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
Dan Lambskin said:
Death penalty would be a good start.  Might not deter everyone wouldn't hurt to try
Click to expand...
If you look at the death penalty thread there are all the good reasons why it should not be abolished -and if you kill the perp, you know he won't violate any gun laws ever again.

Hey, it's for everyone's peace of mind

 
[icon] said:
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. 
Click to expand...
yeah but from what I have read he purchased legal weapons and converted them using legally purchased bump fire devices.  I want the type of guns he used and the bump fire devices made illegal.  This place needs to be shut down - http://www.slidefire.com/.  I view them as no better than a herion dealer.  

 
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?
Click to expand...
I hope you feel good about putting your family at risk like this since every study has shown that your family is more likely to be injured or die by a gun then a family that doesn't own a gun.  Link to one such study - https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/160/10/929/140858/Guns-in-the-Home-and-Risk-of-a-Violent-Death-in

The greatest falsehood of this debate is that a gun in a home makes you safer.  It actually does the exact opposite.   

 
Redwes25 said:
I hope you feel good about putting your family at risk like this since every study has shown that your family is more likely to be injured or die by a gun then a family that doesn't own a gun.  Link to one such study - https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/160/10/929/140858/Guns-in-the-Home-and-Risk-of-a-Violent-Death-in

The greatest falsehood of this debate is that a gun in a home makes you safer.  It actually does the exact opposite.   
Click to expand...
"You don't get it - those guys are not me, my guns are perfectly safe"

 
WhatDoIKnow said:
From Merriam-Webster:

:any of various intermediate-range, magazine-fed military rifles (such as the AK-47) that can be set for automatic or semiautomatic fire; also :a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow only semiautomatic fire

:shrug:
Click to expand...


The U.S. Army defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges." In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:

It must be capable of selective fire.

It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle, such as the 7.92×33mm Kurz, the 7.62x39mm and the 5.56x45mm NATO.

Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine.

It must have an effective range of at least 300 metres (330 yards).

SOURCE: Army intelligence document FSTC-CW-07-03-70. Page 67, Section III, part A, paragraph 68a

Rifles that meet most of these criteria, but not all, are technically not assault rifles, despite frequently being called such:

Select-fire M2 Carbines are not assault rifles; their effective range is only 200 yards.

Select-fire rifles such as the FN FAL battle rifle are not assault rifles; they fire full-powered rifle cartridges.

Semi-automatic-only rifles like variants of the Colt AR-15 are not assault rifles; they do not have select-fire capabilities.

Semi-auto rifles with fixed magazines like the SKS are not assault rifles; they do not have detachable box magazines and are not capable of automatic fire.

 
msommer said:
Yes, really. I sincerely hope that this discussion doesn't drive you nuts in that way.

For all of our sakes, and particularly those close to you.
Click to expand...
This is an interesting comment. If you really felt this discussion would lead to someone going Postal, would it not be partly your fault for egging him on. 

Complain about the people that want to protect their gun right while you are contributing to the cause of mental illness. 

 
KCitons said:
This is an interesting comment. If you really felt this discussion would lead to someone going Postal, would it not be partly your fault for egging him on. 

Complain about the people that want to protect their gun right while you are contributing to the cause of mental illness. 
Click to expand...
That's an interesting comment.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
[icon] said:
I was under the impression you wanted to discuss the topic... please avoid the personal attacks. 

What is the current penalty for fully auto weapons. 

What should the penalty be? 

Will that penalty deter a suicidal person? 
Click to expand...


[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? 
Click to expand...


[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? 
Click to expand...


[icon] said:
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. 
Click to expand...


[icon] said:
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? 
Click to expand...

 
WhatDoIKnow said:
Not sure posting an airsoft rifle is helping.

I'm guessing if you are running around with that rifle and pointing it at people in public as if intending to shoot them, you would end up getting shot by law enforcement.
Click to expand...
I don't care if it shoots bubble, that looks menacing and there is zero need for something like that.

 
[icon] said:
What is the current penalty for fully auto weapons. 

What should the penalty be? 

Will that penalty deter a suicidal person? 
Click to expand...
It won't let me quote your post, but I'll give some answers, just my opinion of course.

1) No clue, def way too lenient though 

2) Mandatory 10 years, federal, 85% served, first offense... Selling them should be 20 years, federal, mandatory, first offense

3) The above

 
Here's what I think would be the nuclear option:  (Note, not saying this is my "plan") but would be one way of solving this.

  • Guns shorter than 12 inches limited to 6 rounds.
  • Guns longer than 12 inches limited to 3 rounds, with ballistic rounds being loaded only using lever action from an internal magazine. (This excludes semi-auto shotguns for example)
  • Guns that fall outside that definition are graded to what is today's Class 3 level, requiring background checks, DNA, fingerprints, and evaluation and subject to annual taxation.  Failure to pay the taxes and fees disallows further consideration.  
Crimes committed with guns of any kind, since we love mandatory minimums.

  • Crimes pled to or convicted of where a gun is present +10 years mandatory
  • Crimes pled to or convicted where a gun is discharged without loss of life +10 years
  • Crimes pled to or convicted where a gun is used against a LEO, or results in loss of life LWOP
 
fantasycurse42 said:
It won't let me quote your post, but I'll give some answers, just my opinion of course.

1) No clue, def way too lenient though 

2) Mandatory 10 years, federal, 85% served, first offense... Selling them should be 20 years, federal, mandatory, first offense

3) The above
Click to expand...
Thanks for responding :thumbup:

The penalty for owning an auto is currently already 10 years (15-20 if you have a prior record)... 10 years is the same as 2nd degree murder in many states. Do you think the ownership of an illegal firearm should exceed that of actually killing someone? 

Not sure what you mean by "The Above" 
 

 
[icon] said:
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? 
Click to expand...
1) Heavily leans handguns

2) Mass murders where 60 people and 500 are injured will be nearly impossible for one individual to pull off. The decline would be maybe 5%. 

 
culdeus said:
Here's what I think would be the nuclear option:  (Note, not saying this is my "plan") but would be one way of solving this.

  • Guns longer than 12 inches limited to 3 rounds, with ballistic rounds being loaded only using lever action from an internal magazine. (This excludes semi-auto shotguns for example)
  • Guns that fall outside that definition are banned.  
Crimes committed with guns of any kind, since we love mandatory minimums.

  • Crimes pled to or convicted of where a gun is present = death penalty 
Click to expand...
Better solution 

 
So as a republican conservative gun owner, I'm going to tell you the opposite of what my party does.  because they will cry "the Constitution says I can" and "if we don't have them, then the government and criminals can run amuck".  And they are wrong.  And they take that viewpoint to get money from their constituents.

1) the Constitution was written when the big guns were muskets and cannons.  And no individual lugged around a canon.  So there isn't even close to a shred of likeness between the 1700s and 2000s.  A musket hardly compares to an assault rifle.  The idea that the founders were all seeing is ridiculous.  If the Constitution were written today it would be almost 100% different.

2) assault riles, high powered rifles, and even semi automatics aren't going to protect you from the govt. They could drop a UAV missile on you in about 5 minutes if they didn't care about hitting other.  They could roll up a Gatling gun and take out neighborhoods.  What's your automatic rifle going to do then?

Now the one thing I'll say is that even if banned, you can get these weapons through illegal sources or even find instructions on the Internet to turn a normal gun into something far worse.  Guns are illegal in a lot of places.  Doesn't seem to stop them from showing up (Chicago, DC, Venezuela, etc, etc).  But if they were outlawed, you could immediately put a law on the books that carrying illegal firearms like assault rifles, even if unused, is a 5 year sentence.

I kind of liken the argument to cars.  We still put out cars that go 100+ MPH.  Why?  Nowhere is it legal to go 100+ MPH in the US (maybe Montana, but in general it's not).  Yet every beach weekend douches from NY and NJ inevitably drive down I-95 at about 120 MPH.  Cutting in and out of traffic, and causing a tremendous amount of accidents.

Like the cars that can vastly exceed speed limits, weapons that do more than protect from general harm or are used for hunting ...they are all simply a symbol reflecting the "freedom" and "individualism" of the US.   And they are symbols we no longer need.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Brunell4MVP said:
So as a republican conservative gun owner, I'm going to tell you the opposite of what my party does.  because they will cry "the Constitution says I can" and "if we don't have them, then the government and criminals can run amuck".  And they are wrong.  And they take that viewpoint to get money from their constituents.

1) the Constitution was written when the big guns were muskets and cannons.  And no individual lugged around a canon.  So there isn't even close to a shred of likeness between the 1700s and 2000s.  A musket hardly compares to an assault rifle.  The idea that the founders were all seeing is ridiculous.  If the Constitution were written today it would be almost 100% different.

2) assault riles, high powered rifles, and even semi automatics aren't going to protect you from the govt. They could drop a UAV missile on you in about 5 minutes if they didn't care about hitting other.  They could roll up a Gatling gun and take out neighborhoods.  What's your automatic rifle going to do then?

Now the one thing I'll say is that even if banned, you can get these weapons through illegal sources or even find instructions on the Internet to turn a normal gun into something far worse.  Guns are illegal in a lot of places.  Doesn't seem to stop them from showing up (Chicago, DC, Venezuela, etc, etc).  But if they were outlawed, you could immediately put a law on the books that carrying illegal firearms like assault rifles, even if unused, is a 5 year sentence.

I kind of liken the argument to cars.  We still put out cars that go 100+ MPH.  Why?  Nowhere is it legal to go 100+ MPH in the US (maybe Montana, but in general it's not).  Yet every beach weekend douches from NY and NJ inevitably drive down I-95 at about 120 MPH.  Cutting in and out of traffic, and causing a tremendous amount of accidents.

Like the cars that can vastly exceed speed limits, weapons that do more than protect from general harm or are used for hunting ...they are all simply a symbol reflecting the "freedom" and "individualism" of the US.   And they are symbols we no longer need.
Click to expand...
I was onboard until the car analogy. You can legally own a car that can go 120mph. It's only when you go 120mph that you get arrested. Just like a gun...it's legal to own, but you get arrested if you use it to kill people. Are you saying they should take away all cars capable of going 120mph? If not, that was a pretty worthless comparison.

 
Brunell4MVP said:
So as a republican conservative gun owner, I'm going to tell you the opposite of what my party does.  because they will cry "the Constitution says I can" and "if we don't have them, then the government and criminals can run amuck".  And they are wrong.  And they take that viewpoint to get money from their constituents.

1) the Constitution was written when the big guns were muskets and cannons.  And no individual lugged around a canon.  So there isn't even close to a shred of likeness between the 1700s and 2000s.  A musket hardly compares to an assault rifle.  The idea that the founders were all seeing is ridiculous.  If the Constitution were written today it would be almost 100% different.

2) assault riles, high powered rifles, and even semi automatics aren't going to protect you from the govt. They could drop a UAV missile on you in about 5 minutes if they didn't care about hitting other.  They could roll up a Gatling gun and take out neighborhoods.  What's your automatic rifle going to do then?

Now the one thing I'll say is that even if banned, you can get these weapons through illegal sources or even find instructions on the Internet to turn a normal gun into something far worse.  Guns are illegal in a lot of places.  Doesn't seem to stop them from showing up (Chicago, DC, Venezuela, etc, etc).  But if they were outlawed, you could immediately put a law on the books that carrying illegal firearms like assault rifles, even if unused, is a 5 year sentence.

I kind of liken the argument to cars.  We still put out cars that go 100+ MPH.  Why?  Nowhere is it legal to go 100+ MPH in the US (maybe Montana, but in general it's not).  Yet every beach weekend douches from NY and NJ inevitably drive down I-95 at about 120 MPH.  Cutting in and out of traffic, and causing a tremendous amount of accidents.

Like the cars that can vastly exceed speed limits, weapons that do more than protect from general harm or are used for hunting ...they are all simply a symbol reflecting the "freedom" and "individualism" of the US.   And they are symbols we no longer need.
Click to expand...
Great post and great analogy.  The "laws won't keep them out of the bad guys hands" argument has been used as a straw man for far too long.  Sure, laws won't completely stop these idiots from getting semi-automatic weapons on the black market, but it will make it a heck of a lot harder to get that single semi-automatic, let alone 23.  And what about these bump stocks that turn semi-autos into functioning fully autos?  Why should those be freely available and legal? 

I'm not a gun guy, but I fully respect a person's right to hunt and protect themselves, although the whole protection against a tyrannical government thing (i.e. Obama is coming for your little white babies) is overly dramatic and historically-based.  I want to see debate and conversations about the extent to which people should be allowed to own and carry weapons.  With this Congress and the gun-lobby in control, however, we can't even talk about it without being branded as some type of communist assault on our freedoms or politicizing this awful tragedy.  That is complete and utter garbage.  

 
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