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

I posted this in another thread- from Real Clear Politics:

Why Gun Control is a Losing Issue for Democrats

With Republicans in charge of government, legislative action on gun control is close to impossible, even in the wake of the Mandalay Bay massacre that killed at least 59 and wounded over 500. But to understand why gun-control efforts are so politically difficult, it’s more instructive to look at certain Democrats—the red-state variety who haven’t joined their national brethren in denouncing the National Rifle Association.

Six red-state Senate Democrats representing largely rural states are up for reelection in 2018, and not one came out for more gun control in the wake of the Vegas killings. West Virginia’s Joe Manchin, who cosponsored bipartisan legislation expanding the scope of background checks, has been notably quiet. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota voted against the background-check bill, and has no interest in bringing up gun control in the run-up to her reelection campaign. Sen. Claire McCaskill, the most liberal of the bunch, simply released an anodyne statement calling the Vegas attack “evil” and offering support for law enforcement. She knows the politics in Missouri better than the armchair pundits who insist that gun control is a slam-dunk issue.

Even in traumatized Nevada, a swing state where Democrats have been gaining ground, it’s tricky to talk about stricter gun control. The state has an above-average gun-ownership rate, and guns go hand-in-hand with the Wild West feel of its desert regions. Gov. Brian Sandoval, one of the most popular GOP governors in the country, recently vetoed legislation mandating additional background checks, while signing bills that offer additional protections for gun owners.

Jacky Rosen, the highly-touted Democratic congresswoman from Las Vegas running against Sen. Dean Heller, didn’t talk about gun control after the tragedy. Rosen spokeswoman Ivana Brancaccio said the congresswoman supports some action to deal with gun violence but didn’t specify any details. “No single policy change could prevent a mass shooting like this, but Congresswoman Rosen is committed to action that addresses the unacceptable rate of gun violence in this country and will help ensure fewer weapons designed to kill people end up in the hands of dangerous individuals,” Brancaccio said.

Why hasn’t there been momentum for gun-control measures, even in the wake of horrific tragedies? There aren’t any obvious answers, but here are some possibilities. One, the gun lobby fears that small-scale measures could be a slippery slope towards more drastic bans. With more outspoken anti-gun voices from the Left gaining influence within the party, it’s not an entirely unreasonable concern. Second, despite high-profile mass shootings, overall gun violence is down markedly since the mid-1990s, making the connection between growing gun ownership and the homicide rate awfully tenuous. Third, with growing fears of terrorism in the post-9/11 world, perhaps more people feel the need for self-defense—even with weaponry far beyond what’s necessary to protect a household. And fourth, with over 300 million guns in the country, gun-control advocates realize that cosmetic measures won’t have much of an effect.

National polls further explain the Democrats’ reticence: 48 percent of Americans said they had a gun in their household, according to an August NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey—the highest total since the pollster began asking that question in 1999. A 50 percent majority in the same poll said they worry that government will go too far in restricting the rights of citizens to own guns, versus 45 percent who think the government should do more to regulate guns. Two national polls conducted in 2016 (NBC/WSJ and Quinnipiac) found the NRA with net-positive favorability scores, despite the barrage of negative publicity. This is far from a slam-dunk political issue, despite what some talk-show hosts believe.

When Americans are asked broad questions about basic measures such as background checks, pollsters usually report broad support. But when polls drill down to details of the changes, that support steadily drops. Several recent polls found narrow majorities supporting bans on semiautomatic weapons, though the precise wording of the questions generate different results in different surveys.

But the potential for small-scale compromise is overwhelmed by the intensity of support among those who oppose increased restrictions. Opponents of gun regulations are often single-issue voters who are well-organized and well-represented in states across the country, red and purple alike. The NRA is a powerful lobby, not because it buys off politicians but because of the ideological commitment of its members.

A good political rule of thumb is that the party that’s divided is the one that’s on the losing end of public opinion on an issue. Republicans are driving the opposition, and they’re uncommonly united on this issue. Unless Democrats like McCaskill, Heitkamp, and Jon Tester start agreeing with their liberal counterparts, such as Chris Murphy and Kamala Harris, it’s hard to see any movement on additional gun regulations—even with a future Democratic president.oat

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 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

16 minutes ago, Harry Manback said:

I think the Vegas shooter proved how deadly a .223 or similar weapon can be, fired into a crowd. Does 58 dead and 500 wounded sound more like RPG casualties or a handgun casualty?

If you shot the same 750 rounds of 9mm into a crowd vs 50-100 RPG's into the crowd?  Probably half the casualties with a handgun, and probably 25x the casualties with RPGs into that crowd. 

So yeah...

Like I said.. this tangent is silly. Moving on. 

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

I am wondering could supports of gun rights support any of the following:

1) A ban on semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines or clips greater than 10 (coupled with a repurchase program funded by the government for all guns banned with reimbursement at the price paid)
This is kind of misworded. Are you trying to ban rifles with detachable magazines, or magazines with a capacity greater than 10. I'm against the ban of either, in any case. I'm also against federal deficit spending on a program like this. 

2) A ban on all clips and magazines greater than 10 for any gun
I'm against this personally on pistols as it necessitates me carrying another magazine with my EDC pistol and requires a redesign of many firearms... while likely not really impacting crime much (most firearms used in crimes are not procured through standard channels. IF you'd like to ban extended magazines that extend beyond the designed framework/capacity of the handgun I'm fine with that. 

With regard to rifles, 30rd magazine has become the defacto standard for recreational/defense use for the AK and AR platforms. In this particular shooting there were reportedly extended 100rd surefire mags used. I am okay with a ban of "extended capacity" magazines defined as those over the standard 30rds. Extended mags, drum mags, and any hacks around the standard configuration can be banned, IMO. 

3)  Guns owners should be required to have license (much like a car license with reasonable education and testing requirements)
The license for automobiles is required to drive on public roads, not to own or drive a car. As it stands now there is a fairly in-depth day long training class required to get a concealed carry permit in most states. I'd like to encourage more testing, perhaps a short written test followed by range/shooting test to confirm you are still familiar with the law, and how to safely operate a firearm. Fail an you must go through a full day training course to be certified again.  

4) bans on all bump fire stocks and similar devices that can modify a gun to be similar to an automatic weapon and
I am okay with a ban on bump fire and similar devices 

5) background checks and waiting periods are required for all sales (public and private)?  
I'm not a fan of universal background checks, but do think they should be required for all non-family transactions, so long as there is no storage/tracking of this data for registration purposes. 

 

My personal feelings in red. 

On point 1, my idea is to ban guns similar to the AR-15 which was used in the LV attack and many other similar acts.  From your other points sounds like you are against that.  Is there a specific reason?  Would be interested to know.  Is there something about these rifles something you wouldn't want banned.  The compensation would be designed to compensate folks for the bank.  

I do think smaller magazines would be really preferable and would have thought something like 10 would be reasonable given even for home defense I doubt the bad guys are hanging around even after 1 or 2 shots.  Of course if couldn't get people there I would be happy with any limit so think I could live with 30 as it is an improvement.

On 3, I think licenses should be for all ownership?  Would you object to that.

I think we are agreed on 4 and 5 as  can understand a sale to family should be excluded.  

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

If you shot 750 rounds of 9mm into a crowd vs 750 RPG's into the crowd?  Probably half the casualties with a handgun, and probably 25x the casualties with RPGs into that crowd. 

So yeah...

Like I said.. this tangent is silly. Moving on. 

Is mass no longer being considered?

An RPG round weighs 15lbs.

A 9mm is 60 grains. 7000 grains in a pound.

A RPG round is 105000 grains.

1750 9mm rounds = 1 RPG

So...yeah. If you assume the Vegas shooter fired 4,000 rounds, and hit ~600 people. His hit rate was 15%. A handgun is less accurate, but we'll throw that out.

15% hit rate would be 262 rounds landed.

Vegas shooter was fatal with 11% of the rounds, this assumes people weren't hit more than once but we'll disregard. 

a .223 does 25% more damage, so we can decrease the lethaltity to 8% for a handgun.

20 dead with a handgun. Roughly. 

How much did you assume a single RPG would cause?

Also, how long does it take to fire 1750 rounds from a handgun? Assuming an 18 round magazine, that's 97 reloads. How long would that take? Vegas did 4000 rounds in 9-11 minutes. 

 

This math is likely all junk, but it was interesting to do the exercise. You have to consider time, and effort. A handgun takes considerable more time and effort to do mass damage, as opposed to a .223 AR-15 as opposed to an RPG. 

All silly comparisons, sure, but not as far fetched as maybe initially thought. This is all a bit macabre, but please correct my math/logic. Seriously, I have no idea if this is remotely accurate.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, timschochet said:

So all you have to do is read the above article to know: this conversation is interesting, and for the gratification of people here on all sides. But this debate isn't going anywhere. NOTHING is going to happen on this issue.

Yup and it is very depressing.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I posted this in another thread- from Real Clear Politics:

Why Gun Control is a Losing Issue for Democrats

With Republicans in charge of government, legislative action on gun control is close to impossible, even in the wake of the Mandalay Bay massacre that killed at least 59 and wounded over 500. But to understand why gun-control efforts are so politically difficult, it’s more instructive to look at certain Democrats—the red-state variety who haven’t joined their national brethren in denouncing the National Rifle Association.

Six red-state Senate Democrats representing largely rural states are up for reelection in 2018, and not one came out for more gun control in the wake of the Vegas killings. West Virginia’s Joe Manchin, who cosponsored bipartisan legislation expanding the scope of background checks, has been notably quiet. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota voted against the background-check bill, and has no interest in bringing up gun control in the run-up to her reelection campaign. Sen. Claire McCaskill, the most liberal of the bunch, simply released an anodyne statement calling the Vegas attack “evil” and offering support for law enforcement. She knows the politics in Missouri better than the armchair pundits who insist that gun control is a slam-dunk issue.

Even in traumatized Nevada, a swing state where Democrats have been gaining ground, it’s tricky to talk about stricter gun control. The state has an above-average gun-ownership rate, and guns go hand-in-hand with the Wild West feel of its desert regions. Gov. Brian Sandoval, one of the most popular GOP governors in the country, recently vetoed legislation mandating additional background checks, while signing bills that offer additional protections for gun owners.

Jacky Rosen, the highly-touted Democratic congresswoman from Las Vegas running against Sen. Dean Heller, didn’t talk about gun control after the tragedy. Rosen spokeswoman Ivana Brancaccio said the congresswoman supports some action to deal with gun violence but didn’t specify any details. “No single policy change could prevent a mass shooting like this, but Congresswoman Rosen is committed to action that addresses the unacceptable rate of gun violence in this country and will help ensure fewer weapons designed to kill people end up in the hands of dangerous individuals,” Brancaccio said.

Why hasn’t there been momentum for gun-control measures, even in the wake of horrific tragedies? There aren’t any obvious answers, but here are some possibilities. One, the gun lobby fears that small-scale measures could be a slippery slope towards more drastic bans. With more outspoken anti-gun voices from the Left gaining influence within the party, it’s not an entirely unreasonable concern. Second, despite high-profile mass shootings, overall gun violence is down markedly since the mid-1990s, making the connection between growing gun ownership and the homicide rate awfully tenuous. Third, with growing fears of terrorism in the post-9/11 world, perhaps more people feel the need for self-defense—even with weaponry far beyond what’s necessary to protect a household. And fourth, with over 300 million guns in the country, gun-control advocates realize that cosmetic measures won’t have much of an effect.

National polls further explain the Democrats’ reticence: 48 percent of Americans said they had a gun in their household, according to an August NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey—the highest total since the pollster began asking that question in 1999. A 50 percent majority in the same poll said they worry that government will go too far in restricting the rights of citizens to own guns, versus 45 percent who think the government should do more to regulate guns. Two national polls conducted in 2016 (NBC/WSJ and Quinnipiac) found the NRA with net-positive favorability scores, despite the barrage of negative publicity. This is far from a slam-dunk political issue, despite what some talk-show hosts believe.

When Americans are asked broad questions about basic measures such as background checks, pollsters usually report broad support. But when polls drill down to details of the changes, that support steadily drops. Several recent polls found narrow majorities supporting bans on semiautomatic weapons, though the precise wording of the questions generate different results in different surveys.

But the potential for small-scale compromise is overwhelmed by the intensity of support among those who oppose increased restrictions. Opponents of gun regulations are often single-issue voters who are well-organized and well-represented in states across the country, red and purple alike. The NRA is a powerful lobby, not because it buys off politicians but because of the ideological commitment of its members.

A good political rule of thumb is that the party that’s divided is the one that’s on the losing end of public opinion on an issue. Republicans are driving the opposition, and they’re uncommonly united on this issue. Unless Democrats like McCaskill, Heitkamp, and Jon Tester start agreeing with their liberal counterparts, such as Chris Murphy and Kamala Harris, it’s hard to see any movement on additional gun regulations—even with a future Democratic president.oat

I agree to be honest.  I think Dems have been focusing far too much on guns and gays, time to focus on jobs.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, KCitons said:

I'll assume this is trolling. 

Would more or less people die if driving drunk was an automatic $250k fine and 10 years in jail?

That's actually an interesting question.  When you're talking about deterrence, there's a point of not only diminishing but also fully plateaued returns.  

Consider: 

Shoplifting is a crime punishable by 1 hour community service 

vs.

Shoplifting is a crime punishable by death

Sure, you'd see less shoplifting. 

But what if it was a crime punishable by a minimum 50 years in prison?  Would we see more shoplifting then than if it was punishable by death? Probably not.  
 

Similarly, there's a point at which no rational person would drive drunk.  It's long before 250k fine and 10 years in jail.  Whatever that point is, I'm fine with that.  More than that is purely punitive, isn't saving lives, and isn't doing anyone any good.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Otis said:

BTW, I recently became the owner of a shotgun.  I’m unlikely to get very far in causing mass carnage if ever I flip my lid, but it gives me a little peace of mind knowing I have some protection in the event of the zombie apocalypse or the crash of the financial markets or some massive natural disaster.  I also can understand not wanting to have any gun in the home, as I was of that mind for many years.  Ultimately the “I’d rather have it and never need it, than need it and not have it” mentality prevailed for me.  But I get both sides of it.

What I don’t get is the guys with arsenals in their homes, and the guys who are pushing hard on the notion that the 2nd amendment allows me to have fully automatic M16 assault rifles.   Nobody needs that ####.  

Unless the zombies come. :unsure:

Please tell me you're getting range time or lessons on how to shoot it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Listened to a podcast that discussed some history of the NRA this morning. Apparently the NRA was a mostly hunting/sporting group for nearly 100 years. After the assassinations of JFK, MLK, and RFK, the first gun legislation was passed. The leaders of the NRA at first didn't oppose much, but some of its constituents feared that their rights were slowly being taken away. So they ousted much of the NRA leadership and began lobbying into what they are today.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Duff Man said:

The only function it serves in discussion is to build consensus that: yes, there is a line over which we can all agree there is no legit reason for civilian population to own these weapons. 

This should be a no brainer to agree to. But as was posted earlier, some on the gun side don't want to concede ANYTHING, for fear that the concessions will never stop.

:yes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

That's actually an interesting question.  When you're talking about deterrence, there's a point of not only diminishing but also fully plateaued returns.  

Consider: 

Shoplifting is a crime punishable by 1 hour community service 

vs.

Shoplifting is a crime punishable by death

Sure, you'd see less shoplifting. 

But what if it was a crime punishable by a minimum 50 years in prison?  Would we see more shoplifting then than if it was punishable by death? Probably not.  
 

Similarly, there's a point at which no rational person would drive drunk.  It's long before 250k fine and 10 years in jail.  Whatever that point is, I'm fine with that.  More than that is purely punitive, isn't saving lives, and isn't doing anyone any good.

Have we found that point yet?

To be honest, banning alcohol would work about as well as banning guns

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, WhatDoIKnow said:

The original Colt AR-15 came with a 5 round magazine, :) but that is a discussion for another time.  I think anything over 10-15 is too many, but that is just my opinion.

I agree about the bump fire and other rapid-fire mechanisms.  It's good to hear your thoughts on them and you know there will be a major push back if there is an attempt to ban them.

This is just too easy.

hubba huba

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Harry Manback said:

BTW my math says 1 RPG = 714 rounds

 

So 5-6 RPG rounds for 58 deaths and 500 injuries.

I'm tapping in here to correct your math since you seem to be doing it in earnest. 

You're mistakenly factoring pure ballistic weight of an RPG, but not accounting for the fact that it explodes with a kill zone of 2800 square feet (30ft / 10m radius).... and a damage zone well beyond that. 

Assuming one person per 4ish square feet (2x2 space) in a crowded concert.... a single RPG round could likely kill 500-700 people, horrifically injuring many many more (not just flesh wounds but missing limbs, blindness, deaf, shrapnel, etc). 

Sure its not as accurate, and he's not going to get tons of shots off.... but I imagine he could fire maybe 10 RPG rounds before the crowd had a chance to figure out what was going on and disperse much. Even accounting for overlap and whatnot... You could be looking at a death toll in range of 9/11 (thousands). 

THAT is why I'm saying that a .223 round being considered closer to a RPG than a 9mm round is just plain silly. The math was a noble effort but it's unnecessary. 

 

Edited by [icon]
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Harry Manback said:

How long to reload a 9mm? 5 seconds? How long to empty magazine? 

Ft Hood shooter, presumably a trained soldier, fired 100 rounds in 7 minutes. 

Super skilled awesome bad ### FBG or regular Joe? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, eoMMan said:

Vegas guy had like 47 guns between his house and the hotel room.

Bit excessive, no?

Maybe a limit on the number of guns you can own? Or at least a limit on the number of certain types of guns (for example, unlimited pistols but only so many semi-auto rifles, etc)?

 

SECOND AMENDMENT HAS NO LIMITZ, BRAH

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not want the government to ban items people want.  Obviously, in this country we have lots of gun lovers.  I'm not one of them, but I sure as hell believe in the right to legally

own a gun.  I think we need to get down to what is causing people to go ape#### like this?  Banning weapons isnt going to solve the problem.  I'm all for background checks, although I'm not real sure how effective they would be. 

We have a mental health problem in this country?  I think most would agree that access to these services is sometimes limited and we dont seem to want to devote much effort to help people.  Idk, just spitballing, I think thats a big issue and Im sure there are others.

I also do not want to get my bags screened every time I check into a hotel.  Every time something like this happens we start talking about giving away liberties to make us feel safer.  #### that noise.  Lets find out what the problems are and then attempt to fix them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Otis said:

Gun nerds: what about an atomic gun that fires atomic missiles?  Ok?

Does it have a pistol grip or removable magazine? As long as it doesn't look scary, it's probable ok.

Can you clarify what a gun need is ?

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

I do not want the government to ban items people want.  Obviously, in this country we have lots of gun lovers.  I'm not one of them, but I sure as hell believe in the right to legally

own a gun.  I think we need to get down to what is causing people to go ape#### like this?  Banning weapons isnt going to solve the problem.  I'm all for background checks, although I'm not real sure how effective they would be. 

We have a mental health problem in this country?  I think most would agree that access to these services is sometimes limited and we dont seem to want to devote much effort to help people.  Idk, just spitballing, I think thats a big issue and Im sure there are others.

I also do not want to get my bags screened every time I check into a hotel.  Every time something like this happens we start talking about giving away liberties to make us feel safer.  #### that noise.  Lets find out what the problems are and then attempt to fix them.


Oh.  Oh yeah.  Wow.  You’ve basically just solved it. This has nothing to do with guns.  Let’s just figure out what makes some people crazy and some people evil, and stop that from happening.  

Sheesh.  It’s so simple.  How did we not think of this sooner?

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


Oh.  Oh yeah.  Wow.  You’ve basically just solved it. This has nothing to do with guns.  Let’s just figure out what makes some people crazy and some people evil, and stop that from happening.  

Sheesh.  It’s so simple.  How did we not think of this sooner?

Hey, I'm just saying its a problem.  How are we supposed to take all these weapons off the street?  I mean, sure, go ahead and ban them.  That doesnt do anything for the ones already out there, not to mention the black market.  I just dont think a ban is the answer.  Just my opinion.

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

With all due respect, if your understanding of weaponry considers a 60 grain .223 caliber round (which is less than HALF the mass of a standard 9mm handgun round, and 1/3 the mass of a standard 45cal handgun round round) 

 

 

3 hours ago, [icon] said:

• Tonydead Said .223 belonged in a dangerous military weapon group with RPGs and Rockets. 
• I Pointed out the absurdity of that given the weapons aren't even in the same league with regards to effect. Added details showing that .223 effectiveness is comparatively in range of modern handgun rounds...

 

You used both .223 ammo mass and .223 handguns in comparison with other handgun calibers to minimize my statement, both of which are intellectually dishonest.  We were talking about assault rifles being used for recreation and/or defense.  I further clarified my statement (below) that went unanswered.

 

5 hours ago, tonydead said:

What  happened?  You were doing so well being level headed without the insults.  You're right though I'm a dummy when it comes to guns.

I probably phrased my question poorly when comparing military weapons to those of recreational or defense.   Let me try and rephrase:  How often do you need to shoot 59 deer in 10 minutes?  How often to you need to fend off 59 home invaders in 10 minutes?  I'm guessing as often as you need to legitimately use a rocket launcher.

I get shooting off 59 rounds as fast as you can could give you a boner, as would a rocket launcher, but it seems to dumb non-gun guy that there is a trade off when it's more important to make these types of guns illegal if it at all helps the least bit in reducing the number of these murders. 

 

The same thing can be said about large capacity magazines and bump stocks, both of which you agree with.  I like to include assault rifles.  It seems to me the assault rifle has been the weapon of choice lately in the majority of these attacks.

Edited by tonydead
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just going to point it out since it seems to be coming up again... but some anti-gun guy's here seem to have an unhealthy preoccupation with other men's genetalia. Just an observation :lol: 

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

Just going to point it out since it seems to be coming up again... but some anti-gun guy's here seem to have an unhealthy preoccupation with other men's genetalia. Just an observation :lol: 

Feel free to insert any other euphemism if it bothers you.  While we're nit picking semantics; anti-gun guys doesn't seem right.  I'm all for guns and the right to have them.  I've only recently felt the need to speak out against assault rifles.  Something, anything and everything needs to be done to try and stop these killings.  And as I've pointed out you really don't have any good reason why you need them in regular life.

Also, I feel I could be persuaded the other way if we wanted to talk about specifics of the 2nd and the original reasons why it was written, but, no one wants to talk about that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@tonydead I apologize for any confusion. I didn't mean to be intellectually honest with my wording. That said .223 is a rifle caliber. There is no handgun version. There are .223 "pistols" but they are merely pistol grip, stockless, ultrashort barrel versions of the rifle. 

The point is no ballistic round will ever compare to actual military hardware like rocket propelled explosive ordinance, especially not one of the smallest long rifle calibers. 

Anyway... can we please move on to more legitimate topics vs picking this nit? 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, tonydead said:

Feel free to insert any other euphemism if it bothers you.  While we're nit picking semantics; anti-gun guys doesn't seem right.  I'm all for guns and the right to have them.  I've only recently felt the need to speak out against assault rifles.  Something, anything and everything needs to be done to try and stop these killings.  And as I've pointed out you really don't have any good reason why you need them in regular life.

Also, I feel I could be persuaded the other way if we wanted to talk about specifics of the 2nd and the original reasons why it was written, but, no one wants to talk about that.

I've questioned the reasons for banning them. Icon has pointed out why it won't make a difference. Ultimately it's to save lives. But when I mention other things that could be banned to save even more lives I'm scoffed at. 

My question is, what us it your really trying to accomplish?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Johnnymac said:

Hey, I'm just saying its a problem.  How are we supposed to take all these weapons off the street?  I mean, sure, go ahead and ban them.  That doesnt do anything for the ones already out there, not to mention the black market.  I just dont think a ban is the answer.  Just my opinion.

People keep saying things like this. But there are a hell of a lot of other countries out there. They have people with mental illnesses. They have black markets. They have the internet. Yet they don't have nearly the number of gun deaths we do. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KCitons said:

I've questioned the reasons for banning them. Icon has pointed out why it won't make a difference. Ultimately it's to save lives. But when I mention other things that could be banned to save even more lives I'm scoffed at. 

My question is, what us it your really trying to accomplish?

The Florida night club, Sandy hook, vegas, all assault rifles no?  My question is why you think you need them?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tonydead said:

 

Also, I feel I could be persuaded the other way if we wanted to talk about specifics of the 2nd and the original reasons why it was written, but, no one wants to talk about that.

If you're sincere here and want to understand the issues, read the Heller decision. Read Scalia's majority opinion. Read Stevens' dissent. Fwiw, I prefer Stevens to Scalia here so that puts me in the minority. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, tonydead said:

The Florida night club, Sandy hook, vegas, all assault rifles no?  My question is why you think you need them?  

You've just accounted for roughly 0.001% of the fun homicides over that period. Why are those lives more important than the others to you? 

Is banning the mods that enhanced the rate of fire and extended capacity that made this last shooting more lethal not a good start? 

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

If you're sincere here and want to understand the issues, read the Heller decision. Read Scalia's majority opinion. Read Stevens' dissent. Fwiw, I prefer Stevens to Scalia here so that puts me in the minority. 

Thanks, I will. Care it give cliff notes or at least what topics?  Just recently fell into the subject in my reading and arguments for succession, people's right to bare the same arms as the military etc. are much more compelling than for sport or protection for protection against criminals etc. 

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

You've just accounted for roughly 0.001% of the fun homicides over that period. Why are those lives more important than the others to you? 

Is banning the mods that enhanced the rate of fire and extended capacity that made this last shooting more lethal not a good start? 

They're  not. 

Yes. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, tonydead said:

Thanks, I will. Care it give cliff notes or at least what topics?  Just recently fell into the subject in my reading and arguments for succession, people's right to bare the same arms as the military etc. are much more compelling than for sport or protection for protection against criminals etc. 

The 2nd Amendment is an oddly worded thing. It's been subject to widely differing interpretations by folks much better researched and educated than us. Even a summary is a bit of reading, and in my opinion does little to answer questions you were approaching. The full opinions cover most everything though. I try to avoid this topic and feel a little disappointed to be typing anything.

The 538 article posted here today pretty much covers what I've failed to explain over the years. We're screwed. These conversations are lame from both sides. 

Edited by Chaos Commish
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KCitons said:

I've questioned the reasons for banning them. Icon has pointed out why it won't make a difference. Ultimately it's to save lives. But when I mention other things that could be banned to save even more lives I'm scoffed at. 

My question is, what us it your really trying to accomplish?

You're being scoffed at because these other things that you bring up serve a main purpose other than killing/maiming as many people/living things as fast as possible. You and your ilk will never convince me that an average civilian "needs" to own a semi-automatic assault rifle. For any purpose. We need automobiles though, and unfortunately, people will die because of irresponsible people that drive drunk or text while driving. It's way, way, way past time for change in this country, but I'm not holding my breath. Like I said earlier, if nothing was done after Sandy Hook, nothing is ever getting done. We'll all just have to continue to hope that the next concert we go to, or the next time we go to see a movie, that we don't get killed I guess. I'm afraid we're too far gone. When there are more guns than citizens, I'm not sure there's much legislation that can fix it. 

Edited by Man In The Box
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Man In The Box said:

You're being scoffed at because these other things that you bring up serve a main purpose other than killing/maiming as many people/living things as fast as possible. You and your ilk will never convince me that an average civilian "needs" to own a semi-automatic assault rifle. For any purpose. We need automobiles though, and unfortunately, people will die because of irresponsible people that drive drunk or text while driving. It's way, way, way past time for change in this country, but I'm not holding my breath. Like I said earlier, if nothing was done after Sandy Hook, nothing is ever getting done. We'll all just have to continue to hope that the next concert we go to, or the next time we go to see a movie, that we don't get killed I guess. I'm afraid we're too far gone. When there are more guns than citizens, I'm not sure there's much legislation that can fix it. 

Yet only a very small percentage of the assault rifles are used for that purpose. Probably the same way a small percentage of the alcohol that is consumed is attributed to drunk driving fatalities.  

When you get to the root of the problem, it's caused by bad people. But if your goal is to save lives regardless of cause wouldn't you start with something takes the most lives annually?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Man In The Box said:

You're being scoffed at because these other things that you bring up serve a main purpose other than killing/maiming as many people/living things as fast as possible. You and your ilk will never convince me that an average civilian "needs" to own a semi-automatic assault rifle. For any purpose. We need automobiles though, and unfortunately, people will die because of irresponsible people that drive drunk or text while driving. It's way, way, way past time for change in this country, but I'm not holding my breath. Like I said earlier, if nothing was done after Sandy Hook, nothing is ever getting done. We'll all just have to continue to hope that the next concert we go to, or the next time we go to see a movie, that we don't get killed I guess. I'm afraid we're too far gone. When there are more guns than citizens, I'm not sure there's much legislation that can fix it. 

So casual disregard for others lives is better then intentional disregard,  even though it results in more death and maiming?

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, tonydead said:

The Florida night club, Sandy hook, vegas, all assault rifles no?  My question is why you think you need them?  

I never said we need them. I was comparing the need of assault rifles to a lot of things in this country that also lead to loss of life. 

As I mentioned already, I don't own one. If the majority of the population wants them banned, then they will be banned. If not, then that puts those here calling me names in the minority. That's how democracy works. You can hate the results but you can't blame the process.

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

As I mentioned already, I don't own one. If the majority of the population wants them banned, then they will be banned. If not, then that puts those here calling me names in the minority. That's how democracy works. You can hate the results but you can't blame the process.

I'm not a gun person nor an anti-gun person. But even I know this statement is patently false. Majority has absolutely no effect on whether these weapons will be banned or not. It will never be put to a popular vote. If so, they likely would have been gone long ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, KCitons said:

I never said we need them. I was comparing the need of assault rifles to a lot of things in this country that also lead to loss of life. 

As I mentioned already, I don't own one. If the majority of the population wants them banned, then they will be banned. If not, then that puts those here calling me names in the minority. That's how democracy works. You can hate the results but you can't blame the process.

None of those are weapons that civilians have no practical use for. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I read this in a commentary article:

“Seventy-seven percent of this country doesn’t even own a gun, and 90% of Americans want more gun control laws, not less,”

Any truth to this?

(It didn't mention a source).

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

Yet only a very small percentage of the assault rifles are used for that purpose. Probably the same way a small percentage of the alcohol that is consumed is attributed to drunk driving fatalities.  

When you get to the root of the problem, it's caused by bad people. But if your goal is to save lives regardless of cause wouldn't you start with something takes the most lives annually?

A small percentage that keeps growing, as does the number of guns.  And nothing seems to get done. I've no problem with having even harsher penalties for drunk/distracted driving, but this thread is about high caliber weapons. I think the other issues you bring up are more complex because, as I mentioned, these other things have other main purposes than killing. The average American needs an automobile, or needs to use some form of mass transportation. The average American doesn't need a high caliber rifle capable of doing the damage we've seen. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Johnnymac said:

Hey, I'm just saying its a problem.  How are we supposed to take all these weapons off the street?  I mean, sure, go ahead and ban them.  That doesnt do anything for the ones already out there, not to mention the black market.  I just dont think a ban is the answer.  Just my opinion.

Except we’ve seen it actually work in other countries. :shrug: 

  • Like 1
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...