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

Just now, Jayrod said:

Not that I agree with it (I'm more on your side of the issue), but the argument seems to be that there are other, less dangerous to the public, ways to provide self defense.

There are also more effective, less dangerous to everyone including the gun owner and his or her household, ways to provide self-defense.

  • Like 2
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

3 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

Sure, but how do you know whether to amend or repeal unless you do a cost/benefit analysis?

Yeah, that's definitely a tool in jurisprudence. I think we've been over this before. Cardozo's influential work calls it The Method Of Sociology (or something like that) whereby rights and the extent of those rights can be derived from important policy analysis and certain analytical tools  rather than just dependence on history and natural right. But that's not asking if there's a right under the Constitution, that's assessing its desirability.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, -fish- said:

I'd be more inclined to agree with you if the Supreme Court hadn't ruled that half of the words in the second amendment are just meaningless throat-clearing.

Oh, I don't know how much we disagree on the gun issue. I'm talking broadly. My take on the gun issue is a lot like you just mentioned and that the "well-regulated militia" featured so prominently and textually in the predicate of the sentence ought mean something. That's a huge reason I'm so tepid on guns and gun control and you often won't find me arguing it, though I can sure give it a good defense if called upon.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, rockaction said:

Oh, I don't know how much we disagree on the gun issue. I'm talking broadly. My take on the gun issue is a lot like you just mentioned and that the "well-regulated militia" featured so prominently and textually in the predicate of the sentence ought mean something. That's a huge reason I'm so tepid on guns and gun control and you often won't find me arguing it, though I can sure give it a good defense if called upon.  

Overall, though, constitutional rights haven't proven to be inalienable or unassailable.   Look at the current attack on abortion, which is really an attack on the implied right of privacy.   Cost/benefit analysis is always going to be a significant driving force, since the breadth of our rights changes with the makeup of each court and their agenda at that point in time.   Unfortunately, the question of who benefits isn't always answered on the side of the people.

Edited by -fish-
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

I have a GP100 .357.  It's pretty credible.

I don't want to be staring down the business end of that gun.  I also don't want to be the fool who counts your rounds expended and then boldly proclaims, after six, that you are empty and then sticks his head out..

Edited by Ditkaless Wonders
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, -fish- said:

Overall, though, constitutional rights haven't proven to be inalienable or unassailable.   Look at the current attack on abortion, which is really an attack on implied right of privacy.   Cost/benefit analysis is always going to be a significant driving force, since the breadth of our rights changes with the makeup of each court and their agenda at that point in time.   Unfortunately, the question of who benefits isn't always answered on the side of the people.

Well, they're not inalienable or unassailable in practice, but they might be in theory. I do agree with you, though, that c/b is going to be a driving force in the policy considerations given to each aspect of the right granted. That's modern jurisprudence. Practically speaking, the weight given to policy considerations changes with, as you point out, the makeup and agenda of the court at that particular point in time. 

Bear with me, though: I think what I'm trying to do is sort of delineate where natural or plain rights end and the more modern considerations of policy, law and economics, balancing tests, and pluralism -- all those competing concerns come into play. That doesn't really happen until the legal realists of the late twenties and early thirties rise to prominence. So, best I understand, there's a pretty clear demarcation between that which is unassailable and inalienable in theory and that which came to be practiced. 

I'm trying to cram a lot into a few sentences. I hope it's clear.  

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

Well, they're inalienable or unassailable in practice, but maybe not theory. I do agree with you, though, that c/b is going to be a driving force in the policy considerations given to each aspect of the right granted. That's modern jurisprudence. Practically speaking, the weight given to policy considerations changes with, as you point out, the makeup and agenda of the court at that particular point in time. 

Bear with me, though: I think what I'm trying to do is sort of delineate where natural or plain rights end and the more modern considerations of policy, law and economics, balancing tests, and pluralism -- all those competing concerns come into play. That doesn't really happen until the legal realists of the late twenties and early thirties rise to prominence. So, best I understand, there's a pretty clear demarcation between that which is unassailable and inalienable in theory and that which came to be practiced. 

I'm trying to cram a lot into a few sentences. I hope it's clear.  

I do enjoy your discourse with Fish.  I also like it when Henry Ford, Yankee Fan and Cowboy 8 chime in.  Also Lester Burnham, though I have not seen my GB around in some time.:obc:

Edited by Ditkaless Wonders
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ditkaless Wonders said:

I do enjoy your discourse with Fish.  I also like it when henry Ford, Yankee Fan and Cowboy 8 chime in.  Also Lester Burnham, though I have not seen my GB around in some time.:obc:

Thanks, DW. I try and keep up or at least try to explain what I'm trying to say in a clear fashion, which doesn't always work because of the limited foundation and expression bestowed upon me. But I give it a go.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, rockaction said:

Thanks, DW. I try and keep up or at least try to explain what I'm trying to say in a clear fashion, which doesn't always work because of the limited foundation and expression bestowed upon me. But I give it a go.  

You are an amalgam of SWC, Maurile, and Yankee Fan.  I love it.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, KCitons said:

And there's @BigSteelThrill with the laughing emoji. 

Is that the best response you can come up with? A passive aggressive emoji?

Its funny to hear the cigarette or car or whatever deflection pop up from you again when I click this thread link. 

The sun kills people and until you do something about the damn sun leave my guns alone!

Edited by BigSteelThrill
  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, BigSteelThrill said:

Its funny to hear the cigarette or car or whatever deflection pop up from you again when I click this thread link. 

The sun kills people and until you do something about the damn sun leave my guns alone!

I've had more discussion on this subject than perhaps anyone else on this board. I don't think it's deflection. (which is what people here want to call it when you don't agree with them)

What is the benefit of cigarettes? If we want to weigh risk/rewards to determine if we should ban something.  You can't answer the question, because it would prove that we have things in our society (most of which are not protected by the Constitution) that have a greater risk than reward. To admit it, would take the air out of that argument. Which is why you deflect with an emoji. 

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

I've had more discussion on this subject than perhaps anyone else on this board. I don't think it's deflection. (which is what people here want to call it when you don't agree with them)

What is the benefit of cigarettes? If we want to weigh risk/rewards to determine if we should ban something.  You can't answer the question, because it would prove that we have things in our society (most of which are not protected by the Constitution) that have a greater risk than reward. To admit it, would take the air out of that argument. Which is why you deflect with an emoji. 

We dont have to answer the sun, cigarettes, cars, seat-belts or pit-bulls to discuss and find answers for our gun stupidity.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BigSteelThrill said:

We dont have to answer the sun, cigarettes, cars, seat-belts or pit-bulls to discuss and find answers for our gun stupidity.

That's because you can't. It defies your own logic when speaking about guns. 

That makes you stupid about everything except guns? Good job. 

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

I don't want to be staring down the business end of that gun.  I also don't want to be the fool who counts your rounds expended and then boldly proclaims, after six, that you are empty and then sticks his head out..

I almost bought the seven-shot for just this reason.  But I went with the six.

  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Misfit said:

Statistically you are more dangerous, but you've been shown this about 5000 times.  You deny reality.

nope

give me a fully auto rifle and I'd not be any more dangerous than I am right now - which is zero danger to anyone

you give that Glock to someone who's wanting to hurt someone else? that would be adding danger .... but so too if you give them a knife, an AR15, a shotgun, a Uhaul filled with fertilizer or an pilots license ........... its not the object

so that answer to the OP's question why would anyone need an "assault" rifle? why not is the answer. I'll have another - fun to shoot, great for killing varmints and you'll see police using them for defense all the time, they make great in home defense weapons for some people. 

they are just a semi-auto rifle - no more, no less .... 79 pages and most here don't understand that to be honest :(

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Misfit said:

Yes.

Again, statistically you are adding danger to the situation.  Didn't you tell a story a while ago about an accident you or a family member had with a gun?

Without a doubt.

Anyone denying this is denying reality.

  • Thanks 1
  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Misfit said:

Yes.

Again, statistically you are adding danger to the situation.  Didn't you tell a story a while ago about an accident you or a family member had with a gun?

How is he adding danger to the situation? 

Does storing the gun in a locked safe play any role? 

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

How is he adding danger to the situation? 

Does storing the gun in a locked safe play any role? 

We've seen the the multitudes of research showing that having a gun in the house and the likelihood of dying by a gunshot wound.   A gunowner puts everyone at risk -- but gunowners like your "feelings" over the truth.  Its very "religious" in that way.

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

Since SC owns other guns already. Is adding a 6th or 7th, or 10th gun make him more or less dangerous?

(Statistically of course)

Everyone adds another chance of a mistake, like leaving it loaded. Or it accidentally going off or being found.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BigSteelThrill said:

We've seen the the multitudes of research showing that having a gun in the house and the likelihood of dying by a gunshot wound.   You put everyone at risk -- but you like your "feelings" over the truth.  Its very "religious" in that way.

You don't know me. Why would you presume to know what I feel or my religion? 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BigSteelThrill said:

Everyone adds another chance of a mistake, like leaving it loaded. Or it accidentally going off or being found.

 

1 minute ago, Misfit said:

Of course storing a gun in a locked safe is going to play a role.

If the gun is properly stored, then the chances of accidental shooting goes way down. 

Therefor it's not the ownership if the gun that makes the situation more dangerous. It's that lack of proper storage that makes the situation more dangerous? 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, BigSteelThrill said:

Everyone adds another chance of a mistake, like leaving it loaded. Or it accidentally going off or being found.

I've never met SC. But I'm going to assume that he only has two hands. You can't use all of them in at the same time. So, there becomes a diminishing effectiveness as the number of guns goes up. 

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

Deflecting? 

You can't have an honest conversation. So you attack the person. 

Wat?  You asked how I knew about feelings and its religious-esque denial of the truth.   I {s}{/s} your part to not have it directed at you. But in general.  Than you say something about attacking the person, when your brought you/KC to the forefront and I attempted to remove you personally.

jesus christ on a cracker

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

Wat?  You asked how I knew about feelings and its religious-esque denial of the truth.   I {s}{/s} your part to not have it directed at you. But in general.  Than you say something about attacking the person, when your brought you/KC to the forefront and I attempted to remove you personally.

jesus christ on a cracker

Your words. 

19 minutes ago, BigSteelThrill said:

We've seen the the multitudes of research showing that having a gun in the house and the likelihood of dying by a gunshot wound.   You put everyone at risk -- but you like your "feelings" over the truth.  Its very "religious" in that way.

You have an issue with generalizing all gun owners as being the same. I hadn't fired any of my guns in a year. (and hadn't taken any of them out of the safe since last deer season) I did go to the range a couple of weeks ago with my Marine son when he was back on leave. I guess that's that same as some Catholics that go to church only on Christmas. 

We've discussed the truth in the other thread. The truth is that we do have risk/reward with a lot of things. You failed to explain the truth behind things like cigarettes. Nowhere in the Constitution is there any mention of cigarettes. We know the net negative they have on society. But, I can still buy them on every street corner. 

You also fail to accept the truth that alcohol plays a huge role in violence. (not just gun violence) I've posted those numbers in the other thread as well. And that's before we take into account any deaths caused by dui's. Yet, we still see the risk/reward as being a net positive with alcohol. Is that "feelings" over truth? 

I know you think this is deflecting. It's not. It's comparing the risk/reward of one thing to another. If those deaths are acceptable risk, then I don't see gun deaths being any different. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys are making some pretty bad assumptions about gun owners and attributing those bad assumptions to all or many gun owners.  No gun owner I know leaves loaded guns lying around the house.  None.  Gun owners are inherently the most responsible people when it comes to guns.  Are there outliers at the margins?  Of course.  But they aren’t representations of the gun owners I know at all, myself included.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

20 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Your words. 

You have an issue with generalizing all gun owners as being the same. I hadn't fired any of my guns in a year. (and hadn't taken any of them out of the safe since last deer season) I did go to the range a couple of weeks ago with my Marine son when he was back on leave. I guess that's that same as some Catholics that go to church only on Christmas. 

We've discussed the truth in the other thread. The truth is that we do have risk/reward with a lot of things. You failed to explain the truth behind things like cigarettes. Nowhere in the Constitution is there any mention of cigarettes. We know the net negative they have on society. But, I can still buy them on every street corner. 

You also fail to accept the truth that alcohol plays a huge role in violence. (not just gun violence) I've posted those numbers in the other thread as well. And that's before we take into account any deaths caused by dui's. Yet, we still see the risk/reward as being a net positive with alcohol. Is that "feelings" over truth? 

I know you think this is deflecting. It's not. It's comparing the risk/reward of one thing to another. If those deaths are acceptable risk, then I don't see gun deaths being any different. 

You was generalized in that case, its meant for anyone with a gun in their house.  I shouldnt have left it so ambiguous - thus I just edited. Even later that I {strike} the direct to KCitons parts out. 

Edited by BigSteelThrill
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Misfit said:

I guess if the gun is permanently kept in a locked safe there would be no added danger, but why own a gun if you never take it out of the safe?  Once it's removed from the safe and loaded, the situation instantly becomes more dangerous.

Okay. I'll concede that it becomes more dangerous than if it was in the safe. 

How much more dangerous does it become? I've sited the number of deer hunters each year. And the very small number of deaths. That would lead me to believe that intent is more of a factor and not just the inherent danger of a firearm. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, unckeyherb said:

You guys are making some pretty bad assumptions about gun owners and attributing those bad assumptions to all or many gun owners.  No gun owner I know leaves loaded guns lying around the house.  None.  Gun owners are inherently the most responsible people when it comes to guns.  Are there outliers at the margins?  Of course.  But they aren’t representations of the gun owners I know at all, myself included.

I agree with that about nearly every gun owner I know.  They also put everyone at far greater risk, especially in their own house.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Misfit said:

Intent definitely plays a role, but there are also accidents that occur.  There were two families in my town growing up that lost kids because they accidentally shot themselves handling their families' guns that were left out.  

That's a terrible thing to have happen. But, we have high security boxes with locks on them to keep this from happening. I had guns in my house the entire time my kids were growing up. I have a lot of friends that did as well. We all keep our guns locked up. No accidental shootings. The link I just posted shows that most of the deaths related to hunting were accidental shootings. Which, while guns are dangerous, there are going to be accidents. It's the same with cars or airplanes. I made the same argument about driving while drunk and was told that intent on the part of the driver was a key factor. Not sure why we don't apply that to guns as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, unckeyherb said:

You guys are making some pretty bad assumptions about gun owners and attributing those bad assumptions to all or many gun owners.  No gun owner I know leaves loaded guns lying around the house.  None.  Gun owners are inherently the most responsible people when it comes to guns.  Are there outliers at the margins?  Of course.  But they aren’t representations of the gun owners I know at all, myself included.

SC leaves a loaded gun in his glove compartment, or so he claims.  He also says he does not securely store his guns.

  • Like 1
  • Thinking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BigSteelThrill said:

Its not within range, so no. But there are obviously other ones in my vicinity that definitely are.

We are flattered that you are using your last moments to post here. 

You must not ride in cars, or fly in planes, or cross streets, or go out in the rain. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, unckeyherb said:

So like I said.  Outliers.

Hard to tell.   There really aren't many studies on how responsible gun owners are compared to other gun owners, but there is 11x more risk that you or a member of your family will be shot if you own a gun.   If most gun owners are responsible, that's a tremendous increase in risk.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, -fish- said:

Hard to tell.   There really aren't many studies on how responsible gun owners are compared to other gun owners, but there is 11x more risk that you or a member of your family will be shot if you own a gun.   If most gun owners are responsible, that's a tremendous increase in risk.

 

5 minutes ago, Misfit said:

With the amount of shootings we have in this country, we're not dealing with a few outliers.

This goes against @BigSteelThrill's concern that things are more dangerous because of the guns. If he doesn't have a gun in his home, he should be good. 

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

We are flattered that you are using your last moments to post here. 

You must not ride in cars, or fly in planes, or cross streets, or go out in the rain. 

Love your style of argumentation. You definitely deserve to be out the same limb as uber-troll stealthycat.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Misfit said:

It absolutely does not.  

Absolutely?

Do you have anything to back up that statement. And please keep working in absolutes. That should be simple enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BigSteelThrill said:

Love your style of argumentation. You definitely deserve to be out the same limb as uber-troll stealthycat.

I'm just expanding on your concerns. Not sure what more you would want. 

But, you and @Misfit keep making grand generalizations and absolutes about gun owners. That seems to be working for you. 

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

I am not making grand generalizations about gun owners beyond what the statistics show.  Are there responsible gun owners?  Absolutely.  The problem is that there are far too many irresponsible gun owners. and their carelessness has the ability to permanently affect me and my family.

And you're solution?

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

I'm just expanding on your concerns. Not sure what more you would want. 

But, you and @Misfit keep making grand generalizations and absolutes about gun owners. That seems to be working for you. 

Concentrate on the GUN concern.  Particularly in this thread.

I'm not in this thread a ton, bit every time there seems to be any back and forth you drops... what about the sun!  What about obesity?  A disgusting style on communication.

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...