WHY does anyone NEED an ASSAULT RIFLE?

[Finsfan1984]

I have no issues with you owning guns or anything of the sort. That's your right to do so, granted by the 2nd amendment. In fact, as former military and current law enforcement, I'm relieved to know someone with your background and training is armed, as I'm sure your neighbors feel the same way. My issue was you blasting WV and acting like he is part of the problem because he doesn't own them...

Never said he was part of the problem, I said… “Its people like you, in your fantasy world that actually makes it EASY for the "BAD PEOPLE" of this world to do as they wish!” Take it however you will though.

He said…As I type this I notice my sliding glass door on the back porch is unlocked. I tell you what. Im about to go to sleep in a bit. I will leave it unlocked. This is not uncommon for me. I dont think the front door is locked either. I never check to be honest. I own no gun. Anyone who dares to enter...... go for it. Now, if you have a gun, Im screwed. I basically will let you take what you wish. Im not a poor. I can easily replace most items.

1. He concedes here that he is screwed if he doesn’t have a gun=win for my side of the argument.
2. He ASSUMES they are only there to take his stuff=denial=believes he has a fortune cookie and can see the future=win for my side of the argument

He said…Now, if you have come to harm my family, youre going to have to shoot me. If you dont, Im coming right for you and your gun at some point. So be prepared to fire it.

1. He again is assuming he can disarm/defend/beat down/whatever against an armed assailant=win for my side of the argument.
2.He can do all these BAD ASS things=over self confidence=win for my side.

He said…Thing is, I dont think anyone wishes to harm me or my family. At least not anyone I know of. Most of the time, its people you know who do such a thing. I guess if a family member or friend went ape **** and had their mind set on harming us, then they are going to at some point whether its in my home or at theirs etc etc etc. It dosent have to be at night while Im sleeping.

1.Assumptions, assumtions, assumptions=win for my side
2.Has already previously admitted he lives in a CRIME FREE environment, but also knows what the criminal mind is like, what their going to do etc.,=can read minds=living in DENIAL=win for my side.

He said…If were talking a random stranger.... that **** is so rare that I cant concern myself with it. Thats just bad luck. Who storms into peoples home with motives to do harm like that? Strangers. The Night Stalker Richard Ramirez? Yea, that **** happens sometimes. There are evil scumbags like him. I dont think anything like that has ever happened in this town though. Anyone who has been killed in a home invasion Im pretty sure its been people they know. Most of the time that stuff happens its because people associate with bad people or are involved in illegal activities themselves. Im in the clear there.
1.Is NOT concerned with things like that happening to him=DENIAL=win for my side.
2.Doesnt THINK anything like that has ever happened in his town=doesn’t know for sure, who knows?=better to-be-safe-than-sorry=win for my side.
3.Assuming again, assuming it USUALLY happens, hes PRETTY SURE, only to people who associate with bad people=assuming again=labeling others=catagorizing victims=win for my side again.

He said…im just not scared. I guess you think we all should be, but Im sorry Im just not. I cant worry about Ted Bundy visiting my home. He wasnt interested in men anyway. Most deranged serial killers like that have a type. I cant think of another home invader who killed random families like that other than Richard Ramirez. Im sure there are others. Again, Im just not worried about it though.
1.Again he acts as though he KNOWS the criminal element, then gives counter arguments which contradict his statements, and further shows he doesn’t know for sure=win for my side again.
2.Not worried again=denial=win for my side of the argument.

His whole argument is built on assumptions and a false sense of security. He says something, then openly admits he doesn’t “really know.” That says it all to me, cuz we ALL don’t really know anyones true intentions, do we? I never said he was part of the problem, but in retrospect, I think that he actually is, because he is living in a fantasy world, in which he thinks he knows what someones true intentions are, and that he can do some kind of “Chuck Norris Kung-Fu” **** on them and magically disarm them weather their alone or accompanied by other assailants. I choose to take measures to protect myself and family however I can. But then again, I live in a place called REALITY…

[Finsfan1984]

I'm definitely against civilians owning guns designed for the sole purpose of killing as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time. There is no reason for you or I to own high-capacity clips or weapons capable of emptying those clips in a couple seconds. If someone could give me a logical, rational reason for it, I could be swayed, but I've yet to see it. Actually, your last paragraph is the closest I've read to a reason I could get on board with, but I'm still not all in.

You're right in saying the numbers don't support an assault weapons ban. But the fact of the matter is something has to change. The NRA refuses to let there be any changes in the way guns are purchased, so what other choice do lawmakers have? The reasonable course of action, registering guns and thorough background checks, is being blocked. That leaves only things like assault weapons bans. If someone in the NRA would slap the **** out of the leadership there and get them back to what the NRA originally was, I think we could make some progress that everyone would be on board with. But since that's not going to happen, lawmakers are stuck with drastic measures...

Your first point...civilians already own those types of guns, SHOTGUNS! They have high capacity loads, and the kill factor is much greater, and ANYONE can shoot these with deadly accuracy because accuracy is not required with this gun. So what u going to do about that?

Your second point...I can somewhat AGREE with you here! I feel strongly for the right to own firearms, however; there can maybe be some sort of middle ground on the NRA stance. The problem with that thought is this. Once we start going in that dirction, where will it ultimately lead us to? I dont want the feds to come to my home and seize what is rightfully mine, PERIOD. And i think that is everyones ultimate fear with these cases.

Summation...I cant and wont ever believe its the GUNS fault. Its indivdual responsibility thats the real issue. Making it harder on the common law abiding person to purchase firearms, ammo etc. is NOT the solution. I have been in my police uniform, armed with my issue weapon with badge on my chest, in the city i worked and been denied the purchase for .22 cal ammo because i didnt have my drivers license on my person at the time. Granted, it was in my car outside, and i could easily go get it, but you see my point. Things like these are utter non-sense, and stupid inconveniences, and no more. We have the laws in place now IMO, use them and stop making MORE laws which impede the civil rights and liberties of the common man!

[Locke]

Your first point...civilians already own those types of guns, SHOTGUNS! They have high capacity loads, and the kill factor is much greater, and ANYONE can shoot these with deadly accuracy because accuracy is not required with this gun. So what u going to do about that?

Your second point...I can somewhat AGREE with you here! I feel strongly for the right to own firearms, however; there can maybe be some sort of middle ground on the NRA stance. The problem with that thought is this. Once we start going in that dirction, where will it ultimately lead us to? I dont want the feds to come to my home and seize what is rightfully mine, PERIOD. And i think that is everyones ultimate fear with these cases.

Summation...I cant and wont ever believe its the GUNS fault. Its indivdual responsibility thats the real issue. Making it harder on the common law abiding person to purchase firearms, ammo etc. is NOT the solution. I have been in my police uniform, armed with my issue weapon with badge on my chest, in the city i worked and been denied the purchase for .22 cal ammo because i didnt have my drivers license on my person at the time. Granted, it was in my car outside, and i could easily go get it, but you see my point. Things like these are utter non-sense, and stupid inconveniences, and no more. We have the laws in place now IMO, use them and stop making MORE laws which impede the civil rights and liberties of the common man!

The difference being shotguns are used for hunting. They were originally used to hunt birds, I believe? In fact, I'm of the opinion that a shotgun is probably more than sufficient for home protection. Anything more than that is unnecessary and, in the case of anyone who lacks combat training, recklessly dangerous.

I'm not sure how much farther we would have to worry about that process going. If we require anyone who purchases a gun to register it and pass a background check, I think that's pretty all-encompassing. Personally, I would even add a list of anyone diagnosed bipolar or schizophrenic, with someone appearing on that list as ineligible to purchase a gun. I don't see that as impeding anyone's rights. I see that as protecting our law enforcement, as well as civilians...

[tylerdolphin]

Your first point...civilians already own those types of guns, SHOTGUNS!....and ANYONE can shoot these with deadly accuracy because accuracy is not required with this gun. So what u going to do about that?

Thats not true really. If we are talking about distances of 15 feet of less (which is the range youll most likely be defending yourself in) youre talking about a few inches of spread. Sure, its more than nothing, but its not going to turn a bad shot into a hit. I know you are probably pretty good with guns being ex-military and law enforcement, but shotguns arent magic things that turn good shots into bad.

[GoFins!]

It's a no-brainer that many gun crimes and murders are linked to the illegal drug trade. Very much like prohibition back in the day. Do you ever watch that tv show "48 hours"???? It's a real life homicide detective show that documents murders throughout the country. The majority of murders are all related to the War On Drugs. You want to stop a big portion of murders with guns??? Change the drug laws in this country. And just like ending prohibition you will dramatically reduce gun crimes and violence throughout the country. And maybe even in Mexico too.

I don't think anyone is arguing against your statement that the majority of murders are related to illegal drugs (or crime in general). However, I don't believe that legalizing drugs will cause drug dealers to become law abiding citizens anymore than gun control will take guns away from criminals.

As I explained before, even in states where some drugs are now legal, they're not unregulated. Criminals can still find ways to profit from illegally trafficking "legal" drugs.

Crime is a mentality, a culture. Decriminalizing anything will not change the mentality of all criminals.

[spydertl79]

I'm definitely against civilians owning guns designed for the sole purpose of killing as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time. There is no reason for you or I to own high-capacity clips or weapons capable of emptying those clips in a couple seconds. If someone could give me a logical, rational reason for it, I could be swayed, but I've yet to see it. Actually, your last paragraph is the closest I've read to a reason I could get on board with, but I'm still not all in.

You're right in saying the numbers don't support an assault weapons ban. But the fact of the matter is something has to change. The NRA refuses to let there be any changes in the way guns are purchased, so what other choice do lawmakers have? The reasonable course of action, registering guns and thorough background checks, is being blocked. That leaves only things like assault weapons bans. If someone in the NRA would slap the **** out of the leadership there and get them back to what the NRA originally was, I think we could make some progress that everyone would be on board with. But since that's not going to happen, lawmakers are stuck with drastic measures...

Don't fall for that... There is no way that its easier to ban standard and hi-cap magazines, online ammo sales, or sport rifles than it would be to pass a more sensible reform such as registration or mental health evals. Feinstein has made her goal very clear- she wants to ban all firearms and since she can't do that, she'll ban as much as she can. She actually said that on camera. She didn't take very long to pounce on this tragedy to push her agenda.

That being said, I don't think that either of those measures would be overly effective either. I'm on board with requiring mental health evaluations as a compromise but I think registration is a waste of time. Criminals won't register their guns and as it stands police are able to track serial numbers to the original purchaser as all sales of new guns are registered. If a gun is stolen or sold illegally, it's off the grid regardless of registration. Not to sound like a conspiracy theorist here but the only reason that anyone would push registration is to make confiscation easier.

You're talking about change for the sake of change in the beginning of para 2... That's never a good idea.

I think that the best way to stop mass shootings would be for the media to not report any information about the shooters. If we don't glorify them then there would be zero motivation for these things to happen, IMO. These sickos would just blow their brains out the old fashioned way. I bet that you'll never hear that idea floated in the media.

After this ill post a guy doing a shooting test w/ two 10 round mags vs a 20 round mag so you can see how little this ban would accomplish. A good mag change is done in under a second and you don't have to pull the bolt back on an AR.

[spydertl79]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


shooting test starts at 9:15

[Dolphins9954]

I don't think anyone is arguing against your statement that the majority of murders are related to illegal drugs (or crime in general). However, I don't believe that legalizing drugs will cause drug dealers to become law abiding citizens anymore than gun control will take guns away from criminals.

As I explained before, even in states where some drugs are now legal, they're not unregulated. Criminals can still find ways to profit from illegally trafficking "legal" drugs.

Crime is a mentality, a culture. Decriminalizing anything will not change the mentality of all criminals.

It would do FAR MORE in reducing violence than anything these d-bags in DC could come up with. Just look at the dramatic reduction in violence when we ended the first prohibition. Criminals will always be criminals no matter what. But policies can go a long way in reducing this type of violence.

[Dolphins9954]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Dovahkiin]

I live in a nice upscale neighborhood. I need an assualt rifle for when the poor people wise up and stop robbing other poors. I see some of the homes that get burglarized and I can't imagine why anyone would want to break into those dumps. If I was forced to live in a place like some of these places I see on my local news that get robbed, I wouldn't shoot the intruder, I'd help them clean that pig pen up a bit. Take the rest of this trash with you. Come back later if you need to.