[Question] Why do you need an assault rifle?

Status
Not open for further replies.

GasBandit

Staff member
Reactions
7,775 1,663 33
#37
He still shot 70 people. So the jam happened at the latest 50 bullets in.
One thing I haven't found is how many people he shot with which guns. He had two other guns with him as well.[DOUBLEPOST=1343851946][/DOUBLEPOST]But in the frame of reference of what people "need," that spring fatigue figured into my own decision process when deciding between an automatic and a revolver in my last firearm purchase... If you load your magazines and then leave them to sit for extended periods (especially years, on a shelf say), you are courting jams. But a revolver's rest state has no stress on any springs, and 6 shot speedloaders don't suffer that problem either.
 
Reactions
2,902 831 25
#38
The only time in recent history when I think someone would have a valid reason, according to your particularly narrow definition of need, to have wanted one is if they lived in new Orleans during and shortly after Katrina hit.
...except that the local authorities went around depriving citizens of their 2nd amendment rights collecting all firearms to cut down on trouble, with some of them not being returned for up to 3 years (or more, assuming any still remain unreturned). A law was subsequently passed which reaffirmed and guaranteed the right for a citizen to keep and bear arms in just such an emergency, presumably because the meaning of the 2nd amendment was sufficiently unclear on the concept.

This still ranks for me as one of the most "you've got to be kidding me oh wait you aren't kidding" moments that has occurred during my lifetime.

--Patrick
 
Reactions
479 72 2
#39
In short, I don't need one. What happens if I do ultimately need one, though? Is there a way to ensure that I can have access only when necessary AND that the government (which may be the cause of my need) still grants me that access in my time of need?

The government has a conflict of interest in regulating weapons, since one of the oft-cited reasons for freedom of weapon availability is to keep the government at bay. Unless my enemy is guaranteed to provide me with weapons (which is never the case!) then this discussion will never be resolved. I hope to never have to fire such a weapon, but I have often thought about what I would do in a situation akin to Germany circa late 1930s (i just totally Godwin'd this thread!) and it is a hard question to answer. As long as there is a place to run, I would probably do that, but a world where I would have to fight, I hope I am not having to do so with my kitchen knives.

So what do we do about weapons? I don't know. The founding fathers did not envision the weapons we have today. But we are also more in communication with the rest of the world than ever before as well, which makes a big difference in a society that allows it (and will likely continue allowing it). The framers left it to us to change our government and create our laws as we see fit. Ideally we would find honest, intelligent men to reason this problem out. What are the odds of that happening?
 

Necronic

Staff member
Reactions
104 0 0
#40
Another fun fact - any semi-auto "hunting" rifle that can accommodate a detachable magazine of standard size (call it 5 rounds) is perfectly capable of accommodating a 30, 50, or even 100 round magazine. And because in general they are much higher power, they then become much scarier than the most malevolent-appearing AR-15.

But, because there's usually springs involved, the larger magazines also have more problems with causing the gun to jam. From what I've read, that actually did happen in Aurora. He had a 100 round drum that jammed up on him, obviously rather quickly.

Here's what that looks like, incidentally.

I'll be honest, I do have a problem with large capacity magazines. Those should fall under Title II (if they don't already.) A high quality 25-50 round mag makes a weapon ridiculously more dangerous than the same weapon with a 10 round clip.

....if borderlands tought me anything
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Reactions
7,775 1,663 33
#41
I'll be honest, I do have a problem with large capacity magazines. Those should fall under Title II (if they don't already.) A high quality 25-50 round mag makes a weapon ridiculously more dangerous than the same weapon with a 10 round clip.

....if borderlands tought me anything
Yeah, to say nothing of those ammo regenerating mods!
 
Reactions
1,312 430 11
#42
I agree with stienman. Keep the focus narrow. I'm not interested in super-magazines, what the government is or is not planning, or what the Aurora shooter did. For the sake of argument, you have the weapon in question. By the laws of the land, you are allowed to have it. Be it a Kalashnikov, AK-47, AR-15 or what have you. What the "definition" is is beyond the scope of this discussion. The discussion is do you need one? Is it practical? In the close quarters of home defense is that what you want to be toting around? Sure it's damn intimidating, but when you have to put rounds downrange, will it get the job done without getting hung up on something or other? Varmint hunting? Do you really want to turn your target into an unrecognizable splat? :)

I see it like this. I'm not going to use a Cray just to surf HF. I'm not going to take a McLaren MP27 just to drive to work and back.
 
Reactions
33 0 0
#43
I'm not going to take a McLaren MP27 just to drive to work and back.

Like any of us could afford this car in the first place... ;)


Besides... comparing that car to an assault rifle isn't fair... it's more like a 30mm GAU-8/A Avenger gatling cannon.
 
Reactions
142 22 1
#45
DarkAudit said:
I agree with stienman. Keep the focus narrow. I'm not interested in super-magazines, what the government is or is not planning, or what the Aurora shooter did. For the sake of argument, you have the weapon in question. By the laws of the land, you are allowed to have it. Be it a Kalashnikov, AK-47, AR-15 or what have you. What the "definition" is is beyond the scope of this discussion. The discussion is do you need one?
What are you looking for an answer? If you want the answer, Gas already did it. To stage your own defense against the government you need to at least have assault weapons. Just ask how much these weapons have helped those in the middle east against their government.

Do I think that's a valid excuse, no. I think it's silly. But that's the excuse we get, and its backed up by the 2nd amendment.
 
Reactions
479 72 2
#46
I agree with stienman. Keep the focus narrow. I'm not interested in super-magazines, what the government is or is not planning, or what the Aurora shooter did. For the sake of argument, you have the weapon in question. By the laws of the land, you are allowed to have it. Be it a Kalashnikov, AK-47, AR-15 or what have you. What the "definition" is is beyond the scope of this discussion. The discussion is do you need one? Is it practical? In the close quarters of home defense is that what you want to be toting around? Sure it's damn intimidating, but when you have to put rounds downrange, will it get the job done without getting hung up on something or other? Varmint hunting? Do you really want to turn your target into an unrecognizable splat? :)

I see it like this. I'm not going to use a Cray just to surf HF. I'm not going to take a McLaren MP27 just to drive to work and back.
You see my response was that I don't need one this moment, but, unless you can present another option, I may need one available to me.
 
Reactions
504 140 7
#47
The root of the question is pointless anyway. There are only a few differences between a rifle and an assault weapon. So what if I want a folding stock and a pistol grip? Why should that be a reason I cannot own the gun? If I prefer those features, why shouldn't I have a gun with them?

It's like saying that civilians don't need hummer vehicles, or jeeps with snorkels! And those people should be perfectly content with a truck or a jeep without a snorkel. There is literally a very short list of differences between a rifle and an assault weapon, and they are merely features. They both still have triggers, magazines, semi automatic actions, rifled barrels, and the ability to successfully hit targets near and far.

Why do you think that a pistol grip on a rifle should be banned? A shield on the barrel to avoid burns? They are merely features.
 
Reactions
479 72 2
#48
The root of the question is pointless anyway. There are only a few differences between a rifle and an assault weapon. So what if I want a folding stock and a pistol grip? Why should that be a reason I cannot own the gun? If I prefer those features, why shouldn't I have a gun with them?

It's like saying that civilians don't need hummer vehicles, or jeeps with snorkels. There is literally a very short list of differences between a rifle and an assault weapon, and they are merely features.
Weeeell...that's getting close to a Ship of Theseus problem. It's sort of along the long of a slippery slope fallacy. I'm not sure we want to go down that road, since it is likely to be unfruitful.
 
Reactions
504 140 7
#49
That's possible, but I think people don't fully understand that there is already very little difference between an assault weapon and a rifle. We can't take the next big step to fully automatic weapons since they are effectively unavailable to civilians.

So the slippery slope can only go so far, and no more than a handful of chip parts are changing.

You couldn't, for instance, say that if we allow folding stocks then we might as well allow grenade launchers.
 
Reactions
479 72 2
#50
That's possible, but I think people don't fully understand that there is already very little difference between an assault weapon and a rifle. We can't take the next big step to fully automatic weapons since they are effectively unavailable to civilians.

So the slippery slope can only go so far, and no more than a handful of chip parts are changing.

You couldn't, for instance, say that if we allow folding stocks then we might as well allow grenade launchers.
Only because you are highlighting the vast difference between the two without acknowledging the potential features that bridge that gap. If you discuss the features along the continuum, then you could probably slide from one of the spectrum to the other, feature by feature.
 
Reactions
1,489 305 5
#51
All I keep think about in this thread is WHEN DID BUMBLE GET SO POLITICAL?

And then I remember, you all exist to confuse me.
 
Reactions
1,312 430 11
#52
Weeeell...that's getting close to a Ship of Theseus problem. It's sort of along the long of a slippery slope fallacy. I'm not sure we want to go down that road, since it is likely to be unfruitful.
That's sort of why I posed the question in the first place. The letter writer to my local paper was shouting "oppression!" and "the gub'mint wants to take all our guns away!" over the assault weapons ban. So I thought I'd take a different approach and just look for justification beyond "it's awesome and I wants it."

Besides, the more noise made about the ban, the more the Striesand effect comes into play. People will want one just to stick it to the opponents. IMO, they're just too impractical and expensive for the average American suburban dweller. The marketplace would keep them out of most homes anyway.

Tl;dr: why ban if no one is likely to buy one otherwise?
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Reactions
7,775 1,663 33
#53
Tl;dr: why ban if no one is likely to buy one otherwise?
Well, I don't support a ban but I will also say that something being expensive is not tantamount to a de facto ban. Plus, they're not THAT expensive. It's fairly easy to find an AR-15 for $800, and while not dirt cheap, that is by no means out of reach of the "average American suburban dweller."
 

Necronic

Staff member
Reactions
104 0 0
#54
Why do you think that a pistol grip on a rifle should be banned? A shield on the barrel to avoid burns? They are merely features.
The barrel shield I don't get. The collapsable/folding stock and pistol grip I completely understand. There are basically only two things you can improve on a weapon. Safety and deadliness. Barrel shield increases safety. Collapsable stocks and pistol grips increase deadliness. So yes, they are "merely features", but features that have a specific purpose and increase certain aspects. It's not the same as painting it pink.

There's a reason these things are included on military grade weapons. Large cap magazines are bar none the most deadly "feature" that can be added to a gun imho though, that or the folding stock (as it allows easier transport/concealment, plus it takes 2 AP off the ready state in JA 1.13).
 
Reactions
483 252 1
#55
When I retire and buy 50 acres in Colorado, yes, I'll buy an AR-15 or similar rifle. They are handy little guns that work pretty well for dropping wolves and feral hogs.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Reactions
7,775 1,663 33
#56
When I retire and buy 50 acres in Colorado, yes, I'll buy an AR-15 or similar rifle. They are handy little guns that work pretty well for dropping wolves and feral hogs.
I suppose it won't surprise you in the least that at first glimpse I thought that said "federal hogs."
 
E

Ermac

#60
Why do women need so many shoes? Why do rich people need so many cars? There's my answer to you.
 
Reactions
2,902 831 25
#61
Why do woman need so many shoes? Why do rich people need so many cars? There's my answer to you.
You forgot golf clubs, fishing lures, hand tools, kitchen knives, analgesics, and camera lenses.

--Patrick
 
Reactions
283 99 0
#62
Personally I do not, living in a normal suburban neighborhood. The worst crime that happened here is one time a kid stole a jar of quarters....which he gave back. And even if I did want a gun, I'd just want a normal hand-gun. Big assault rifles just seem to big to handle, a waste of money, and unnecessary.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top