Page 3 of 45 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 442

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

  1. #21
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,526

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

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    So it's your belief that bayonets and flash suppressors have no function at all and are purely cosmetic?

    No one uses a bayonet on a civilian rifle, it is irreverent in the usage or the commission of crime. A flash suppressor helps with recoil and even though it has a scary name does not actually suppress the flash. It just spreads it out more. Pistol grips, thumb hole stocks and all the other mostly cosmetic similarity's have nothing to do with crime at all, literally nothing. A mini 13 which is also a semiautomatic rifle has none of those unless you add them It can kill you just as quickly and just as dead.

    No, you know literally nothing.

    Hell I was only in the Army 12 years, WTF do I know.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

  2. #22
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    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.
    How is a semiautomatic rifle with a pistol grip but no telescoping and no bayonet lug more lethal than a semiautomatic rifle with telescoping stock but no pistol grip and no bayonet lug? How is a semiautomatic pistol with barrel shroud but no threaded barrel and its magazine is inserted inside the pistol less dangerous than a pistol whose magazine attaches outside the pistol grip and has no threaded barrel and no barrel shroud?



    How is this Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?[W: 207]-501px-postbanar15a2standard-jpg less dangerous than thisAre assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?[W: 207]-ar15_a3_tactical_carbine_pic1-jpg?
    Last edited by jamesrage; 02-18-13 at 05:46 PM.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  3. #23
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 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
    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.

    Once again, you really don't know what you are talking about. You should be careful of using the words "ignorance of firearms."

    There are many factors for what the military buys, and that now includes compatibility with what other ally countries use, ability to withstand harsh conditions, weight, durability and cost factors. Historically, military rifles have been inferior to the best on the civilian market due to cost and reliability factors - and the civilian market always has less quality firearms available than the military too. The military will not spend the money to buy the best nor will accept the worst.

    An example is the shift from the 30-06 (Springfield and then M1)caliber used from WWI thru the Korean war, to a mix of 5.56 ("M-16") and .308 (M1A/M14) as the heavy caliber- although the the .308 is a less heavy hitter than the 30-06, primarily to be compatible with our NATO allies that use .308. The 5.56 - a small caliber - was developed to deal with the lack of skills and motivation of drafted soldiers to Vietnam.

    And the US military shifted from the big .45acp in pistol to the smaller 9mm primarily to be compatible with European models - plus the shift in the nature of the battlefield from jungle to more urban? 9mm pistol was the German caliber.

    Does even ONE anti-gun person realize the military does NOT buy ANY firearms in .223?

    Or that WWII vintage USA rifles and pistols are LESS "deadly" than currently used? Or that such as 25 and 50 round .45acp firearms ("Thompsons") were discontinued early in the Korean War - for which now the only "pistol" round firearm the military uses holds a max of 15 of the lesser size 9mm?

    Anti-gun people really don't understand firearms and it makes "debates" nonsensical.
    Last edited by joko104; 02-18-13 at 05:56 PM.

  4. #24
    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?

    In other words, the fact that flash suppresors help with recoil means "they're purely cosmetic". The fact that bayonets are used means "they are purely cosmetic". The fact that these weapons are used because of their "ability to withstand harsh conditions, weight," and "durability " means that they are "purely cosmetic"

    Gotcha!!
    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..

  5. #25
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,184

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

    In truth, there are no dangerous firearms... only dangerous people.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  6. #26
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

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

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    In other words, the fact that flash suppresors help with recoil means "they're purely cosmetic". The fact that bayonets are used means "they are purely cosmetic". The fact that these weapons are used because of their "ability to withstand harsh conditions, weight," and "durability " means that they are "purely cosmetic"

    Gotcha!!
    How is a semiautomatic ak47 more dangerous than a norinco mak 90?
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  7. #27
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,650

    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.
    Flash suppressor is better for low light shooting only. Folding or telescoping (adjustable) stock may aid in concealment and may allow shorter/taller shooters to better controll the same gun. Forward pistol grip and/or barrel heat shield may allow for better control in extremely rapid firing situations. Other features such as accessory rails have no affect on the shooting rate at all, but may allow added ease of target acquisition (scope, laser or flashlight). I have yet to hear of a mass shooter using the bayonette lug, but that sure is a scary feature too. The detachable magazine alone is did not define a gun as an AW, but we will soon see.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  8. #28
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,526

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

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    Try listing gun homicides by the number of people killed.
    CA has some of the stricter gun laws correct? Well here are there not to impressive stats from 2009.

    Lets look at what really matters....

    Handgun:
    All Crimes 81.6%
    Other than homicides 75.4%
    Drug trafficking 92%
    Street Gang 83.3%
    Homicides 75%


    Rfile:
    All Crime 8.8%
    Other than homicide 13.9%
    Drug trafficking 4%
    Street Gang 0% <------ Important
    Homicides 9%

    http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/pd..._Report_09.pdf

    Rifle includes ALL rifles not just assault rifles. So why do your numbers matter again?

    Nationwide looks much worse for people such as your self being scared of scary looking rifles.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

  9. #29
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,526

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

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    In other words, the fact that flash suppresors help with recoil means "they're purely cosmetic". The fact that bayonets are used means "they are purely cosmetic". The fact that these weapons are used because of their "ability to withstand harsh conditions, weight," and "durability " means that they are "purely cosmetic"

    Gotcha!!
    When taken out of context "which you seem to do... allot" you are completely wrong. None of the cosmetic military adaptations on rifles are a factor in crime, period.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

  10. #30
    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 jamesrage View Post
    How is a semiautomatic ak47 more dangerous than a norinco mak 90?
    i said nothing about the relative dangers of any weapon
    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 3 of 45 FirstFirst 1234513 ... 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
  •