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? (2 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
KCitons said:
If you could save 50 people or 100 people which would you choose?

The discussion about bans on assault rifles is an easy target, it won't make that great of an impact on total number of deaths per year as compared to other guns. The real solution to saving lives is to ban all guns. We know that will never happen. I think of assault rifles as a "freedom or luxury" the same way I view the ability to drink alcohol and then drive a car. I understand that a car may be necessary (we do have public transportaton) but why do we need alcohol? 

Posters here use the excuse that shootings are not going to go away, so let's make it harder for people to commit mass shootings. I suggest that drinking and driving isn't going away either, do we make it harder for some to drink and drive? The end result would be that we save lives by doing both.
Click to expand...
FOR COOKING.

Jesus, it's like you people live in food deserts.

 
Henry Ford said:
This is why my "arsenal" these days consists of only three firearms.  My bedroom handgun, a hunting shotgun, and my recently-ish-acquired Taurus Judge (which is mostly because I enjoy the thought of firing a shotgun shell with one hand, to be honest.)
Click to expand...
You just answered the OP's question. Americans enjoy things. Lots of stupid things. It's part of living in a free country. We don't need much, we enjoy lots of things. When the balance of loss overtakes the balance of enjoyment, change is made. After Sands Hook and Vegas, I would think the balance is shifting .

 
KCitons said:
You just answered the OP's question. Americans enjoy things. Lots of stupid things. It's part of living in a free country. We don't need much, we enjoy lots of things. When the balance of loss overtakes the balance of enjoyment, change is made. After Sands Hook and Vegas, I would think the balance is shifting .
Click to expand...
Sandy Hook was, and it's crazy to remember this, almost five years ago.

 
Ignoramus said:
:lmao:

Where do you come up with this stupid ####? Of course not.
Click to expand...
Thanks for proving my point. What measures do we have that keep people from drinking and driving? And when you respond, please compare each of your points to current regulations on assault rifles.

 
KCitons said:
If you could save 50 people or 100 people which would you choose?

The discussion about bans on assault rifles is an easy target, it won't make that great of an impact on total number of deaths per year as compared to other guns. The real solution to saving lives is to ban all guns. We know that will never happen. I think of assault rifles as a "freedom or luxury" the same way I view the ability to drink alcohol and then drive a car. I understand that a car may be necessary (we do have public transportaton) but why do we need alcohol? 

Posters here use the excuse that shootings are not going to go away, so let's make it harder for people to commit mass shootings. I suggest that drinking and driving isn't going away either, do we make it harder for some to drink and drive? The end result would be that we save lives by doing both.
Click to expand...
This feels like a false equivalency.

Cigarette smoking kills users, guns in our scenario have victims. Are you referring to second hand smoke? We've legislated a lot to prevent that. You can't smoke in public spaces any longer. You're being told to not smoke around children. I'm not sure how you equate someone choosing to engage in self harming behavior and mitigating someone's ability to kill 60 people in 10 minutes.

 
Henry Ford said:
I'm not in favor of banning "assault rifles."  I just think "but what about alcohol???" is a silly argument.
Click to expand...
Of course it's a silly argument.  Especially for someone like icon.  A person who enjoys shooting himself in the foot that much should not own firearms. 

 
Henry Ford said:
I'm not in favor of banning "assault rifles."  I just think "but what about alcohol???" is a silly argument.
Click to expand...
Why. As a lawyer, you have to be able to see how alcohol ( like guns) leads to a lot of problems in society. And not just deaths. Other than cooking and sterilization, what is alcohol good for?

 
KCitons said:
Why. As a lawyer, you have to be able to see how alcohol ( like guns) leads to a lot of problems in society. And not just deaths. Other than cooking and sterilization, what is alcohol good for?
Click to expand...
As a solvent, as an additive to gasoline, as an industrial chemical for a number of uses, as an anesthetic, as a stabilizer for medication...

 
Harry Manback said:
This feels like a false equivalency.

Cigarette smoking kills users, guns in our scenario have victims. Are you referring to second hand smoke? We've legislated a lot to prevent that. You can't smoke in public spaces any longer. You're being told to not smoke around children. I'm not sure how you equate someone choosing to engage in self harming behavior and mitigating someone's ability to kill 60 people in 10 minutes.
Click to expand...
I never mentioned cigarettes in that post. What are your thoughts on alcohol?

 
Henry Ford said:
As a solvent, as an additive to gasoline, as an industrial chemical for a number of uses, as an anesthetic, as a stabilizer for medication...
Click to expand...
And what about that which is produced for consumption. Me thinks you know my point, but don't want to agree with someone as stupid as me.

 
KCitons said:
And what about that which is produced for consumption. Me thinks you know my point, but don't want to agree with someone as stupid as me.
Click to expand...
Cooking, anesthetic, get pests out of your garden, fix fried hair, as a defoliant, as a plant food... there are hundreds and hundreds of uses for alcohol, and at least dozens for commercially sold wine, beer, and spirits.

I know your point, but booze is actually really useful for a lot of things. 

 
KCitons said:
I never mentioned cigarettes in that post. What are your thoughts on alcohol?
Click to expand...
Ah my mistake, I thought I saw cigarettes somewhere.

Same stance. There are plenty of regulations on alcohol aimed at preventing death. It's illegal to drink and drive. Repeat offenders have wheel locks. We, as a society, are moving towards self driving cars that will further mitigate deaths by alcohol. 

Also, when someone drinks and drives their intent is not to kill or maim someone. When someone goes on a rampage, they are. Alcohols primary purpose is recreational, an ARs primary purpose is to kill humans.

 
KCitons said:
Why. As a lawyer, you have to be able to see how alcohol ( like guns) leads to a lot of problems in society. And not just deaths. Other than cooking and sterilization, what is alcohol good for?
Click to expand...
Alcohol has been a part of society for 1000s of years, vs guns for 100s. Guns have vastly changed from their inception, alcohol has not. 

If someone comes up with a form of alcohol that gets you to a dangerous drunk level with just a single ounce, then maybe we can talk further legislation. 

 
Henry Ford said:
Cooking, anesthetic, get pests out of your garden, fix fried hair, as a defoliant, as a plant food... there are hundreds and hundreds of uses for alcohol, and at least dozens for commercially sold wine, beer, and spirits.

I know your point, but booze is actually really useful for a lot of things. 
Click to expand...
I don't even find that point particularly credible. 

The guns that our forefathers were using when they wrote the constitution are night and day from what we have now. 

The alcohol they were drinking back then is not. Maybe in quality and taste, but in terms of effectiveness very little has changed. As far as I'm aware.

 
Harry Manback said:
Ah my mistake, I thought I saw cigarettes somewhere.

Same stance. There are plenty of regulations on alcohol aimed at preventing death. It's illegal to drink and drive. Repeat offenders have wheel locks. We, as a society, are moving towards self driving cars that will further mitigate deaths by alcohol. 

Also, when someone drinks and drives their intent is not to kill or maim someone. When someone goes on a rampage, they are. Alcohols primary purpose is recreational, an ARs primary purpose is to kill humans.
Click to expand...
I guess I'd need to know what you mean by "primary purpose" in this post.  It certainly isn't what it's most often used for.

I'd say the primary purpose of an assault rifle is to make someone feel like a giant badass while shooting stuff.  Now, that isn't necessarily a good reason not to ban them, but I think it's the closest to the truth.

 
Harry Manback said:
Alcohol has been a part of society for 1000s of years, vs guns for 100s. Guns have vastly changed from their inception, alcohol has not. 

If someone comes up with a form of alcohol that gets you to a dangerous drunk level with just a single ounce, then maybe we can talk further legislation. 
Click to expand...
Still mad I never got to try Four Loko in its original form.

 
Henry Ford said:
I guess I'd need to know what you mean by "primary purpose" in this post.  It certainly isn't what it's most often used for.

I'd say the primary purpose of an assault rifle is to make someone feel like a giant badass while shooting stuff.  Now, that isn't necessarily a good reason not to ban them, but I think it's the closest to the truth.
Click to expand...
Well, it depends on the audience. I think the US Military owns the majority of those weapons, I could be wrong, but those are purely meant to kill humans.

As for civilians? Yes. It's a Rambo factor. I have many friends who own those types of guns. I've shot them and enjoyed it quite a bit. I see no reason to own one, and as fun as they are to shoot I see no reason why they need it.

 
Harry Manback said:
Well, it depends on the audience. I think the US Military owns the majority of those weapons, I could be wrong, but those are purely meant to kill humans.

As for civilians? Yes. It's a Rambo factor. I have many friends who own those types of guns. I've shot them and enjoyed it quite a bit. I see no reason to own one, and as fun as they are to shoot I see no reason why they need it.
Click to expand...
I'm only talking about civilian ownership.  There are about 3 million civilian-owned of just the AR-15 and its related weapons.  And that number is actually old - it's probably closer to 4 now.

 
Henry Ford said:
I'm only talking about civilian ownership.  There are about 3 million civilian-owned of just the AR-15 and its related weapons.  And that number is actually old - it's probably closer to 4 now.
Click to expand...
Ah yes, well the intended purpose is to kill people. That much I won't conceded. They were developed and specifically designed for that purpose. Not for hunting game or trap shooting or competitions or anything else.

As for why the majority of people buy them? We agree. It's to feel like a badass.

 
[icon] said:
FYI My home defense is more focused individuals than government. 

If, in the extremely unlikely event of an extended "unrest" situation... it also affords myself and those I'm with the ability to help ourselves to the provisions of those who elected for an anti-firearms stance. ;)  
Click to expand...
I hope you are referring to your unarmed "opposition" and not your unarmed, innocent neighbors. In a extremely unlikely time of unrest, the unarmed innocent should be protected....not pillaged from.

 
Bump stocks, auto conversion kits, high capacity magazines, these are features that can be removed from the market, won't interfere with the ability to use firearms for their intended purpose, and place a minimal burden on lawful weapon owners while still making an actual difference (even slight in some individual cases, but overall I believe a marked difference) in lethality against defenseless human beings.  Removing some random category doesn't seem like it would be very effective.

 
Economic stimulation, particularly as it relates to online spending in the early morning hours and hot wing and pizza consumption.

 
[icon] said:
What is the practical use of alcohol behind recreation? 

What percentage of drinkers engage in domestic violence or traffic fatalities? 
Click to expand...
Not apples to apples.  In your domestic violence example how many times are guns used?  I've seen in the movies people use broken beer bottles as weapons, but, that's not primarily what they were designed for and doubt they are very effective.

 
Henry Ford said:
Bump stocks, auto conversion kits, high capacity magazines, these are features that can be removed from the market, won't interfere with the ability to use firearms for their intended purpose, and place a minimal burden on lawful weapon owners while still making an actual difference (even slight in some individual cases, but overall I believe a marked difference) in lethality against defenseless human beings.  Removing some random category doesn't seem like it would be very effective.
Click to expand...
Used to agree up to the difference of opinion on "high-capacity" (which I believe to be over the standard 30rd) mags. 

Given the attitudes I've seen online and in person over the last couple days... tough ####. I know a lot of folks who, immediately after the tragedy felt the same, and the attitudes of anti-gun folks has them in the same boat as me.

It's a shame, really. Oh well. Bring on the next DOA legislation attempt 

 
Henry Ford said:
Bump stocks, auto conversion kits, high capacity magazines, these are features that can be removed from the market, won't interfere with the ability to use firearms for their intended purpose, and place a minimal burden on lawful weapon owners while still making an actual difference (even slight in some individual cases, but overall I believe a marked difference) in lethality against defenseless human beings.  Removing some random category doesn't seem like it would be very effective.
Click to expand...
Good thing every gun maniac in the country has gone out and bought an exorbitant amount of these things in the last 4 days... No reason to risk being short on supply of these highly useful and productive items!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Harry Manback said:
I make this argument to all my friends who try and cite the 2nd amd as a reason why they need to be able to by a browning M2 or AR-15. You don't stand a chance if the government comes for you. You won't see the drone, you want hear the seal team, you won't hear the sniper's round. 
Click to expand...
And I keep making my argument that that is not what the point is.  Of course one person doesn't stand a chance vs the US military, but that has less to do with the weapon and more to do with the number of people involved.

A single person trying to fight the government is a criminal.  A small group of people are considered criminal extremists.  A slightly larger group would be a revolt or coup.  But once you get a large enough group, you have a revolution.  The 2nd amendment is for that group.  That group that needs to overthrow the government because it has become oppressive to enough people and needs to be overthrown.  It is the last line of the checks and balances they put in place and the very first one they wrote into law.  The more the 2nd amendment is limited, the more people it would take to have a successful revolution.  There is a continuously moving, gray line between allowing enough gun freedom to keep that revolution a possibility and making it unnecessary dangerous for the public in general.

I get your point, but stop saying the 2nd amendment is useless because I can't fight off the US army from my front porch.  That's not what it is about.

 
Henry Ford said:
Bump stocks, auto conversion kits, high capacity magazines, these are features that can be removed from the market, won't interfere with the ability to use firearms for their intended purpose, and place a minimal burden on lawful weapon owners while still making an actual difference (even slight in some individual cases, but overall I believe a marked difference) in lethality against defenseless human beings.  Removing some random category doesn't seem like it would be very effective.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

Write up the bill, counselor.

 
[icon] said:
Used to agree up to the difference of opinion on "high-capacity" (which I believe to be over the standard 30rd) mags. 

Given the attitudes I've seen online and in person over the last couple days... tough ####. I know a lot of folks who, immediately after the tragedy felt the same, and the attitudes of anti-gun folks has them in the same boat as me.

It's a shame, really. Oh well. Bring on the next DOA legislation attempt 
Click to expand...
Then either I don't think you and I really agree, or your opinion on what makes people safer is weirdly tied to whether or not you think the people you're discussing a topic with have a bad attitude.

A decision on whether or not something would benefit the public shouldn't be based on some Nelson Muntz "Ha ha" attempt to punish people you don't like.

 
eoMMan said:
Exactly.

Write up the bill, counselor.
Click to expand...
I'm going to count up all the things that are more a waste of time than writing up comprehensive anti-gun legislation to submit to this Congress.

1. Offering myself as sex slave to [I'm going to use Jennifer Connelly, but insert any hot celebrity you'd like]

2. Petitioning Donald Trump for public funds for an African-American History Museum

3. Debating ISIS on Judaism vs. Islam

I'm open to suggestions to continue.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford said:
I'm going to count up all the things that are more a waste of time than writing up comprehensive anti-gun legislation to submit to this Congress.

1. Offering myself as sex slave to [I'm going to use Jennifer Connelly, but insert any hot celebrity you'd like]

2. Petitioning Donald Trump for public funds for an African-American History Museum

3. Debating ISIS on Judaism vs. Islam

I'm open to suggestions to continue.
Click to expand...
Discussing gun control measures on the internet

 
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
810
FairWarning
FairWarning

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top