Page 33 of 45 FirstFirst ... 23313233343543 ... LastLast
Results 321 to 330 of 442

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

  1. #321
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,858
    Blog Entries
    1

    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.
    Common sense would indicate that you use the correct term. We already have the correct terms defined for us by the military. Here, educate yourself.

    Assault Rifle
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  2. #322
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,277

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

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    If the "cosmetics" are not the issue, then why do the rightwingers repeatedly make dishonest claims about cosmetics?
    Please list the claims.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  3. #323
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,622

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

    Quote Originally Posted by finebead View Post
    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.
    appealing to mediocrity or ignorance does not work when discussing issues with those who are well versed in the terminology.
    you want to use "assault" to further your goal in banning stuff by appealing to those who are low wattage thinkers or low information individuals.

    Your definition of common sense is not sound since your argument is nonsensical

    an assault RIFLE is a machine gun and none made after May 19, 1986 can be sold to civilians even though such a weapon is clearly the most constitutionally sound firearm



  4. #324
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,622

    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?
    at one time in my life, I shot a fair amount of shotgun tournaments. Registered over 4000 targets (that's 40 events@100 targets an event) in one year. and I used to do a bit of exhibition shooting after spending some time with a guy named Matt Dryke (Olympic Gold Medalist-Skeet, 1984 and multiple US and world titles). We all used standard semi auto or pump shotguns without the scary looking pistol grips for shooting from the hip (yes I was able to shoot 25x25 in skeet that way and close to 25x25 in 16 yard trap), behind our backs, over our heads etc. As I noted, the only real advantage a real pistol grip gives is

    1) shooting the weapon with the buttstock tucked under the armpit of the hand that holds the pistol grip

    2) full automatic fire from a seated position or prone position with the weapon on sandbag or a bipod.

    neither one of these "advantages" have ANY relevance to semi autos being "more dangerous" than rifles firing the same cartridge without a protruding pistol grip.

    I would note that the introduction of high impact plastic moulding was a major reason why military rifles and those built using military rifle parts (like colt's AR 15) feature pistol grips. straight line stocks are much easier to mould and are less likely to break and such stocks require an additional pistol grip to access the trigger mechanism

    If you look at battle rifles (MI Garand, Mauser 98) and early semi carbines like the MI Carbine-the stocks are full length meaning the buttstock, grip and handguard are all essentially the same piece of wood. Modular construction based on plastic moulding is the current technique



  5. #325
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,955

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

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    The bottom line for me is this - would any of those children/teachers killed in Newtown still be alive if the shooter only had handguns?
    This is a misleading question. One can just as easily ask are there any children/teachers who are now alive because the shooter wasn't using only handguns? And given the testimony of several regulate shooters (range and hunting types, not mass) here, the answer could very well be yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    Yep. That is what I am saying. Note the topic of this thread: AW vs. pistol for "dangerousness". You are asserting that "AW" features are better than other rifles w/o those features, which may be true, but the OP is comparing AWs and pistols, as I am.
    He's actually trying to compare assault rifles with other weapons straight out, but won't admit to that.

    Quote Originally Posted by CLAX1911 View Post
    you keep posting that lie. you are wrong, a pistol grip is for comfort. no matter how many times you lie it will never be a fact.
    Now now credit where credit is due. He's only lying if he doesn't truly believe what he is saying and is intentionally trying to deceive through a false statement. He may be wrong but that doesn't make him a lair. And before you go off on word games again, calling someone a lair is a really major thing almost up there with libel. You prove that he is actually lying or call it a falsehood (or some synonym). Otherwise you become the troll.

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    The fact that there may be better ways to provide a better grip, or stabilize a weapon, does nothing to change the fact that the pistol grip does provide a better grip, and therefore help stabilize the weapon
    I believe that this is the crux of the contention between you and the others and that is proving that the grip actually provides more stabilization. And for that matter, with you yourself having noted that the pistol grip may provide less increase to the dangerousness of the rifle than other features, how little of an improvement to said increase of stability would it take before you discount it? a 1% improvement? .1%?, .01%? And with that, can you show what the improvement amount to the stability of a rifle is with a pistol grip over a non-pistol grip. Just one particular rifle is all I'm asking, no need to go through the entire list, although multiple examples would be nice should you find them together.

    Now so far I've not really been in on the pistol grip/features argument portion, so at this point I'm not arguing if you are right or wrong. I'm simply asking you to prove your point.

    Quote Originally Posted by CLAX1911 View Post
    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
    Now who's playing the word games? The situation can and does change depending upon the people involved. Therefore yes, situation includes people. No, situation does not mean people only. However, I will agree that Kal'Stang's initial post does not address the OP. You are asking, at least by the wording, about a given weapon being more dangerous over another, on an assumption that all other factors are the same, correct? IOW, assuming an equal amount of training (or lack thereof) at the same location with the same number of people to shoot, on the same day with the same weather, etc...is an assault rifle more dangerous than a pistol, or vice versa. Is that correct?

    This is the only link that actually says anything about stability from the pistol grip. It's going in the caution list, mostly because I am unaware of this particular author's bias, and no I'm not reading the article right now due to other constraints.

    "...pistol grips serve to provide superior function as well as transforming the look and feel of your firearm." Wow if that's not vague and hazy....

    Forum, nothing to show that the posters' opinions have any factual basis...dismissed.

    a Wiki article with...wait let me go back and count again....0 references.....dismissed. Seriously on this last one, I would think that you at least would know better. I'm alright with a wiki article being put up, not for the credibility of the article itself, but for the various references it might have. But none?

    Quote Originally Posted by CLAX1911 View Post
    situation still doesn't matter, if person A and B are not killers, then the situation isn't dangerous.
    The situation can still be and is dangerous in the given situations and any situation with a real gun. Even if these people aren't killers and never intend to fire the gun, there still is the possibility of the weapon discharging anyway due to an accident. The only way for the situation to not be dangerous is to use a gun that is physically not capable of loading bullets into it. The degree of danger can be variable, but it is still dangerous.

    And that is time....Sorry for delays on some of these and I'll probably not get back till tomorrow night.

  6. #326
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 03:32 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,568
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    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?

    Actually it is not a unrealistic comparison. MANY PEOPLE believe that violence is some music leads to violence - from Charles Mason to the Rolling Stones to rap and rage music about cop killing songs. And they could say "EVERY ONE OF THOSE SONGS USES A 6 STRING GUITAR!" Therefore, we should outlaw guitars and similar instruments with more than 5 strings.

    There are two flaws in your arguing "those elements make a firearm more dangerous."

    1. Inherently, firearms are meant to be dangerous.
    2. Contrary to what you seem to believe, passing laws to try to make firearms inaccurate is nonsensical and dangerous.

    Obviously you do want hunting and target shooting outlawed by deliberately trying to make firearms incapable of doing either. Maybe you would want manufacturers to be required to put on loose and non-adjustable inaccurate gun sights too - and with triggers that sometimes just go off on their own.

    Back to the guitar analogy, it would be to add to regulations that it is illegal to allow guitars to be tunable.

  7. #327
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 03:32 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,568
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    at one time in my life, I shot a fair amount of shotgun tournaments. Registered over 4000 targets (that's 40 events@100 targets an event) in one year. and I used to do a bit of exhibition shooting after spending some time with a guy named Matt Dryke (Olympic Gold Medalist-Skeet, 1984 and multiple US and world titles). We all used standard semi auto or pump shotguns without the scary looking pistol grips for shooting from the hip (yes I was able to shoot 25x25 in skeet that way and close to 25x25 in 16 yard trap), behind our backs, over our heads etc. As I noted, the only real advantage a real pistol grip gives is

    1) shooting the weapon with the buttstock tucked under the armpit of the hand that holds the pistol grip

    2) full automatic fire from a seated position or prone position with the weapon on sandbag or a bipod.

    neither one of these "advantages" have ANY relevance to semi autos being "more dangerous" than rifles firing the same cartridge without a protruding pistol grip.

    I would note that the introduction of high impact plastic moulding was a major reason why military rifles and those built using military rifle parts (like colt's AR 15) feature pistol grips. straight line stocks are much easier to mould and are less likely to break and such stocks require an additional pistol grip to access the trigger mechanism

    If you look at battle rifles (MI Garand, Mauser 98) and early semi carbines like the MI Carbine-the stocks are full length meaning the buttstock, grip and handguard are all essentially the same piece of wood. Modular construction based on plastic moulding is the current technique


    And people should recognize that anti-gun people are all but pathological liars. They pushed and urged people to get home defense shotguns. And lots -millions - of people did. They bought inexpensive pump 12 gauge shotguns with a pistol grip and folding stocks.

    Now the anti-gun people are laughing with "HA! HA! FOOLED YOU! We are outlawing those!"

    And, then, there is Joe Biden urging people to wildly fire off at the unknown and to commit a felony in Florida of a mandatory 20 years in prison with a shotgun.

  8. #328
    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 Jerry View Post
    You and I have already been through this. You shouldn't be asking me this question because you should have a normal healthy memory and already know.

    There's a difference between a 'cosmetic', and 'accessory', and a 'part'. I've gon into detail explaining each, and the bottom line is it doesn't matter which thing is what because citizens have the right to everything.

    That's what people are trying to tell you, that whatever firearm, accessories and cosmetics exist, civilians have the right to personally own, without exception or limitation, and kind of firearm at all.

    If you want a howitzer, you let me know when you're hitting the artillery rang, I'll bring the BBQ. You want a Saturday Night Special, go for it. You want a tricked out silenced full-auto MP5, no problem. You want a small-caliber hand gun with 19rnds with a modified trigger to fire 2rnds per trigger-pull, groovy.
    Last night, I was told that I'm old, so I appreciate your humoring me

    I can understand why you think "it doesn't matter" how dangerous something is, but it would seem that many disagree, including many who are opposed to further restictions. After all, they're the ones who are arguing that these features should not be banned because they are not dangerous. The obvious implication is that if they are dangerous, then they should/can be banned. After all, if it didn't matter they would argue as you just did and say "It doesn't matter"
    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. #329
    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 TurtleDude View Post
    at one time in my life, I shot a fair amount of shotgun tournaments. Registered over 4000 targets (that's 40 events@100 targets an event) in one year. and I used to do a bit of exhibition shooting after spending some time with a guy named Matt Dryke (Olympic Gold Medalist-Skeet, 1984 and multiple US and world titles). We all used standard semi auto or pump shotguns without the scary looking pistol grips for shooting from the hip (yes I was able to shoot 25x25 in skeet that way and close to 25x25 in 16 yard trap), behind our backs, over our heads etc. As I noted, the only real advantage a real pistol grip gives is

    1) shooting the weapon with the buttstock tucked under the armpit of the hand that holds the pistol grip

    2) full automatic fire from a seated position or prone position with the weapon on sandbag or a bipod.

    neither one of these "advantages" have ANY relevance to semi autos being "more dangerous" than rifles firing the same cartridge without a protruding pistol grip.

    I would note that the introduction of high impact plastic moulding was a major reason why military rifles and those built using military rifle parts (like colt's AR 15) feature pistol grips. straight line stocks are much easier to mould and are less likely to break and such stocks require an additional pistol grip to access the trigger mechanism

    If you look at battle rifles (MI Garand, Mauser 98) and early semi carbines like the MI Carbine-the stocks are full length meaning the buttstock, grip and handguard are all essentially the same piece of wood. Modular construction based on plastic moulding is the current technique
    Thanks for the info

    Just to summarize, and correct me if I'm wrong, your saying that, aside from the design and manufacturing issues, a rifle with a pistol grip is easier to fire from a variety of positions other than the standard standing position (see below)

    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. #330
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,622

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

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    Thanks for the info

    Just to summarize, and correct me if I'm wrong, your saying that, aside from the design and manufacturing issues, a rifle with a pistol grip is easier to fire from a variety of positions other than the standard standing position (see below)

    NOt really. For example, shooting a weapon from the HIP is often painful with a full pistol grip since you have to contort your wrist and the recoil goes right into the wrist

    that is why exhibition shotgun shooters use a more sporting style gun without a pistol grip

    rather for the one handed under the armpit position, or prone or sitting with the weapon on a rest or bipod in full auto, the pistol grip is a bit easier



Page 33 of 45 FirstFirst ... 23313233343543 ... 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
  •