Page 13 of 45 FirstFirst ... 3111213141523 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 442

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

  1. #121
    Only Losers H8 Capitalism
    Spartacus FPV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In your echo chamber
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    12,893

    Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    On some firearms it is. On others it is not.

    I have not read any other person than you who wants laws passed to make firearms less accurate. And, as I noted, what you MOST want is to outlaw precision target rifles (such as the Olympics teams use) and bolt action hunting rifles.

    A .223 Bullpup without a muzzlebrake is a better interior people-killer than a .223 with one because without it is shorter and more easily concealed. So you also WANT laws to make firearms more easily concealable.
    Quite right, the flash suppressor on my 22 rifle is PURELY cosmetic, there is no flash from a .22LR mini mag out of a rifle.
    Haymarket's "support" of the 2nd Amendment, a right he believes we never had.
    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    no. You cannot lose rights you do not have in the first place. There is no such thing as the right to have any weapon of your choice regardless of any other consideration. It simply does not exist.

  2. #122
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    No, that's all in your head. Anyone who actually understands firearms recognized the exact differences. The difference between a wood stock and a black fiberglass stock and an aluminum stock are for the most part "cosmetic." However, circumstantially, typical climate, humidity and temperature factors may cause one to be a better choice. Often, cost is the decisive factor - for both the military and civilians.

    But the other reason you should give-this-up about "cosmetics" is it has you arguing for inaccurate firearms that people can control - and trying to force people away from target and hunting rifles towards higher capacity semi-autos.

    You know what firearm you are MOST raging against? Extreme precision, single shot .22 target rifles that have pistol grips, thumbhole stocks and muzzlebrakes. That also is THE rifle LEAST capable of "mass killing" as it is a slow loading heavy single shot tiny caliber.
    "for the most part cosmetic", "to be the better choice", etc all prove that the claim that these features are "purely cosmetic" is false.
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  3. #123
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,010

    Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

    Quote Originally Posted by CLAX1911 View Post
    Being that pistols are far more likely to be used in crime
    Since a pistol can be an assault weapon your question contradicts itself.

  4. #124
    better late than pregnant
    Gonzo Rodeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Here
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:42 AM
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    4,133

    Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    It's funny when the pro-gunnies demonstrate an ignorance of firearms.

    Those "cosmetic" features are all functional, which is why the military buys weapons with those features. I don't know what type of delusion leads some people to think the military buys weapons because of their
    "cosmetic" value.
    There is plenty of ignorance on both sides of this debate.

    A telescoping stock allows a custom fit for the user and doesn't provide a much smaller package; a rifle with a telescoping stock may save four inches in overall length while collapses, which does not suddenly make a rifle "concealable." A folding stock might save seven or eight inches, and again doesn't magically make an eight pound hunk of metal with a twenty inch barrel "concealable."

    Pistol grips do not make a rifle fire faster nor service targets faster. If that were the case, competition trap and skeet shooters would use pistol grips as their sport involves rapidly changing aim; they do not use pistol grips. The greatest advantage a pistol grip confers is to shorten the overall length of a rifle by maybe two inches, while offering some adjustability for length of pull. Even so, if you combine a pistol grip with a folding stock (in the folded position), you are looking at maybe ten inches shorter overall length (and the rifle is not in a usable configuration when the stock is folded).

    Barrel shrouds are designed to keep the user from burning their hands, nothing more, nothing less. Some shrouds come with rails to mount accessories, such as flash lights, night vision scopes, laser designators, etc... none of which make a rifle deadlier or easier to shoot.

    The arbitrary number of five or seven rounds for a detachable magazine is just that - arbitrary. A magazine change can be performed in less than a second. I can do one in about a second, and I don't have anything in the way of formal training for rapid reloads. A second is not enough time to rush an attacker, especially not from a position of cover that someone would be in if actively being shot at (and not being armed themselves). If you want to eliminate the advantages of a thirty round magazine... then you have to outlaw any magazine, of any capacity. And that is an entirely different debate, one that will not pass the public sniff test.
    "Political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. . . . Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness."
    ~Orwell, Politics and the English Language

  5. #125
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gonzo Rodeo View Post
    There is plenty of ignorance on both sides of this debate.

    A telescoping stock allows a custom fit for the user and doesn't provide a much smaller package; a rifle with a telescoping stock may save four inches in overall length while collapses, which does not suddenly make a rifle "concealable." A folding stock might save seven or eight inches, and again doesn't magically make an eight pound hunk of metal with a twenty inch barrel "concealable."

    Pistol grips do not make a rifle fire faster nor service targets faster. If that were the case, competition trap and skeet shooters would use pistol grips as their sport involves rapidly changing aim; they do not use pistol grips. The greatest advantage a pistol grip confers is to shorten the overall length of a rifle by maybe two inches, while offering some adjustability for length of pull. Even so, if you combine a pistol grip with a folding stock (in the folded position), you are looking at maybe ten inches shorter overall length (and the rifle is not in a usable configuration when the stock is folded).

    Barrel shrouds are designed to keep the user from burning their hands, nothing more, nothing less. Some shrouds come with rails to mount accessories, such as flash lights, night vision scopes, laser designators, etc... none of which make a rifle deadlier or easier to shoot.

    The arbitrary number of five or seven rounds for a detachable magazine is just that - arbitrary. A magazine change can be performed in less than a second. I can do one in about a second, and I don't have anything in the way of formal training for rapid reloads. A second is not enough time to rush an attacker, especially not from a position of cover that someone would be in if actively being shot at (and not being armed themselves). If you want to eliminate the advantages of a thirty round magazine... then you have to outlaw any magazine, of any capacity. And that is an entirely different debate, one that will not pass the public sniff test.
    I have a suspicion that you intended on refuting my claim but everything you said supports my claim that those features have a function and are not purely cosmetic
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  6. #126
    better late than pregnant
    Gonzo Rodeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Here
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:42 AM
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    4,133

    Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    I have a suspicion that you intended on refuting my claim but everything you said supports my claim that those features have a function and are not purely cosmetic
    Their function is not what the media reports as "dangerous," however. I actually heard Alan Colmes claim that folding stocks and pistol grips make guns fire faster. That is just plain ignorant.

    A folded stock and a pistol grip turns a 36 inch rifle into a 28 inch rifle that cannot be fired accurately and still isn't concealable. That's like outlawing cars that can go over 200 mph for safety reasons, even though the speed limit is already set well below that.

    The ONLY point anti-gun rhetoric can score is on the point of magazines, and they are stopping that debate at an arbitrary number that is nothing more than an empty gesture. If they want to forward the debate that magazines themselves should be outlawed, then lets have that debate. Until then, all of these measures are just designed to enact control for the sake of control, not to actually address any of the problems that the anti-gun side sees in the issue.
    "Political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. . . . Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness."
    ~Orwell, Politics and the English Language

  7. #127
    Guru
    Porchev's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    GA
    Last Seen
    01-08-17 @ 12:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    3,092

    Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

    At this link there is some great information on assault weapons:

    The Truth About Assault Weapons

  8. #128
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:30 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,569
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

    THIS is on Sangha's to-be-outlawed list:




    ^ A single shot .22 competition target rifle because it has thumbhole stock and pistol grip. It fires and holds ONE .22 shell. But to Sangha, this is a mass murder's terror weapon.


    However, THIS is NOT on Sangha's list:



    ^A Browning M3HB semi-auto converted belt fed 50 caliber. It does not have a thumbhole stock, does not have a pistol grip and does not have a muzzle brake. Nor does it have a magazine. It can fire over 250 rounds per minute over 1 mile thru over 1 inch steel and thru as many belts as a person cares to link.

    NOR is THIS on his list:



    A NATO .308 gatlin gun at 250 rounds per link as many links as a person puts together at around 700 rounds per minute (or any lesser rate as it is cranked) - BUT it does NOT have a magazine, does not have a pistol grip, does not have a thumbhole stock - AND COSTS LESS THAN THE .22 single shot competition target rifle.

    In fact, by his messages he especially likes that beltfed .308 Browning because he opposes accuracy in firearms and it isn't very accurate (why they tend to use tracer bullets mixed in) and instead is for throwing out lots and lots of big bullets really extra fast! By his messages that's what he wants everyone to have in terms of long guns. And yes, one could be carried on and fired from a shoulder sling.

    So beware of Olypiades with .22 single shot rifles - or so says Sangha. Maybe schools should be legally declared "Olympic Competitors Free-Zones" and it a felony for a competitive .22 shooter to go into any school.

    THAT is how much Sangha in his messages REALLY does NOT care about mass killings and does NOT understand about firearms. He's just keep reciting the word "cosmetic" as if it means anything.
    Last edited by joko104; 02-19-13 at 05:43 PM.

  9. #129
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gonzo Rodeo View Post
    Their function is not what the media reports as "dangerous," however. I actually heard Alan Colmes claim that folding stocks and pistol grips make guns fire faster. That is just plain ignorant.

    A folded stock and a pistol grip turns a 36 inch rifle into a 28 inch rifle that cannot be fired accurately and still isn't concealable. That's like outlawing cars that can go over 200 mph for safety reasons, even though the speed limit is already set well below that.

    The ONLY point anti-gun rhetoric can score is on the point of magazines, and they are stopping that debate at an arbitrary number that is nothing more than an empty gesture. If they want to forward the debate that magazines themselves should be outlawed, then lets have that debate. Until then, all of these measures are just designed to enact control for the sake of control, not to actually address any of the problems that the anti-gun side sees in the issue.
    Again, "cosmetic" does not mean "not dangerous"
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  10. #130
    Supreme knower of all
    CLAX1911's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Houston, in the great state of Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,208

    Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    Since a pistol can be an assault weapon your question contradicts itself.
    assault weapon meaning of class of rifle.

Page 13 of 45 FirstFirst ... 3111213141523 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •