Page 29 of 45 FirstFirst ... 19272829303139 ... LastLast
Results 281 to 290 of 442

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

  1. #281
    Professor
    finebead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston
    Last Seen
    12-14-17 @ 12:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,558

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    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.
    I specifically chose the common sense definition that I did, and yes I excluded WWI assault rifles that were bolt actions, I also excluded bows and arrows which were Indian assault weapons in the 19th century, as I excluded slings such as David used to slay Goliath. I also excluded clubs that cavemen used as assault weapons. You have to draw a line somewhere, and I drew mine in WWII.

  2. #282
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,766

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

    Quote Originally Posted by finebead View Post
    I specifically chose the common sense definition that I did, and yes I excluded WWI assault rifles that were bolt actions, I also excluded bows and arrows which were Indian assault weapons in the 19th century, as I excluded slings such as David used to slay Goliath. I also excluded clubs that cavemen used as assault weapons. You have to draw a line somewhere, and I drew mine in WWII.
    more idiocy. BOLT ACTIONS are not assault rifles

    if you cannot understand the accepted definitions, your arguments are going to be seen as childish, ignorant or just plain DISHONEST

    a bolt action like the MAUSER 98 is called a BATTLE RIFLE

    You drew your line based on ignorance apparently since your definitions are clownish.

    you apparently want to use a different definition of "assault" than what was used for the description of a selective fire, carbine sized weapon firing an intermediate cartridge from a detachable box magazine



  3. #283
    Professor
    finebead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston
    Last Seen
    12-14-17 @ 12:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,558

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    more idiocy. BOLT ACTIONS are not assault rifles

    if you cannot understand the accepted definitions, your arguments are going to be seen as childish, ignorant or just plain DISHONEST

    a bolt action like the MAUSER 98 is called a BATTLE RIFLE

    You drew your line based on ignorance apparently since your definitions are clownish.

    you apparently want to use a different definition of "assault" than what was used for the description of a selective fire, carbine sized weapon firing an intermediate cartridge from a detachable box magazine
    Times change, and we have to change with them. In WWI the bolt action rifle was the assault weapon that soldiers used to charge the enemy trench lines.

    My definition does cover the vast majority of what most people would consider assault rifles today. It's a good common sense definition.

  4. #284
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    If that is the case, then shouldn't the response be an explanation of what those features do and how they do not pose any danger to the public? Wouldn't that be more effective (and honest) than arguing the falsehood that they are purely cosmetic?


    Cosmetics are fun to play with. I'm an average skilled shooter at best. But do I have the firearms to suggest I am a real marksman. Such as my Weatherby .300 magnum with a custom match stainless steel barrel and very exotic wood thumbhole stock - a VERY long range precision rifle and a pointedly excellent scope - all I bought used (like nearly everything) taking advantage of the prices of such firearms falling as people rush to .223 and 9mm. I have quite a few firearms that suggest I am a very, very skilled marksmen. That Custom Weatherby with modifications new? About $12,000. I paid 1/10th that. Same for the Weatherby .257 magnum - only also fluted stainless custom match barrel, accubrake, and one of those super fine carved Weatherby stocks. And a very excellent engraved over-under Krieghoff shotgun - plus of course my tricked out MIA now with target stock and a nice day/night scope. Those Weatherby's have a very distinct report when fired!

    So... to continue the imagry, I had gone on Ebay and bought a like-new old shooter's jacket and a bunch of vintage marksmen awards patches (had the Biker shop sew them on), plus a dozen or so firearms clubs and matches pins to put on my hat. By my garb, I've been winning shooting matches for at least 2 decade and across the South and Midwest. LOL!

    Laid it out, plus spotter scope, at a range. Didn't fire many rounds, just checked to see if the scopes on the Weatherby's were still on the mark. I was shooting groupings no better than average, where with those 2 rifles 3 shots at only 100 yards in dead air should only have been all but just 1 hole. Actually, 1 1/2 inch groupings was pretty crappy shooting!

    Despite the actual reality, my wife reported overhearing a few guys inside the check-in building talking how no one would be fool enough to do the typical $1 a shot gambling like they do with each other with me. Probably everyone of of them could out shoot me with their $500 Remingtons. But in their opinion, "Man can that guy shoot!" ROLF!

    So much actually IS cosmetic and perception. And those preceptions and cosmetics are now driving BOTH the anti-gun people and the naive pro-gun folks too. To them, the .223 and 9mm are the most deadly firearms every conceived in the history of earth!

    The gun control debate reminds of the line from some movie, "from the school of the galactically retarded" people - sometimes on both sides of it.

    In fact, the .223 is not the king of the hill, but way down near the bottom in lethality, and pistol grips, thumbhole stocks, muzzlebrakes etc do not make a firearm more deadly - but safer because of better control. Mass killers historically just spray bullets for which precision isn't a factor.
    Last edited by joko104; 02-20-13 at 01:00 AM.

  5. #285
    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
    Cosmetics are fun to play with. I'm an average skilled shooter at best. But do I have the firearms to suggest I am a real marksman. Such as my Weatherby .300 magnum with a custom match stainless steel barrel and very exotic wood thumbhole stock - a VERY long range precision rifle and a pointedly excellent scope - all I bought used (like nearly everything) taking advantage of the prices of such firearms falling as people rush to .223 and 9mm. I have quite a few firearms that suggest I am a very, very skilled marksmen. That Custom Weatherby with modifications new? About $12,000. I paid 1/10th that. Same for the Weatherby .257 magnum - only also fluted stainless custom match barrel, accubrake, and one of those super fine carved Weatherby stocks. And a very excellent engraved over-under Krieghoff shotgun - plus of course my tricked out MIA now with target stock and a nice day/night scope. Those Weatherby's have a very distinct report when fired!

    So... to continue the imagry, I had gone on Ebay and bought a like-new old shooter's jacket and a bunch of vintage marksmen awards patches (had the Biker shop sew them on), plus a dozen or so firearms clubs and matches pins to put on my hat. By my garb, I've been winning shooting matches for at least 2 decade and across the South and Midwest. LOL!

    Laid it out, plus spotter scope, at a range. Didn't fire many rounds, just checked to see if the scopes on the Weatherby's were still on the mark. I was shooting groupings no better than average, where with those 2 rifles 3 shots at only 100 yards in dead air should only have be all bu just 1 hole. Actually, 1 1/2 inch groupings was pretty crappy shooting!

    Despite the actual reality, my wife reported overhearing a few guys inside the check-in building talking how no one would be fool enough to do the typical $1 a shot gambling the like to do with each other with me. Probably everyone of of them could out shoot me with their $500 Remingtons. "Man can that guy shot!" ROLF!

    So much actual IS cosmetic and perception. And those preceptions and cosmetics are now driving BOTH the anti-gun people and the naive pro-gun folks too. To them, the .223 and 9mm are the most deadly firearms every conceived in the history of earth!

    In fact, the .223 is not the king of the hill, but way down near the bottom in lethality, and pistol grips, thumbhole stocks, muzzlebrakes etc do not make a firearm more deadly - but safer because of better control. Mass killers historically just spray bullets for which precision isn't a factor.
    Heh!

    I'm not a gun fetishist, but as a musician, I can appreciate the obsession with gear and the workmanship involved in creating a exception instrument. I have a custom guitar with somewhat elaborate inlay on it (tree branch and leaves on the fretboard, and a buddha on its' (exotic wood) body

    And yeah, there's a lot of emotionalism on both sides of the gun issue, and with it comes a level of irrationality. That's why I think we should all take a deep breath and not freak anytime someone whispers the words "bayonet" or "pistol grip", etc
    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. #286
    Guru

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Illinois
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    3,335
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    You have the right to care (or not) about whatever you want. However, there are people making claims that are demonstrably false, and I see nothing wrong with my pointig that out.

    As far as pistol grips being effective, I doubt that anyone has scientifically determined this. However, the effectiveness of pistol grips is amply demonstrated by their wide usage by govt agencies that care not a whit about aesthetics. They arm their agents with rifles that have pistol grips for a reason, and that reason is not because it makes them look better or scarier.

    And yes, I get what you're saying regarding the max eff range, but my point isn't the max eff range, it's about the dangerousness of a weapon and whether or not a pistol grip contributes to that. I don't believe the term "dangerousness" can be determined using one measure. The same goes for measuring accuracy. Different weapons are more suited for certain situations, and other weapons are more suited for thers. The dangerousness of a weapon is not determined by one measure, but by the capabilities o the weapon and the situations it's used in
    Government agencies use weapons with pistol grips yes. They also use weapons without pistol grips but we will ignore that for now. The fact that government agencies use weapons with pistol grips doesnt really mean anything. I would assume they use them for comfort knowing that they may have to hold the weapon at a ready position for long periods of time.

    I dont think the how dangerous a weapon is can be determined using one measure either. But I wasnt trying to determine how dangerous a weapon is using that measure.

  7. #287
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    Heh!

    I'm not a gun fetishist, but as a musician, I can appreciate the obsession with gear and the workmanship involved in creating a exception instrument. I have a custom guitar with somewhat elaborate inlay on it (tree branch and leaves on the fretboard, and a buddha on its' (exotic wood) body

    And yeah, there's a lot of emotionalism on both sides of the gun issue, and with it comes a level of irrationality. That's why I think we should all take a deep breath and not freak anytime someone whispers the words "bayonet" or "pistol grip", etc
    I can give you a "like" for that one.

    There really are LOTS of people who are VERY MUCH into precision shooting and VERY MUCH into hunting. The overall aesthetics means MUCH to them.

    That's why, in reality terms, the "debate" should be limited to "reality" issues. For example, magazine capacity is a reality issue. So is background checks. Whether non-violent felons should be restored gun rights is a legitimate issue. Whether doctors should be required to report psychological issues to authorities - those are other legitimate issues. Should schools be "gun-free" or should schools have armed security? What about Open-carry or concealed carry or no-carry?

    The visual stuff like thumbhole stocks, pistol grips, muzzlebrakes - that's all just annoying PR that is counter productive because I do believe stray bullets are a far greater danger AND those elements actually really do matter greatly to hunters and target/precision shooters. LARGE caliber rifles are ALL bolt action, ARE hunting rifles (ammo too costly to play with) and MUST have a muzzlebrake - manufacturers won't even sell them without those part of the barrel itself or it'd break a shoulder and shove the scope back into the person's eye. BUT when hunting elk at 900 yards that's what you need and in brown bear country you better have one of those along because you could shot one all day long with a .223 - or rather the few seconds before the bear ripped you apart.

    Would it bother you if the musician's union was lobbying to outlaw your instrument, declaring all musically instruments may no longer be made using wood and past wood instruments longer than so long or within various parameters were outlawed - including yours? It wouldn't ruin your life but it'd really piss you off about those control freaks.

    Precision shooting - and that is becoming VERY popular - is like fine musicians. The difference between being "the best" and not the best is 1/10,000 difference. I wish the anti-gun people would get off the "cosmetics" and stick to the real issues, and pro-gun folks should do the same. Wanting them to give up thumbhole stocks and muzzlebreaks would be like demanding you have to give up one of the strings on your instrument.

  8. #288
    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 Omgitsme View Post
    Government agencies use weapons with pistol grips yes. They also use weapons without pistol grips but we will ignore that for now. The fact that government agencies use weapons with pistol grips doesnt really mean anything. I would assume they use them for comfort knowing that they may have to hold the weapon at a ready position for long periods of time.

    I dont think the how dangerous a weapon is can be determined using one measure either. But I wasnt trying to determine how dangerous a weapon is using that measure.
    So pistols grips make it easier for a shooter to hold the weapon at the ready for a long period of time. Agreed!

    Don't you think that might be useful to someone who intends on shooting up people for as long as he possibly can?
    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..

  9. #289
    Guru

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Illinois
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    3,335
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    So pistols grips make it easier for a shooter to hold the weapon at the ready for a long period of time. Agreed!

    Don't you think that might be useful to someone who intends on shooting up people for as long as he possibly can?
    No. Because they are going to bring the weapon up, take their shots, then lower the weapon and move on until they find new targets. Someone who is in the military, FBI, or what not may have to keep their rifle pointed down an ally or at a door for long periods of time. That is the difference.

  10. #290
    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
    I can give you a "like" for that one.

    There really are LOTS of people who are VERY MUCH into precision shooting and VERY MUCH into hunting. The overall aesthetics means MUCH to them.

    That's why, in reality terms, the "debate" should be limited to "reality" issues. For example, magazine capacity is a reality issue. So is background checks. Whether non-violent felons should be restored gun rights is a legitimate issue. Whether doctors should be required to report psychological issues to authorities - those are other legitimate issues. Should schools be "gun-free" or should schools have armed security? What about Open-carry or concealed carry or no-carry?

    The visual stuff like thumbhole stocks, pistol grips, muzzlebrakes - that's all just annoying PR that is counter productive because I do believe stray bullets are a far greater danger AND those elements actually really do matter greatly to hunters and target/precision shooters. LARGE caliber rifles are ALL bolt action, ARE hunting rifles (ammo too costly to play with) and MUST have a muzzlebrake - manufacturers won't even sell them without those part of the barrel itself or it'd break a shoulder and shove the scope back into the person's eye. BUT when hunting elk at 900 yards that's what you need and in brown bear country you better have one of those along because you could shot one all day long with a .223 - or rather the few seconds before the bear ripped you apart.

    Would it bother you if the musician's union was lobbying to outlaw your instrument, declaring all musically instruments may no longer be made using wood and past wood instruments longer than so long or within various parameters were outlawed - including yours? It wouldn't ruin your life but it'd really piss you off about those control freaks.

    Precision shooting - and that is becoming VERY popular - is like fine musicians. The difference between being "the best" and not the best is 1/10,000 difference. I wish the anti-gun people would get off the "cosmetics" and stick to the real issues, and pro-gun folks should do the same. Wanting them to give up thumbhole stocks and muzzlebreaks would be like demanding you have to give up one of the strings on your instrument.
    And I liked your post, not because I agreed with you but because you're demonstrating reason and not making accusations.

    As far as banning musical instruments, I don't think that's a realistic comparison. I know some people think the music I make is ghastly, but it's never killed anyone (yet)

    However, I think you are "begging the question" when it comes to the "cosmetics". We're here discussing whether those features do or do not make a weapon more dangerous in the hands of a lunatic or a criminal. Just declaring that they are not is just a short circuiting of the debate, and will not do anyone any good. Particularly with regards to an issue where many, and probably most, people already have their minds made up.

    I think it's obvious that many on the right are concerned that the public support for gun safety laws will result in additional restictions being placed on gun ownership. What do you think would be a more effective way of countering that sentiment - a sane and sober discussion of the various features (what they are, what they do, how they can be used) or strident declarations that "THEY'RE PURELY COSMETIC!!" followed with insults directed at anyone who disagrees with that assertion?

    Remember, a lot of people believe that people who like guns are nuts to begin with. Do you think the more strident talk is going to make them see your side as more rational, or will it enhance their perception of gun owners as being a crowd of hysterical loons?
    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..

Page 29 of 45 FirstFirst ... 19272829303139 ... 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
  •