. 

Edited by [icon]
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, abbottjamesr said:

I don't know about need, but I shoot it through a couple of my AR's because it is an economic way of buying 62grain .556 ammo.  Its often referred too as green tip and it is fairly inexpensive when bought in bulk (500-1000 rounds) as there is a bunch of military surplus available.  

 

Green tip is not AP any more than a ballistic. All 223 and up are gonna ruin your day short of having flak on. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, eoMMan said:

You make it seem that you are against a large fine by the way you are defending the guy being suicidal and how you don't think it would do any good.

Yes, a fine would help deter the ownership of these guns and it should also include guns that are modified, which in turn would make them illegal if originally sold that way (such as this bump stock stuff to make them essentially full automatic). 

Looks like the maximum is $250k plus prison time for owning an illegal automatic gun. Should be higher.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/19990728/federal-penalties-for-firearms-misuse

So it's currently $250k + 10-20yrs prison time. That's pretty steep and would likely bankrupt most folks... but I'm fine with upping it. I agree these guns should NOT be in civillian's hands.

I have to ask.... the prison term for owning an illegal gun is in line with that of 2nd degree murder already. So do we want the penalty for owning a gun to be higher than actually intentionally killing someone with it? 

Again.. I'm merely trying to ask questions and discuss here.... 

 

For the record: Im also for banning bump/slide fire stocks, trigger cranks, and any other redneck-engineering tricks that allow shooters to skirt the "Fully Auto" law by making it effortless to very rapidly pull the trigger of a semi-auto rifle. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, culdeus said:

Green tip is not AP any more than a ballistic. All 223 and up are gonna ruin your day short of having flak on. 

Understood, however I assume that is what was brought up as capable of penetrating body armour.  It does have a steel tip and would be more effective.  It avoided ban by the ATF as they are partially steel and lead and the bullet is not completely a penetrating material.

Regardless there is no reason to ban it or the sale of bulk ammo of any type.  

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

You make it seem that you are against a large fine by the way you are defending the guy being suicidal and how you don't think it would do any good.

Yes, a fine would help deter the ownership of these guns and it should also include guns that are modified, which in turn would make them illegal if originally sold that way (such as this bump stock stuff to make them essentially full automatic). 

Looks like the maximum is $250k plus prison time for owning an illegal automatic gun. Should be higher.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/19990728/federal-penalties-for-firearms-misuse

Death penalty would be a good start.  Might not deter everyone wouldn't hurt to try

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, eoMMan said:

Guys, I don't think you are going to change icon's stance on this no matter what you say.

Save your "breath" and your time. Do something more productive today.

People say they want to have a discussion about this, so I'm asking very questions that many people seem afraid to answer.

If you guys want to talk changing legislation, part of that is discussing what the impacts and unintended consequences of that would be. I think that's a very reasonable discussion. Me... I'm not down with blindly stepping on the rights of citizens without at least first considering if taking that step will actually fix the problem.

I've said it before and I'll say it again... I am ALL for legislation that maximizes the impact on criminals/crime while minimizing impact on law abiding citizens. If you feel like your ideas do that... let's talk about it. 
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Dan Lambskin said:

Death penalty would be a good start.  Might not deter everyone wouldn't hurt to try

Not sure if serious :unsure: 


 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Buddy Ball 2K3 said:

People can legally purchase body armor thus law abiding citizens should have the right to purchase ammo to protect their home. 

I guess but in all of the home invasion cases in the USA I wonder how many of the perps were wearing body armor?  I am willing to bet it is a really low number.

I don't wish to infringe on anyone's right to own a couple guns for hunting and protecting their homes but there seem to be a lot of people building up arsenals that are beyond ridiculous. The Las Vegas killer reportedly had 18 assault rifles, ammunition, explosives, etc.   Does anyone really feel they need this much fire power to protect their homes?

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, [icon] said:

People say they want to have a discussion about this, so I'm asking very questions that many people seem afraid to answer.

If you guys want to talk changing legislation, part of that is discussing what the impacts and unintended consequences of that would be. I think that's a very reasonable discussion. Me... I'm not down with blindly stepping on the rights of citizens without at least first considering if taking that step will actually fix the problem.

I've said it before and I'll say it again... I am ALL for legislation that maximizes the impact on criminals/crime while minimizing impact on law abiding citizens. If you feel like your ideas do that... let's talk about it. 
 

With all due respect icon, people are asking you direct questions and you are skirting around the question by asking a question yourself. It's not really a discussion.  

Also, you still haven't really given any good reasons for the OP.  Correct me if I'm wrong but it sounds like you support owning assault rifles because:

1. Hobby

2. Simply because you can

3. The world could go nuts and you need them to protect yourself and your loved ones (and I guess shotguns, pistols, etc etc aren't enough in this situation).

Correct?

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

I guess but in all of the home invasion cases in the USA I wonder how many of the perps were wearing body armor?  I am willing to bet it is a really low number.

I don't wish to infringe on anyone's right to own a couple guns for hunting and protecting their homes but there seem to be a lot of people building up arsenals that are beyond ridiculous. The Las Vegas killer reportedly had 18 assault rifles, ammunition, explosives, etc.   Does anyone really feel they need this much fire power to protect their homes?

 

I have a gun (hidden) in ever major area of my home. Is it too much? I guess its up to your opinion. But think about this, if a guy want's that many guns to do what he did, what law is going to stop him?

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Buddy Ball 2K3 said:

People can legally purchase body armor thus law abiding citizens should have the right to purchase ammo to protect their home. 

we're so screwed

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Godsbrother said:

I guess but in all of the home invasion cases in the USA I wonder how many of the perps were wearing body armor?  I am willing to bet it is a really low number.

I don't wish to infringe on anyone's right to own a couple guns for hunting and protecting their homes but there seem to be a lot of people building up arsenals that are beyond ridiculous. The Las Vegas killer reportedly had 18 assault rifles, ammunition, explosives, etc.   Does anyone really feel they need this much fire power to protect their homes?

 

I would say there certainly isn't a NEED for owning 20 rifles... but does anyone have the statistics on number of spree shootings that involve more than 2 guns? 2 is the most I've ever heard of being used. I know this guy had 20 up there but all I've heard of being used is the Russian Light Machine Gun (Illegal) and possibly a modified AK (illegal). 

Is limiting Americans to 5 guns actually going to impact any spree shootings if 99 to 100% of them involve fewer firearms than that? Or is that legislation that simply steps on law abiding citizens? 

Again... I'm asking to provoke legitimate discussion here. :thumbup: 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Buddy Ball 2K3 said:

I have a gun (hidden) in ever major area of my home. Is it too much? I guess its up to your opinion. But think about this, if a guy want's that many guns to do what he did, what law is going to stop him?

Maybe nothing although it might be useful to be tracking people that are buying an excessive amount of assault weapons.   

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

With all due respect icon, people are asking you direct questions and you are skirting around the question by asking a question yourself. It's not really a discussion.  

Also, you still haven't really given any good reasons for the OP.  Correct me if I'm wrong but it sounds like you support owning assault rifles because:

1. Hobby

2. Simply because you can

3. The world could go nuts and you need them to protect yourself and your loved ones (and I guess shotguns, pistols, etc etc aren't enough in this situation).

Correct?

I've made it very clear multiple times exactly what my stance is. Yes, I support the rights of Americans to own semi-automatic rifles because: 

1) I enjoy competitive/sport shooting. 

2) Because the second amendment provides the right for me to own any guns deemed legal

3) Because we have an unlikely but increasing incidents of civil unrest after natural disasters, and I live on a very dangerous city that also happens to be due for a massive quake that would devastate local infrastructure for weeks, likely resulting in civil unrest at some point. Shotguns and pistols have a realistic effective range of about 50-75ft... so yes, a rifle is necessary item in my mind. Ever seen a boxing match when one fighter has a significant reach advantage? 

Now... while I understand you may think this is unfounded... and that's your right. You are free to consider that "insurance policy" not worth purchasing for your family. :thumbup: However currently I am legally afforded this right. If you'd like to take that right away, I'm asking questions relevant in making your case for that.

So... now let's get back to my questions :popcorn: 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Buddy Ball 2K3 said:

This drives me nuts. Are Icon and I the only ones that know what an actual "ASSAULT WEAPON" is?

Apparently. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Buddy Ball 2K3 said:

This drives me nuts. Are Icon and I the only ones that know what an actual "ASSAULT WEAPON" is?

Maybe I misspoke.  According to this article the Las Vegas killer had a 42-weapon arsenal.  I think it may be a tad excessive for home protection and that perhaps if we tracked the number of purchases it could help identify individuals that are building up stockpiles of weapons and ammo.

In Pennsylvania I am not allowed to buy firecrackers but I can buy as many guns as I want.  Pretty weird...

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...