• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

So what makes assault weapons so deadly

blaxshep said:
If I'm not mistaken TD the most accurate, longest Distance sniper rifle is the BMG .50

This is a long cry from a .223
Click to expand...

for long distance shots though there are some wildcats (often designed to get around moronic 50 caliber bans) that compete. the 338 Lapua is a top choice too. at ranges over 800 meters or so, you are needing some rather well developed skills. the Canadian sniper who nailed a jihadist at over a mile had to aim (IIRC) 15 feet high and several feet to the side in order to take into account the drop of the bullet and the sideways movement caused by wind
 
beerftw said:
You do know revolvers have speed loaders and have evolved since the colt peacemaker over a century ago right? No wait even cap and ball revolvers from the 1850s and 1860s could have the cylinders swapped rapidly, and was a common practice during the civil war for people who could afford revolvers over their issued muskets to carry additional cylinders, some soldiers had every pocket stuffed with them, especially for cavalry, where manually reloading on horseback was not an option.


And also how does pointing out the 5.56 has less range and accuracy and velocity and energy support bans? I already proved you have no clue about what you are talking about, and somehow you think being dissproven supports your idea?
Click to expand...


some of the earliest firearms were MATCH LOCKS that had a burning match that detonated the priming powder. One pirate-I don't recall his name, carried a dozen or more pistols when trying to raid other ships that he looked like a smoke stack as he boarded other ships.
 
TurtleDude said:
some of the earliest firearms were MATCH LOCKS that had a burning match that detonated the priming powder. One pirate-I don't recall his name, carried a dozen or more pistols when trying to raid other ships that he looked like a smoke stack as he boarded other ships.
Click to expand...

There were also lorenzoni repeaters, which were modified wheel locks, that could fire from two 7 round magazines, equaling 14 before reloading. The wheel lock used flint like a flintlock, and was used around the same time as matchlock, but lost favor to flintlock because it was a much simpler design.

Lorenzoni style repeaters were rare, but the wealthy and many military officers in europe carried them, and they were fairly quick to reload, one rotation of the lever loaded ball, powder, and powder into flashpan. After the magazines were spent, you just dumped powder and ball into the buttstock, everything was pre measured, meaning the only slow down was when the flint finally wore out.
 
BretJ said:
The shooter in the Texas clocktower killed/wounded dozens using a bolt action rifle. Was not a .223 he used...
Click to expand...

Remington 700 (probably the most popular hunting rifle in US history) in 6mm which is about a .243 inch round
 
I find it absolutely ridiculous to question what makes a semi-automatic or an automatic rifle so deadly. (I refuse to call them "assault weapons" since that term reeks of political correctness). The true danger is not the rifle but the evil creature armed with it. And even if he does not possess a firearm or an explosive, that evil man can still be a lethal threat. Serial killers like Gary Ridgway, Yang Xinhai, and Alexander Pichushkin have proven that you do not need any firearms or explosives to end so many lives. Instead of attempting to weaken the enemy, people should learn to strengthen themselves. It's better to empower yourselves instead of bowing down to the government and allowing them to make you their slaves all for the sake of "safety."
 
Donny Brook said:
You said it "combat". Combat is not a evil term. When a police officer pulls his gun and shoots an armed attacker- he is going into "combat". When a homeowner reaches for his handgun and defends his home or his life against an intruder--- he is going into "combat".

So how do you combat terrorists and blood thirsty criminals without the tools to do that?
Click to expand...

Exactly.

And the very reason that Smith and Wesson many yours ago, named their Model 19 .357, the Combat Magnum...and it's brother the .38, the Combat Masterpiece.
Makes it even more obvious, that jet57 has no experience in combat .....or gun usage.
 
jet57 said:
"clips" dude.
Click to expand...

No...wrong! You don't know the difference, or refuse to accept it, after some here show you photos.

jet57 said:
Nonsense. Combat weapons have no place in the public domain. There are some people in Orlando who will tell you that.
Click to expand...

Sure they do. All weapons can be combat weapons. And the people in Orlando would tell us, they wish it wasn't a gun free zone.
 
AGENT J said:
LMAO
translation . . . you got nothing and just proved how dishonest your posts are since I dont support the vast majority of gun control being suggested nor do I think gun control will stop mass murder. Wow talk about a huge fail and completely owning yourself
Your post fails and gets destroyed again :laughat:
Click to expand...

I've got everything...you just won't accept defeat.
 
jet57 said:
Sure: California, New York, Massachusetts, and Arizona ban them for personal use. So yeah, military weapons don't belong on public streets.
Click to expand...

I don't classify those as military weapons. Those are all Nanny States, except for Az. who has very good protections for gun owners.

Question: Why do you subscribe to Nanny State ideology?
 
MickeyW said:
I don't classify those as military weapons. Those are all Nanny States, except for Az. who has very good protections for gun owners.

Question: Why do you subscribe to Nanny State ideology?
Click to expand...

Innate cowardly fear, coupled with the need to have someone else protect them.
 
MickeyW said:
I've got everything...you just won't accept defeat.
Click to expand...

Then all you have to do is use facts and prove it :D
we are still waiting. Please in your next post simply quote me supporting the lies you made up. SHould be easy. LMAO
Your posted lie gets destroyed and fails again.

:popcorn2:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom