• 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!

Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?[W: 207]

Actually statistics abound showing that pistols are, by far, the weapon of choice for most crime. It is not convenient or discrete to walk about with an AW, while a pistol in your pocket or waistband is very handy and discrete. While mass shooters do not generally care about escape most criminals are after money and/or revenge and wish to live to enjoy it. ;)

True. If you're going to measure danger by the aggregated total of deaths, then pistols are by far the most dangerous. However, that's not the only way to measure danger

If you were to measure it by looking at the weapons used in the individual incidents with the greatest number of gun fatalities, rifles, particularly assault rifles, are common at the top of that list.
 
Actually statistics abound showing that pistols are, by far, the weapon of choice for most crime. It is not convenient or discrete to walk about with an AW, while a pistol in your pocket or waistband is very handy and discrete. While mass shooters do not generally care about escape most criminals are after money and/or revenge and wish to live to enjoy it. ;)

Of course they are, most crime happens with in 20 feet of the perpetrator and the victim. IE convience stores, banks etc etc. Think about it...what gun is favored in drive by shootings? Pistols? Or semi-automatic rifles? Is that same type of weapon going to be used in a convience store? Probably not. The only time pistols might be used in a drive by is if there is more than one person shooting.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

We've been through this before, Turtle

"cosmetic" does not mean "doesn't increase the dangerousness", and even you agreed that some of the features that others describe as "only cosmetic" are in fact useful to a mass shooter (ex pistol grip), though not as useful as it is to a soldier in combat

what we both know, and I will say, is that none of those features create a rational reason for causing weapons with the features to be banned
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

Of course reasonable people can disagree about if a pistol grip provides a better grip or not.

Not if they're being reasonable. Providing a better grip is the primary purpose of a pistol grip

The thing is your ignoring all the other better ways of stabilizing a weapon and focusing on the pistol grip which doesnt provide any noticeable increase of stability if any at all.

Again, the fact that there are other, or even better, ways of stabilizing a weapon doesn't mean that a pistol grip does not help stabilize a weapon.


You havent shown that a pistol grip can do any of the things that you claim it can do. The only thing I agree with you on is that a pistol grip is more comfortable and even then thats more personal preference then anything else. If you want your claims to have any sort of validity to them you need to provide proof such as a study comparing the accuracy of a weapon with a pistol grip and one without or the stability of a weapon with a pistol grip and one without. You havent provided any.

I have provided links for all things I claimed about a pistol grip, with the exception that they provide a better grip. I assumed that people who claim to know so much about weapons would know about this fundamental fact. But I will now remedy the lack of supporting links

http://www.businessinsider.com/here...ms-for-the-assault-weapons-ban-debate-2012-12

Gun Stocks & Grips SALE Rifle Stocks, 1911 Grips, Shotgun Stocks, Pistol Grips

advantages of a pistol grip [Archive] - Calguns.net

Pistol grip - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And yes max effective range isnt the only measure of effectiveness but when you are talking about the accuracy of a weapon which we were it is the best measure of effectiveness.

I don't think it's a good way of measuring the effectiveness of a weapon intended to be used in a mass shooting where the overwhelming # of people are much closer than that. In this case, it not only not the only measure of accuracy or effectiveness, it's not even the best one
 
True. If you're going to measure danger by the aggregated total of deaths, then pistols are by far the most dangerous. However, that's not the only way to measure danger

If you were to measure it by looking at the weapons used in the individual incidents with the greatest number of gun fatalities, rifles, particularly assault rifles, are common at the top of that list.

there have never been any massacres by civilians in the USA of other civilians using ASSAULT RIFLES. those firearms were not invented until WWII and there has NEVER been a case of a legally owned "assault rifle" being used in a massacre. Nor is there any examples of ILLEGAL ones being used to massacre US citizens in the USA
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

what we both know, and I will say, is that none of those features create a rational reason for causing weapons with the features to be banned

That is a completely seperate question.

But I've been pretty clear with you as far as my position on bans
 
it was about which 1 poses a bigger danger, danger is something that affects people.

not sure what you mean by your post stands. but it wouldn't actually depend on the environment for the situation, it would depend on the people.

situation doesn't mean people

Lets pose a scenario...

Two people that are equally capable with a pistol are in two seperate situations. Person A is walks into a convience store with a pistol. Person B is in a car by themselves with a pistol going to do a drive by. Who's going to be more likely to hit the victim? Person A? Or Person B? Now put an assault rifle in their hands instead of a pistol. The victim sees Person A enter the store with a piss poorly concealed rifle...think they are just going to stand there? Where as the victim for Person B still don't know they are about to be hit. Who's more likely going to hit the victim?
 
there have never been any massacres by civilians in the USA of other civilians using ASSAULT RIFLES. those firearms were not invented until WWII and there has NEVER been a case of a legally owned "assault rifle" being used in a massacre. Nor is there any examples of ILLEGAL ones being used to massacre US citizens in the USA

Since you hav, in the past, asked me several questions about my positions on guns, and I have answered, it's your turn to be questioned

Are pistol grips "purely cosmetic", or do they have a function?

If the latter, what is the function that pistol grips perform?

Do pistol grips provide a better grip, help the shooter keep the weapon stable?

Can it help with the shooters accuracy?

Does it make it easier for the shooter to fire the weapon one handed, so that the user can use the other hand for other purposes (such as opening doors, etc)?
 
Lets pose a scenario...

Two people that are equally capable with a pistol are in two seperate situations. Person A is walks into a convience store with a pistol. Person B is in a car by themselves with a pistol going to do a drive by. Who's going to be more likely to hit the victim? Person A? Or Person B? Now put an assault rifle in their hands instead of a pistol. The victim sees Person A enter the store with a piss poorly concealed rifle...think they are just going to stand there? Where as the victim for Person B still don't know they are about to be hit. Who's more likely going to hit the victim?

situation still doesn't matter, if person A and B are not killers, then the situation isn't dangerous.
 
True. If you're going to measure danger by the aggregated total of deaths, then pistols are by far the most dangerous. However, that's not the only way to measure danger

If you were to measure it by looking at the weapons used in the individual incidents with the greatest number of gun fatalities, rifles, particularly assault rifles, are common at the top of that list.

That is an odd way to look at "dangerous". While more fatalities per crash occur in airline crashes, car crashes claim far more lives. Your chance of being a victim (the truest danger factor?) of a mass shooting is far, far less than that of dying from many, many other things. Mass shootings occur about twice per year (50 victims tops?), on average, while other gun crime claims about 10,000 victims per year.

What is most scary about mass shootings is that they are typically done by really insane folks that no law will effectively deter since these killers do not care to survive the event. This "fear factor" is what leads many to wish to restrict the freedom of all, via gun control, to prevent that teeny, tiny number of loons from succeeding in their insane quests to kill lots of folks.

The problem is that by creating more unarmed victims, via restrictive (and expensive) gun control, that overall crime deaths will likely rise - actually costing more innocent lives than are saved by possibly reducing mass shootings.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf#page=27
 
That is an odd way to look at "dangerous". While more fatalities per crash occur in airline crashes, car crashes claim far more lives. Your chance of being a victim (the truest danger factor?) of a mass shooting is far, far less than that of dying from many, many other things. Mass shootings occur about twice per year (50 victims tops?), on average, while other gun crime claims about 10,000 victims per year.

What is most scary about mass shootings is that they are typically done by really insane folks that no law will effectively deter since these killers do not care to survive the event. This "fear factor" is what leads many to wish to restrict the freedom of all, via gun control, to prevent that teeny, tiny number of loons from succeeding in their insane quests to kill lots of folks.

The problem is that by creating more unarmed victims, via restrictive (and expensive) gun control, that overall crime deaths will likely rise - actually costing more innocent lives than are saved by possibly reducing mass shootings.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf#page=27

Though I wouldn't call it "odd" (maybe "uncommon" is better), I do agree that the aggregate total is more relevant because it's a more accurate measure of the danger to *me*, and I think we'll both agree, my safety is the highest priority
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

Not if they're being reasonable. Providing a better grip is the primary purpose of a pistol grip



Again, the fact that there are other, or even better, ways of stabilizing a weapon doesn't mean that a pistol grip does not help stabilize a weapon.




I have provided links for all things I claimed about a pistol grip, with the exception that they provide a better grip. I assumed that people who claim to know so much about weapons would know about this fundamental fact. But I will now remedy the lack of supporting links

Here's A Glossary Of Need-To-Know Terms For The Assault Weapons Ban Debate - Business Insider

Gun Stocks & Grips SALE Rifle Stocks, 1911 Grips, Shotgun Stocks, Pistol Grips

advantages of a pistol grip [Archive] - Calguns.net

Pistol grip - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



I don't think it's a good way of measuring the effectiveness of a weapon intended to be used in a mass shooting where the overwhelming # of people are much closer than that. In this case, it not only not the only measure of accuracy or effectiveness, it's not even the best one

Except that it isnt the sole purpose. Its comfort.

Right but why are you focusing on the pistol grip if you acknowledge that there are better ways of improving the stability of a weapon?

The first link is business insider an certainly not a good source for info on guns. The second is a retail store that makes a claim that their grips can improve the stability of a weapon but nothing to back it up. Your third link is a bunch of peoples opinions but no real data. Your fourth link doesnt even have a source for where it is claimed that a pistol grip improves the stability of a weapon. Im looking for data here and your just not providing it. Remember when I talked about studies comparing rifles with and without pistol grips?

Its the best way of measuring the range of what a weapon can be effective in terms of accuracy which is what we were talking about remember? We were talking about the accuracy of a weapon not mattering because of the range that most shots occur in mass shootings and you said that not all shots are taken at close range to which I replied that since the max effective range of the SKS is 400-430 yards it would have no problem being effective at about 100 yards which is what I would guess would be the longest shot anyone would need to take during a mass shooting. If you have a better way to measure that then please by all means go ahead and tell me what it is.
 
situation still doesn't matter, if person A and B are not killers, then the situation isn't dangerous.

In which case it has nothing to do with this subject. Remember...."it was about which 1 poses a bigger danger, danger is something that affects people." Since we're talking about posing the biggest danger then Person A and Person B would naturally have to be willing to kill.

Nice try at dancing around trying not to admit that I have a point.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

Thats not actually true. A fully automatic weapon is very hard to control and you wont get very many hits on target with one while a semiautomatic weapon is very easy to control and you can get several hits on target.

That depends on the weapon and the experience of the owner.

Not all semi-automatic rifles are difficult to control. I have fired ones that are and ones that are not.

Someone well trained on a suitable weapon can place a lot of bullets in a designated target area - even with a semi-automatic rifle.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

Except that it isnt the sole purpose. Its comfort.

Right but why are you focusing on the pistol grip if you acknowledge that there are better ways of improving the stability of a weapon?

The first link is business insider an certainly not a good source for info on guns. The second is a retail store that makes a claim that their grips can improve the stability of a weapon but nothing to back it up. Your third link is a bunch of peoples opinions but no real data. Your fourth link doesnt even have a source for where it is claimed that a pistol grip improves the stability of a weapon. Im looking for data here and your just not providing it. Remember when I talked about studies comparing rifles with and without pistol grips?

Its the best way of measuring the range of what a weapon can be effective in terms of accuracy which is what we were talking about remember? We were talking about the accuracy of a weapon not mattering because of the range that most shots occur in mass shootings and you said that not all shots are taken at close range to which I replied that since the max effective range of the SKS is 400-430 yards it would have no problem being effective at about 100 yards which is what I would guess would be the longest shot anyone would need to take during a mass shooting. If you have a better way to measure that then please by all means go ahead and tell me what it is.

it doesn't have to be it's sole purpose. If it helps the shooter get a firmer grip, it helps make the weapon more dangerous in his hands.

ANd I'm not the one who is focusing on pistol grips. It's the rightwingers who are repeating falsehoods such as "pistol grips are solely cosmetic", and "pistol grips do not make the weapon more dangerous" who are focusing on pistol grips.

ANd yes, the first link is not definitive, but the other links corrorborate it.

The 2nd shows that my claim is not without merit. I could just as easily say that your claim that a pistol grip does nothing has nothing to back it up.

I'm not sure what you're looking for when you say you want data. The fact that several sources corroborate my claim ...is that not data?

And no, I don't remember ever agreeing that max eff range is the best measure of accuracy, particularly when talking about mass shootings. RE: a better measure - I dont think any one factor can be used as the definitive measure of effectiveness. The point here is whether or not a pistol grip makes a weapon more dangerous. If it makes a shooter more effective *at any range*, then it has made the weapon more dangerous
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

That depends on the weapon and the experience of the owner.

Not all semi-automatic rifles are difficult to control. I have fired ones that are and ones that are not.

Someone well trained on a suitable weapon can place a lot of bullets in a designated target area - even with a semi-automatic rifle.

Umm im slightly confused. I was saying that fully automatic weapons are difficult to control not semiautomatic weapons.
 
Since you hav, in the past, asked me several questions about my positions on guns, and I have answered, it's your turn to be questioned

Are pistol grips "purely cosmetic", or do they have a function?

If the latter, what is the function that pistol grips perform?

Do pistol grips provide a better grip, help the shooter keep the weapon stable?

Can it help with the shooters accuracy?

Does it make it easier for the shooter to fire the weapon one handed, so that the user can use the other hand for other purposes (such as opening doors, etc)?

None of those things create a divide between what is legal and what is too dangerous for people to own
 
In which case it has nothing to do with this subject. Remember...."it was about which 1 poses a bigger danger, danger is something that affects people." Since we're talking about posing the biggest danger then Person A and Person B would naturally have to be willing to kill.

Nice try at dancing around trying not to admit that I have a point.

you have no point, your point was the situation is more dangerous depending on the gun. my point is the situation is only as dangerous as the people involved.

since when is stating fact dancing around? or are you just another political hack?
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

it doesn't have to be it's sole purpose. If it helps the shooter get a firmer grip, it helps make the weapon more dangerous in his hands.

ANd I'm not the one who is focusing on pistol grips. It's the rightwingers who are repeating falsehoods such as "pistol grips are solely cosmetic", and "pistol grips do not make the weapon more dangerous" who are focusing on pistol grips.

ANd yes, the first link is not definitive, but the other links corrorborate it.

The 2nd shows that my claim is not without merit. I could just as easily say that your claim that a pistol grip does nothing has nothing to back it up.

I'm not sure what you're looking for when you say you want data. The fact that several sources corroborate my claim ...is that not data?

And no, I don't remember ever agreeing that max eff range is the best measure of accuracy, particularly when talking about mass shootings. RE: a better measure - I dont think any one factor can be used as the definitive measure of effectiveness. The point here is whether or not a pistol grip makes a weapon more dangerous. If it makes a shooter more effective *at any range*, then it has made the weapon more dangerous

I dont care if the right wingers are focusing on pistol grips or not or what they are saying. I do believe that pistol grips do not make a weapon more dangerous however.

Your links do not show anything. I could easily find a few bad sources that back up my opinion like you have. And your right I havent backed up my position with links yet. But you are the one who made the claim so you should have to be the one to back it up.

Ive stated what I want when I say data. I want something that actually took and compared a rifle with a pistol grip and a rifle without a pistol grip to see if the one with a pistol grip is more accurate, more stable, and all the other things you claim it does.

I never said that you agreed with me that the max effective range is the best measure of accuracy. Read what I wrote again. I said it is the best way to measure the range of what a weapon can be accurate at. I then went on to explain that we were talking about ranges that a weapon can be effective at.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

I think ya'll are over-thinking this.

Common sense definition of an assault rifle: If a rifle is a semi automatic and it was trialed or selected in any police or military tactical rifle trial, it is an assault rifle. Make and maintain a list.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

I think ya'll are over-thinking this.

Common sense definition of an assault rifle: If a rifle is a semi automatic and it was trialed or selected in any police or military tactical rifle trial, it is an assault rifle. Make and maintain a list.

rejected as silly. do police own weapons to assault a fixed position-ie hose it down with automatic fire so that other members of the police can destroy the position with explosives or flame throwers?

IF NOT then it is not an Assault rifle

you need to learn what the term ASSAULT meant when the term ASSAULT RIFLE was created
 
you have no point, your point was the situation is more dangerous depending on the gun.

No that wasn't my point. My point was that it all depended on the situation and the environment. The gun is just one aspect. The type of people involved, whether its outdoors or indoors, size of room/area, knowledge or lack of knowledge of seeing whats coming and many other factors.

my point is the situation is only as dangerous as the people involved.

The people alone are not enough as I just demonstrated. An AR15 isn't going to be much help if you're in an enclosed space compared to a pistol. On the other hand a pistol isn't going to be much help when your target is 500 meters away. An AR15 is going to be worthless to someone robbing a convience store for the simple fact that the victim will see the AR15 before the person gets up to the counter to wave it around. On the other hand a pistol is quite concealable and the victim won't know its there until its pointed in his/her face.

since when is stating fact dancing around? or are you just another political hack?

The dancing happened when you tried to ignore that we were talking about what is dangerous by claiming that Person A & B may not be violent. For that simple fact alone they would not even be a part of this discussion.

And this subject has nothing to do with politics. It has to do with real world applications. There is a reason that infantry normally carries assault rifles (or bigger) and those in the Navy normally just carry pistols. And that is because one has to do with open area fighting. The other has to do with in close fighting in narrow corridors where assault rifles would be, at best, cumbersome.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

rejected as silly. do police own weapons to assault a fixed position-ie hose it down with automatic fire so that other members of the police can destroy the position with explosives or flame throwers?

IF NOT then it is not an Assault rifle

you need to learn what the term ASSAULT meant when the term ASSAULT RIFLE was created

It's not silly, its common sense. This definition would cover the ar 15, ak 47, SKS, bushmasters, and tons of what we generally consider assault weapons. It would NOT cover anschutz target rifles, no .22 rimfires, whether they have a pistol grip or not.

It actually gets right to the point.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

It's not silly, its common sense. This definition would cover the ar 15, ak 47, SKS, bushmasters, and tons of what we generally consider assault weapons. It would NOT cover anschutz target rifles, no .22 rimfires, whether they have a pistol grip or not.

It actually gets right to the point.

So you define a weapons by its name rather than by what it can do? Hmm....I think Turtle was right, your position IS silly.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

It's not silly, its common sense. This definition would cover the ar 15, ak 47, SKS, bushmasters, and tons of what we generally consider assault weapons. It would NOT cover anschutz target rifles, no .22 rimfires, whether they have a pistol grip or not.

It actually gets right to the point.


Its still stupid because none of those NON AUTOMATIC weapons are suitable for an ASSAULT as contemplated by those who defined the term assault weapon in the 40s

Anti gun scumbag politicians and their toadies in the press use that term to scare people who are too ignorant or stupid to understand that "assault" as applied to the weapons is a specific military concept that is not achievable with semi auto only.
 
Back
Top Bottom